4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- anamax 15y ago
  Huh? Both those articles are about income inequality and tells us nothing about how progressive the tax system is. You're also wrong about income inequality - Germany's is higher than the US, as is Portugal, Italy, Israel and Turkey, Mexico, and Chile. See http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101648/can-domestic-policy-affect-income-distribution http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101648/can-domestic-pol... However, the whole inequality argument is fairly silly. If I'm well-off, why do I care how much someone else has? Envy is the only sin that has no payoff for the sinner.
  - vannevar 15y ago
    Both those articles are about income inequality and tells us nothing about how progressive the tax system is. Both articles cite the 47% figure, as I stated above. Your source uses a figure of 33%, which is why it (and you) conclude that the US tax system is more progressive. And did you read the article you just cited? I don't think it means what you think it means. FTA: "Among the industrial democracies where income inequality is increasing, it's much worse in the United States than it is almost anywhere else. Among 34 nations recently surveyed by the OECD, the United States got beat only by Turkey, Mexico, and Chile." and "If you omit government redistribution from the calculations in the previous paragraph then four countries that previously were more equal in incomes than the U.S.—Portugal, Italy, Israel, and Germany—become less equal than the U.S." The article pretty clearly contradicts your own argument. If I'm well-off, why do I care how much someone else has? Indeed, let them eat cake. A time-tested strategy.

by anamax 15y ago

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.

anamax 15y ago
Huh? Both those articles are about income inequality and tells us nothing about how progressive the tax system is. You're also wrong about income inequality - Germany's is higher than the US, as is Portugal, Italy, Israel and Turkey, Mexico, and Chile. See http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101648/can-domestic-policy-affect-income-distribution http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101648/can-domestic-pol... However, the whole inequality argument is fairly silly. If I'm well-off, why do I care how much someone else has? Envy is the only sin that has no payoff for the sinner.
- vannevar 15y ago
  Both those articles are about income inequality and tells us nothing about how progressive the tax system is. Both articles cite the 47% figure, as I stated above. Your source uses a figure of 33%, which is why it (and you) conclude that the US tax system is more progressive. And did you read the article you just cited? I don't think it means what you think it means. FTA: "Among the industrial democracies where income inequality is increasing, it's much worse in the United States than it is almost anywhere else. Among 34 nations recently surveyed by the OECD, the United States got beat only by Turkey, Mexico, and Chile." and "If you omit government redistribution from the calculations in the previous paragraph then four countries that previously were more equal in incomes than the U.S.—Portugal, Italy, Israel, and Germany—become less equal than the U.S." The article pretty clearly contradicts your own argument. If I'm well-off, why do I care how much someone else has? Indeed, let them eat cake. A time-tested strategy.