6 ms·

Earning 60k a year still leaves you with net 41k. To get close to loosing 50% of your income to taxes you have to earn over 1mil (disregarding VAT). Furthermore

by reocha 4y ago

Earning 60k a year still leaves you with net 41k. To get close to loosing 50% of your income to taxes you have to earn over 1mil (disregarding VAT). Furthermore one must take into account the average salary in Spain is lower than most other European countries.

oceanplexian 4y ago
It's not 50%, it's actually far higher. Governments hide taxes from workers by taxing the employer. Individuals might think their taxes are low, but that money comes from somewhere, and it manifests in lower wages, less competition, and offshoring. The true tax is called the "Tax Wedge". That's one of the reasons someone in Spain who makes 60k a year would be making 100k in the USA.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  Companies don't pay taxes for their employees, that's some bs. They pay part of their social security cost, which absolutely happens in the US as well.
  - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
    To whom do they pay that "social security"?
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      Let me rephrase: there are no taxes paid for mere employment; instead, taxation for social security is shared between employer and employee. Saying that governments “hide taxes from workers by taxing the employer” is inaccurate at best. Taxation is shared, and there aren’t dedicated taxes for employers.
      - jokethrowaway 4y ago
        The net effect is that the average Joe reads his payslip and just see his share of social insurance contribution - and then complains that his employer his paying him too little, without knowing how much social insurance his employer is paying. Hiding seems appropriate.
      - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
        If it costs an employer 100k to employ a person then that person should receive 100k.
        manuelabeledo 4y ago
        You meant to say that employees should be paying 13% in social security, instead of the current 6.5% + 6.5% model.
        Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
        No I mean employees should be able to spend their salary on whatever they like. Whether that is a pension/investment/savings or a flashy car is up to them.
        manuelabeledo 4y ago
        So either the employer pays taxes, or no one does. First one is fine with me. Second, no so much. Libertarian utopias are just that, and every single example of such has been a disaster.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    in the US, W2 wage income tax withholding is more or less invisible to the employee to the extent that most people view their tax refund as a bonus rather than the tip of the iceberg of taxes they've been paying. When you work consulting with a 1099 you suddenly realize how much money you need to fork over to feed the beast. (I suspect changing this aspect of the law would really swell the size of anti-tax political parties.) I point this out to say it's not so simple as to say "who pays" what tax. US retirement social security and unemployment insurance and employer health plans may map onto european social security costs paid by employers, but if the cost to employers is variable wrt number of employees it would be fair to call it "paying taxes for employees" (and especially when you consider that in some continental language families "for" and "per" are the same word ;) because it has a very similar price elasticity effect on the labor market
- vkou 4y ago
  In the US, employers are also taxed, to the tune of an additional 7.65% in SS and Medicare taxes, with another 7.65% in employee SS and Medicare taxes (Something that never seems to get mentioned in discussions of US tax rates...), and another two or three percent in unemployment insurance taxes. On top of all that, between the employer and the employee, another $10,000-$25,000/year gets spent on medical insurance. Between all of that, that $100,000 in the US gets eaten up pretty quickly. If you live in, say, Wisconsin, your take-home will be between ~$57,000 and ~$45,000, depending on the number of family members you have on your health insurance plan. You'll also get to enjoy another 5% in sales tax, and 1.65%/year in property tax. So yeah, if you just look at the income tax rate, the US looks great. But when you account for all the other nickel-and-diming, you'll see that the net take-home for middle-class people is not so different. If you're upper-middle-class, making over $200,000, the US system starts getting skewed in your favor (Because of caps on SS, Medicare, because insurance costs are a flat fee, etc.)
- reocha 4y ago
  In return, the spanish get functioning infastructure, good trains, a decent public healthcare system, partial paid sick leave, 16 weeks maternaty leave full pay and half decent unemployment benefits.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Would you support 100% of wages go to taxes allowing the system to provide everything to citizens? That would allow the citizens to pick whatever job suits them because wages would be decoupled from there lives.
    - reocha 4y ago
      I believe basic requirements to live should be provided to citizens, (housing, food, water, travel, education etc) this can be done through taxation on wages or in a much easier (and just) fashion via a corporation tax. If this is done through the state or through some alternative anarchistic method I don't particularly care. We live in an age of ridiculous abundance, the fact people still die on the streets, die of starvation or die to to lack of healthcare is a crime against humanity. “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” - Stephen Jay Gould
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > manifests in lower wages, less competition, and offshoring Switzerland has some of the highest taxes and highest wages in the world. Afghanistan has some of the lowest taxes in the world. Clearly you must consider what you get for your money. Countries without functional police force, court system and IP protection don't tend to be popular with business
miki_tyler 4y ago
60*0.55 = 33k

by reocha 4y ago

oceanplexian 4y ago

It's not 50%, it's actually far higher. Governments hide taxes from workers by taxing the employer. Individuals might think their taxes are low, but that money comes from somewhere, and it manifests in lower wages, less competition, and offshoring. The true tax is called the "Tax Wedge". That's one of the reasons someone in Spain who makes 60k a year would be making 100k in the USA.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
Companies don't pay taxes for their employees, that's some bs. They pay part of their social security cost, which absolutely happens in the US as well.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
  To whom do they pay that "social security"?
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    Let me rephrase: there are no taxes paid for mere employment; instead, taxation for social security is shared between employer and employee. Saying that governments “hide taxes from workers by taxing the employer” is inaccurate at best. Taxation is shared, and there aren’t dedicated taxes for employers.
    - jokethrowaway 4y ago
      The net effect is that the average Joe reads his payslip and just see his share of social insurance contribution - and then complains that his employer his paying him too little, without knowing how much social insurance his employer is paying. Hiding seems appropriate.
    - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
      If it costs an employer 100k to employ a person then that person should receive 100k.
      - manuelabeledo 4y ago
        You meant to say that employees should be paying 13% in social security, instead of the current 6.5% + 6.5% model.
        Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
        No I mean employees should be able to spend their salary on whatever they like. Whether that is a pension/investment/savings or a flashy car is up to them.
        manuelabeledo 4y ago
        So either the employer pays taxes, or no one does. First one is fine with me. Second, no so much. Libertarian utopias are just that, and every single example of such has been a disaster.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  in the US, W2 wage income tax withholding is more or less invisible to the employee to the extent that most people view their tax refund as a bonus rather than the tip of the iceberg of taxes they've been paying. When you work consulting with a 1099 you suddenly realize how much money you need to fork over to feed the beast. (I suspect changing this aspect of the law would really swell the size of anti-tax political parties.) I point this out to say it's not so simple as to say "who pays" what tax. US retirement social security and unemployment insurance and employer health plans may map onto european social security costs paid by employers, but if the cost to employers is variable wrt number of employees it would be fair to call it "paying taxes for employees" (and especially when you consider that in some continental language families "for" and "per" are the same word ;) because it has a very similar price elasticity effect on the labor market
vkou 4y ago
In the US, employers are also taxed, to the tune of an additional 7.65% in SS and Medicare taxes, with another 7.65% in employee SS and Medicare taxes (Something that never seems to get mentioned in discussions of US tax rates...), and another two or three percent in unemployment insurance taxes. On top of all that, between the employer and the employee, another $10,000-$25,000/year gets spent on medical insurance. Between all of that, that $100,000 in the US gets eaten up pretty quickly. If you live in, say, Wisconsin, your take-home will be between ~$57,000 and ~$45,000, depending on the number of family members you have on your health insurance plan. You'll also get to enjoy another 5% in sales tax, and 1.65%/year in property tax. So yeah, if you just look at the income tax rate, the US looks great. But when you account for all the other nickel-and-diming, you'll see that the net take-home for middle-class people is not so different. If you're upper-middle-class, making over $200,000, the US system starts getting skewed in your favor (Because of caps on SS, Medicare, because insurance costs are a flat fee, etc.)
reocha 4y ago
In return, the spanish get functioning infastructure, good trains, a decent public healthcare system, partial paid sick leave, 16 weeks maternaty leave full pay and half decent unemployment benefits.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Would you support 100% of wages go to taxes allowing the system to provide everything to citizens? That would allow the citizens to pick whatever job suits them because wages would be decoupled from there lives.
  - reocha 4y ago
    I believe basic requirements to live should be provided to citizens, (housing, food, water, travel, education etc) this can be done through taxation on wages or in a much easier (and just) fashion via a corporation tax. If this is done through the state or through some alternative anarchistic method I don't particularly care. We live in an age of ridiculous abundance, the fact people still die on the streets, die of starvation or die to to lack of healthcare is a crime against humanity. “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” - Stephen Jay Gould
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> manifests in lower wages, less competition, and offshoring Switzerland has some of the highest taxes and highest wages in the world. Afghanistan has some of the lowest taxes in the world. Clearly you must consider what you get for your money. Countries without functional police force, court system and IP protection don't tend to be popular with business

miki_tyler 4y ago

60*0.55 = 33k