5 ms·

You forgot to mention the taxes they pay to support CHIP, Medicaid and Medicare. Which are not far off what many Europeans pay for universal health care, before

by simonh 2y ago

You forgot to mention the taxes they pay to support CHIP, Medicaid and Medicare. Which are not far off what many Europeans pay for universal health care, before most Americans even start to look at private health insurance so they actually get health care for themselves.

tightbookkeeper 2y ago
> Which are not far off what many Europeans pay for universal health care, Effective tax rates of 40-70% do not exist in the Us. It’s still a ridiculous amount of the economy to tax and spend. But what I think is more annoying is that the US has health systems for special interest groups: - seniors - veterans - native Americans - women and children - government employees (especially teachers) - immigrants seeking asylum This must be getting close to half the population. Either get rid of them, or pay for everyone.
- 9dev 2y ago
  > Effective tax rates of 40-70% do not exist in the Us. It’s still a ridiculous amount of the economy to tax and spend. That isn’t true. In Germany, where we have fairly high taxes, I get to keep about 60% of my gross income, and I’m in the maximum taxation group. This 40% includes universal health care, pensions, tax, and mandatory insurance for job loss.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    Don't forget the effects of VAT and various consumption taxes. If you buy stuff with your net income, ~ a sixth of the money spent will be indirect taxes again.
- bdauvergne 2y ago
  Those tax rates have nothing to do with healthcare, to take France as an example most of it is for other things, like pay-as-you-go pension plan or free education. Budget of french "assurance maladie" is 25% of the PIB or 450 billion euros for 68 million people, most of it paid by salary taxes. All things being equal, for the USA the same system would cost 2322 billion dollars. https://www.securite-sociale.fr/la-secu-cest-quoi/chiffres-cles https://www.securite-sociale.fr/la-secu-cest-quoi/chiffres-c...
- eszed 2y ago
  The way that I've seen GP's point expressed that makes sense to me is that the per-person cost to provide health-care for those special interests you mention is roughly equivalent to the per-person tax burden in most other developed countries to care for everyone. That gives me a useful handle on how gob-smackingly wasteful the US system (writ large) actually is.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  Very high tax rates in Europe are generally less about healthcare than about pensions, really, in most cases. Most European countries are a bit further down the demographic crisis road than the US is (and they mostly have higher life expectancies, too), so the cost of pensions has really become quite a big deal. Most European countries also have either very cheap or free university tuition; if you don’t qualify for a grant it’s 2k here, say. (This is an increase, due to the GFC; when I was in university it was 50 euro a year…) That said, for _most_ countries, 40-70% effective tax is very high, and not encountered by the average person. To pay 40% effective in Ireland, say, you’d have to be earning at least 150k, and that’s assuming you’re single, have no kids, don’t pay rent or mortgage, and have no private pension (401k equivalent) contributions. Realistically, almost no-one hits those sorts of rates; for realistic setups you’re looking at closer to 200k for a single childless person. It is impossible, here, outside of ultra-contrived circumstances, to pay over a 52% effective tax rate.
  - luckylion 2y ago
    > It is impossible, here, outside of ultra-contrived circumstances, to pay over a 52% effective tax rate. It depends on what you include though. You could look at someone earning 100k, having it taxed, paying all the things that are not taxes but obligatory just the same (social security, depending on the country), and then spending the rest on rent, travel, food & entertainment (and paying sales tax and various other specific taxes). How much of their total income has gone to the state? If you want to extend that comparison, look at someone running a company. The value they create with their company will be taxed as well, then they receive dividends from their company which also will be taxed at different rates. Of course, you'd need to either compare to individual US states, or make some choices about how to average their very different tax levels.
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      At least here, social security (PRSI) is a tax. Rent isn’t subject to VAT, nor is a lot of food. Someone running a company wouldn’t normally pay themselves with dividends, becuase it’s not tax efficient; they’d take a salary from it instead (that’s a cost, and thus is not subject to corporation tax). Someone earning 100k (assuming single, no kids, no private pension) pays about 33% effective tax (including social security) and some VAT on spending. 50-70%, again, is just kinda nonsense.

by simonh 2y ago

tightbookkeeper 2y ago

> Which are not far off what many Europeans pay for universal health care, Effective tax rates of 40-70% do not exist in the Us. It’s still a ridiculous amount of the economy to tax and spend. But what I think is more annoying is that the US has health systems for special interest groups: - seniors - veterans - native Americans - women and children - government employees (especially teachers) - immigrants seeking asylum This must be getting close to half the population. Either get rid of them, or pay for everyone.

9dev 2y ago
> Effective tax rates of 40-70% do not exist in the Us. It’s still a ridiculous amount of the economy to tax and spend. That isn’t true. In Germany, where we have fairly high taxes, I get to keep about 60% of my gross income, and I’m in the maximum taxation group. This 40% includes universal health care, pensions, tax, and mandatory insurance for job loss.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  Don't forget the effects of VAT and various consumption taxes. If you buy stuff with your net income, ~ a sixth of the money spent will be indirect taxes again.
bdauvergne 2y ago
Those tax rates have nothing to do with healthcare, to take France as an example most of it is for other things, like pay-as-you-go pension plan or free education. Budget of french "assurance maladie" is 25% of the PIB or 450 billion euros for 68 million people, most of it paid by salary taxes. All things being equal, for the USA the same system would cost 2322 billion dollars. https://www.securite-sociale.fr/la-secu-cest-quoi/chiffres-cles https://www.securite-sociale.fr/la-secu-cest-quoi/chiffres-c...
eszed 2y ago
The way that I've seen GP's point expressed that makes sense to me is that the per-person cost to provide health-care for those special interests you mention is roughly equivalent to the per-person tax burden in most other developed countries to care for everyone. That gives me a useful handle on how gob-smackingly wasteful the US system (writ large) actually is.
rsynnott 2y ago
Very high tax rates in Europe are generally less about healthcare than about pensions, really, in most cases. Most European countries are a bit further down the demographic crisis road than the US is (and they mostly have higher life expectancies, too), so the cost of pensions has really become quite a big deal. Most European countries also have either very cheap or free university tuition; if you don’t qualify for a grant it’s 2k here, say. (This is an increase, due to the GFC; when I was in university it was 50 euro a year…) That said, for _most_ countries, 40-70% effective tax is very high, and not encountered by the average person. To pay 40% effective in Ireland, say, you’d have to be earning at least 150k, and that’s assuming you’re single, have no kids, don’t pay rent or mortgage, and have no private pension (401k equivalent) contributions. Realistically, almost no-one hits those sorts of rates; for realistic setups you’re looking at closer to 200k for a single childless person. It is impossible, here, outside of ultra-contrived circumstances, to pay over a 52% effective tax rate.
- luckylion 2y ago
  > It is impossible, here, outside of ultra-contrived circumstances, to pay over a 52% effective tax rate. It depends on what you include though. You could look at someone earning 100k, having it taxed, paying all the things that are not taxes but obligatory just the same (social security, depending on the country), and then spending the rest on rent, travel, food & entertainment (and paying sales tax and various other specific taxes). How much of their total income has gone to the state? If you want to extend that comparison, look at someone running a company. The value they create with their company will be taxed as well, then they receive dividends from their company which also will be taxed at different rates. Of course, you'd need to either compare to individual US states, or make some choices about how to average their very different tax levels.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    At least here, social security (PRSI) is a tax. Rent isn’t subject to VAT, nor is a lot of food. Someone running a company wouldn’t normally pay themselves with dividends, becuase it’s not tax efficient; they’d take a salary from it instead (that’s a cost, and thus is not subject to corporation tax). Someone earning 100k (assuming single, no kids, no private pension) pays about 33% effective tax (including social security) and some VAT on spending. 50-70%, again, is just kinda nonsense.