3 ms·

> That actually works against the argument of US parity, since our tax system is less progressive than most industrialized nations. Actually, the US system is

by anamax 15y ago

> That actually works against the argument of US parity, since our tax system is less progressive than most industrialized nations. Actually, the US system is more progressive. It gets a much higher fraction of its revenue from higher income folk than do other countries. In terms of revenue per person, the US is right in the middle, between Germany and Canada (Canada is lower).

vannevar 15y ago
Actually, the US system is more progressive. It gets a much higher fraction of its revenue from higher income folk than do other countries. Is there a reference for this? Germany and France have higher top rates, the UK slightly lower. But all three have higher capital gains taxes, which as noted above comprise most of the income for the wealthiest individuals. It seems odd that conservatives would fight so hard against things like universal health care and higher capital gains taxes if in fact they actually lead to less wealth redistribution on the whole. If that were true, the Republican campaign slogan would be 'make America more like Europe'.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Is there a reference for this? There are scads of sources - did you even bother to look? One is http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html . > Germany and France have higher top rates, the UK slightly lower. So? Never confuse top marginal rates with revenue. For example, other rates matter, as does the definition of income. (About 47% American households don't pay federal income tax and a huge fraction actually receive tax "benefits".) > It seems odd that conservatives would fight so hard against things like universal health care and higher capital gains taxes if in fact they actually lead to less wealth redistribution on the whole. Huh? Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. However, it's interesting (to me) that you didn't try to make the complementary argument for Democrats.
  - vannevar 15y ago
    No need for snark, it's an interesting point. So the US with lower tax rates and fewer government benefits actually imposes more on the wealthy than other so-called 'socialist' countries. If that's the case, it suggests to me that the wealthy should be trying to copy the European model, not fighting it, since according to your argument they would be paying less under such a system, not more as they typically argue. It's interesting to me that you don't see the plain implication of your own argument.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > If that's the case, it suggests to me that the wealthy should be trying to copy the European model, not fighting it, since according to your argument they would be paying less under such a system No, it doesn't imply that. And, the relevant question is not "how little taxes do I pay" but "how much money do I keep", which has two components.
      - vannevar 15y ago
        No, it doesn't imply that. Sure it does. Your first comment flatly stated that the wealthy in the US pay more of the overall tax burden than in other countries. Then to support your argument you cited a source that says it's actually the most progressive of the OECD countries. I happen to think the source is wrong, but if it's not and you're right, the unmistakable conclusion is that European policies result in less progressive taxation. So if the conservative objective is a 'fair' tax rate in which everyone pays in direct proportion to what they earn, then Europe is (according to your argument) closer to this ideal than the US is. It follows then that their policies, according to you, are more favorable to the wealthy than the US and that we would be better off pursuing those policies. How can you on one hand argue that Europe is fairer and on the other hand argue that we shouldn't follow their example?
  - vannevar 15y ago
    A followup: the disconnect is in your source's estimate of the share of income of the top 10%. He puts it at about 33%, while most of the sources I found put it at over 45% (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/03/income-inequality http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/03/income-i..., http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where...). According to the source you cite, that would put the US well below the other OECD nations in terms of progressiveness, a result which is much more consistent with conservative arguments against European policies.

by anamax 15y ago

vannevar 15y ago

Actually, the US system is more progressive. It gets a much higher fraction of its revenue from higher income folk than do other countries. Is there a reference for this? Germany and France have higher top rates, the UK slightly lower. But all three have higher capital gains taxes, which as noted above comprise most of the income for the wealthiest individuals. It seems odd that conservatives would fight so hard against things like universal health care and higher capital gains taxes if in fact they actually lead to less wealth redistribution on the whole. If that were true, the Republican campaign slogan would be 'make America more like Europe'.

anamax 15y ago
> Is there a reference for this? There are scads of sources - did you even bother to look? One is http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html . > Germany and France have higher top rates, the UK slightly lower. So? Never confuse top marginal rates with revenue. For example, other rates matter, as does the definition of income. (About 47% American households don't pay federal income tax and a huge fraction actually receive tax "benefits".) > It seems odd that conservatives would fight so hard against things like universal health care and higher capital gains taxes if in fact they actually lead to less wealth redistribution on the whole. Huh? Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. However, it's interesting (to me) that you didn't try to make the complementary argument for Democrats.
- vannevar 15y ago
  No need for snark, it's an interesting point. So the US with lower tax rates and fewer government benefits actually imposes more on the wealthy than other so-called 'socialist' countries. If that's the case, it suggests to me that the wealthy should be trying to copy the European model, not fighting it, since according to your argument they would be paying less under such a system, not more as they typically argue. It's interesting to me that you don't see the plain implication of your own argument.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > If that's the case, it suggests to me that the wealthy should be trying to copy the European model, not fighting it, since according to your argument they would be paying less under such a system No, it doesn't imply that. And, the relevant question is not "how little taxes do I pay" but "how much money do I keep", which has two components.
    - vannevar 15y ago
      No, it doesn't imply that. Sure it does. Your first comment flatly stated that the wealthy in the US pay more of the overall tax burden than in other countries. Then to support your argument you cited a source that says it's actually the most progressive of the OECD countries. I happen to think the source is wrong, but if it's not and you're right, the unmistakable conclusion is that European policies result in less progressive taxation. So if the conservative objective is a 'fair' tax rate in which everyone pays in direct proportion to what they earn, then Europe is (according to your argument) closer to this ideal than the US is. It follows then that their policies, according to you, are more favorable to the wealthy than the US and that we would be better off pursuing those policies. How can you on one hand argue that Europe is fairer and on the other hand argue that we shouldn't follow their example?
- vannevar 15y ago
  A followup: the disconnect is in your source's estimate of the share of income of the top 10%. He puts it at about 33%, while most of the sources I found put it at over 45% (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/03/income-inequality http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/03/income-i..., http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where...). According to the source you cite, that would put the US well below the other OECD nations in terms of progressiveness, a result which is much more consistent with conservative arguments against European policies.