3 ms·

But then you also have to consider what services are included in the tax that the lower tax rate might have to pay out of pocket.

by msh 4y ago

netjiro 4y ago
> you also have to consider what services are included in the tax Yes! And a lot more as well. Many are under the impression that income tax is the majority of their major tax burden. Total taxation from billing to salary net + vat of normal spending. This must include all forms of employment, social fees, and other government imposed costs for the employer. This is higher than income tax for many regions and income brackets. On top of this should be added other taxes for a given lifestyle. E.g. fuel and vehicle taxes, property taxes, etc. Then the services provided: health care, schooling, child care, child support, pensions, etc. Things look a lot different when making a complete cost comparison between countries, and varies a lot depending on what is included as a "normal" lifestyle. E.g: couple with 2.2 children at median income looking at retirement at 70 vs a single high income earner looking to retire at 50... and ... so ... on ... On top of that we can also include other living costs ... but we started somewhere at average house price vs annual family income?
refurb 4y ago
Such as? At that income level you have great health insurance, can still qualify for state schools, maybe childcare? I agree at lower taxes the difference is more stark.
- solenoidalslide 4y ago
  The United States is the fourth largest country in the world and has no kind of high speed rail of any kind
  - refurb 4y ago
    True, but we have this thing called "high speed planes". Gets you there even faster than rail. If you want to take a train and you've got time to kill, take Amtrak.
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    high speed rail is overrated. Tickets cost as much or more than an airline ticket, but even going at 300km/h, it takes 2 or 3 times the amount of time to travel. Even more if you have to make frequent stops to embark and disembark passengers.
- msh 4y ago
  A few things off the top of my head: - Free university education, with a stipend payed to study (so no student loans, no need to save for the kids college fund). - Social security net so you have to save less for that kind of thing. - unemployment benefits, so less need to save for that - No co pay on medical expenses. - cheap and good childcare - good public schools, cheapish private schools
  - refurb 4y ago
    US has state schools that have subsidized education and grants for low income. And we're talking internationally ranked schools like Berkeley, UCLA, U of Michigan, U of Virginia. And cheap loans to pay for it (plus high salaries to pay it back). US Social Security is actually very generous with the max pension pay out ($3,300USD per month per person). Lots of American retire with nothing more than their SS pension. SSI is disability insurance if you can't work. You can also qualify for free Medicaid or Medicare if you're poor or can't work due to illness. Once you hit 65 you get very generous healthcare coverage. Unemployment benefits are very generous. During the 2008 crash they were extended for 2 years at 80% of your normal up to a cap (like $4,000 per month in CA I believe). Even during normal times you can get 26 weeks. Welfare after that. Medical maybe but in Europe, private insurance isn't uncommon along with premium payments and co-pays. So I wouldn't act like Europe is entirely "free" unless it's like the UK and you stick entirely with the public system. In the US your employer pays much of it, you can get HSA (tax free) money to help with out of pocket. It's a massive paperwork hassle and annoy bureaucracy I'll agree. Childcare if it's subsidized sure. The US has plenty of great public schools. Don't let the movies fool you. I lived in a small town in Michigan and the public schools were outstanding and entirely free. I always chuckle when people say "the US has no safety net" when 50% of our taxes go to "safety net" programs.

But then you also have to consider what services are included in the tax that the lower tax rate might have to pay out of pocket.

by msh 4y ago

But then you also have to consider what services are included in the tax that the lower tax rate might have to pay out of pocket.

netjiro 4y ago

> you also have to consider what services are included in the tax Yes! And a lot more as well. Many are under the impression that income tax is the majority of their major tax burden. Total taxation from billing to salary net + vat of normal spending. This must include all forms of employment, social fees, and other government imposed costs for the employer. This is higher than income tax for many regions and income brackets. On top of this should be added other taxes for a given lifestyle. E.g. fuel and vehicle taxes, property taxes, etc. Then the services provided: health care, schooling, child care, child support, pensions, etc. Things look a lot different when making a complete cost comparison between countries, and varies a lot depending on what is included as a "normal" lifestyle. E.g: couple with 2.2 children at median income looking at retirement at 70 vs a single high income earner looking to retire at 50... and ... so ... on ... On top of that we can also include other living costs ... but we started somewhere at average house price vs annual family income?

refurb 4y ago

Such as? At that income level you have great health insurance, can still qualify for state schools, maybe childcare? I agree at lower taxes the difference is more stark.

solenoidalslide 4y ago
The United States is the fourth largest country in the world and has no kind of high speed rail of any kind
- refurb 4y ago
  True, but we have this thing called "high speed planes". Gets you there even faster than rail. If you want to take a train and you've got time to kill, take Amtrak.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  high speed rail is overrated. Tickets cost as much or more than an airline ticket, but even going at 300km/h, it takes 2 or 3 times the amount of time to travel. Even more if you have to make frequent stops to embark and disembark passengers.
msh 4y ago
A few things off the top of my head: - Free university education, with a stipend payed to study (so no student loans, no need to save for the kids college fund). - Social security net so you have to save less for that kind of thing. - unemployment benefits, so less need to save for that - No co pay on medical expenses. - cheap and good childcare - good public schools, cheapish private schools
- refurb 4y ago
  US has state schools that have subsidized education and grants for low income. And we're talking internationally ranked schools like Berkeley, UCLA, U of Michigan, U of Virginia. And cheap loans to pay for it (plus high salaries to pay it back). US Social Security is actually very generous with the max pension pay out ($3,300USD per month per person). Lots of American retire with nothing more than their SS pension. SSI is disability insurance if you can't work. You can also qualify for free Medicaid or Medicare if you're poor or can't work due to illness. Once you hit 65 you get very generous healthcare coverage. Unemployment benefits are very generous. During the 2008 crash they were extended for 2 years at 80% of your normal up to a cap (like $4,000 per month in CA I believe). Even during normal times you can get 26 weeks. Welfare after that. Medical maybe but in Europe, private insurance isn't uncommon along with premium payments and co-pays. So I wouldn't act like Europe is entirely "free" unless it's like the UK and you stick entirely with the public system. In the US your employer pays much of it, you can get HSA (tax free) money to help with out of pocket. It's a massive paperwork hassle and annoy bureaucracy I'll agree. Childcare if it's subsidized sure. The US has plenty of great public schools. Don't let the movies fool you. I lived in a small town in Michigan and the public schools were outstanding and entirely free. I always chuckle when people say "the US has no safety net" when 50% of our taxes go to "safety net" programs.