|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to.
edit: It's such a wonder, with the "leftist socialist" Obama, we have the same tax brackets that George W. gave us...
|
On April 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:28 farvacola wrote:
That ticket sucks so thank goodness it could never happen. why does it suck?
because scientists aren't politicians.
|
On April 20 2015 04:37 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:28 farvacola wrote:
That ticket sucks so thank goodness it could never happen. why does it suck? because scientists aren't politicians.
What's good about a politician?
|
On April 20 2015 04:32 Leporello wrote:
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to.
edit: It's such a wonder, with the "leftist socialist" Obama, we have the same tax brackets that George W. gave us...
well for capital gains tax, it's because you don't get social security from it, so that's why the tax rate is a lot lower for it.
I'm not convinced that the tax issue is "rich people aren't paying enough", and more so it's lack of taxes on corporations, and companies.
On April 20 2015 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:37 wei2coolman wrote:On April 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:28 farvacola wrote:
That ticket sucks so thank goodness it could never happen. why does it suck? because scientists aren't politicians. What's good about a politician?
are you srs? pretty sure lawmaking is a pretty good skill to have.
|
On April 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:28 farvacola wrote:
That ticket sucks so thank goodness it could never happen. why does it suck?
Scientists are not automatically qualified to become politicians merely because they speak out on topics they want to. Bill Nye would make a pretty good head of the EPA or something but Tyson regularly puts out pathetically watered down imitations of Carl Sagan that do more polarizing harm than good.
Writing good law is really fucking tough to do, and though it's popular and marginally legitimate to point towards the state of Congress as a reason to impune the value of policy makers in general, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
|
On April 20 2015 04:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:28 farvacola wrote:
That ticket sucks so thank goodness it could never happen. why does it suck? Scientists are not automatically qualified to become politicians merely because they speak out on topics they want to. Bill Nye would make a pretty good head of the EPA or something but Tyson regularly puts out pathetically watered down imitations of Carl Sagan that do more polarizing harm than good.
i'm all for technocracy, i'm sure they'd do good in leadership roles that are in their specialty, like being in a committee that determines whether or not pluto is a planet, but skills to lead a nation they do not. Though I'm pretty sure they'd do better than most republicans that are currently in power.
|
On April 20 2015 04:32 Leporello wrote:
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to.
The issue is rich people can pack up and leave whenever they want now. Many already find ways to circumvent the laws. Too high a tax will just result in them moving.
|
On April 20 2015 04:32 Leporello wrote:
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to.
edit: It's such a wonder, with the "leftist socialist" Obama, we have the same tax brackets that George W. gave us...
Most progressive tax scheme in the OECD is not progressive enough?
|
On April 20 2015 04:47 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:32 Leporello wrote:
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to.
edit: It's such a wonder, with the "leftist socialist" Obama, we have the same tax brackets that George W. gave us... Most progressive tax scheme in the OECD is not progressive enough?
Except, it's nowhere near the most progressive tax scheme in the OECD? Just picking one country at random, you'll likely find bigger increases between income tax brackets than you will in the U.S.'s... So... Where do you get the crazy idea that we have the most progressive income tax system in the OECD (basically, the world)?
On April 20 2015 04:42 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:32 Leporello wrote:
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to. The issue is rich people can pack up and leave whenever they want now. Many already find ways to circumvent the laws. Too high a tax will just result in them moving.
Certainly, closing tax loopholes is something we need to do. But the idea we'd be chasing people out of our country, away from their citizenship, because they pay 5% more income tax than they used to is crazy. Where are they going, exactly, these rich folk? France, Germany, England, Scandinavia? They'll pay higher taxes in all those countries. So, they're going to take their family and their Rolls Royce to live in the Cayman Islands? I don't quite buy the argument.
|
On April 20 2015 04:42 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:39 farvacola wrote:On April 20 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2015 04:28 farvacola wrote:
That ticket sucks so thank goodness it could never happen. why does it suck? Scientists are not automatically qualified to become politicians merely because they speak out on topics they want to. Bill Nye would make a pretty good head of the EPA or something but Tyson regularly puts out pathetically watered down imitations of Carl Sagan that do more polarizing harm than good. i'm all for technocracy, i'm sure they'd do good in leadership roles that are in their specialty, like being in a committee that determines whether or not pluto is a planet, but skills to lead a nation they do not. Though I'm pretty sure they'd do better than most republicans that are currently in power.
I think that's more my point. I wouldn't limit it to Republicans though. I get that they aren't politicians, I just think the vast majority of what they lack as a result, wouldn't be missed if it was not part of deal in the first place.
Science needs better lobbyists
|
Nye and Tyson are some of the most obnoxious science "popularizers" out there. Their strange devotees are annoying as well.
Nevermind that they wouldn't know jack all about running government.
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — This time, Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to be on liberals' good side.
As a presidential candidate in 2008, she opposed gay marriage, equivocated on granting driver's licenses to people who were living in the U.S. illegally and endured heavy criticism from rival Barack Obama over her stance on campaign finance.
During the opening week of her second presidential campaign, Clinton showed she had retooled her positions to line up with the views of progressive Democrats. On Monday, she called for a constitutional amendment that would limit "unaccountable money" in politics. Days later, she said through her campaign that she supports same-sex marriage being recognized as a constitutional right in a pending Supreme Court case. After that, her campaign said she now supports state policies awarding licenses to people in the country illegally.
Such do-overs are part of an effort by Clinton to rectify past missteps and assure the liberal wing of her party that in 2016, she will be change they've been waiting for.
While Clinton enters the race in a dominant position, she faces skepticism from some Democrats who question her commitment to tackling income inequality.
"Equal opportunity and upward mobility have been very central to her political ideals from the start," said Robert Reich, who was President Bill Clinton's labor secretary and has known Hillary Clinton since college. "I just don't know how courageous she will be in fighting for them."
Clinton devoted the first week of her campaign trying to put such concerns to rest. She visits New Hampshire on Monday and Tuesday, returning to the state that handed her a 2008 primary victory early in the bruising nomination struggle won by Obama.
Aides spent much of the first 72 hours reaching out to union leaders, party officials and other interest groups. But for some who have met with her campaign staff, they wonder not about whether Clinton will tack to the left, but how far her proposals will go.
"There's a big difference between a $9 or $10 minimum wage versus a $15 wage," said Adam Green, a liberal activist who has talked with the campaign over the past months. "The big question we anticipate is, will they go big or will they go small?"
So far, at least a few are encouraged. At her opening event in Iowa, Clinton took on CEOs and hedge fund managers, saying the "deck is still stacked in favor of those already at the top."
At the Statehouse, her support for universal pre-K earned some of the biggest applause from Democratic lawmakers, according to people in the room.
Source
|
On April 20 2015 04:54 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:47 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2015 04:32 Leporello wrote:
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to.
edit: It's such a wonder, with the "leftist socialist" Obama, we have the same tax brackets that George W. gave us... Most progressive tax scheme in the OECD is not progressive enough? Except, it's nowhere near the most progressive tax scheme in the OECD? Just picking one country at random, you'll likely find bigger increases between income tax brackets than you will in the U.S.'s... So... Where do you get the crazy idea that we have the most progressive income tax system in the OECD (basically, the world)?
Most countries in the OECD tax more overall, but also use a lot more regressive taxes, like high rate VATs.
![[image loading]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4QJRukHrJ5c/TYhks_W3tFI/AAAAAAAABOU/tpmi4_tRNIQ/s1600/taxburden.jpg)
Article on this here.
Overall our tax system is highly progressive, but we tax less overall and fund a smaller welfare state.
Longer explaination: + Show Spoiler +I am the person who wrote the chapter in the OECD report that is the basis of these figures. It is part of a report on the distribution of income to households, so it doesn’t include taxes that are not directly paid by households, since these are not included in income surveys....[T]he table also calculates the distribution of taxes for the household as whole after adjusting for the number of people in the household, so it will differ from data calculated on income tax returns which are not adjusted for household size.
As others have pointed out this measure includes all direct taxes on individuals so it includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer payroll taxes. It also doesn’t include sales taxes, but these are much heavier in most other OECD countries, and not as progressive as direct taxes, so if you added indirect taxes in through some sort of modelling it is almost certain that the USA would still have the most progressive overall tax system.
However, as the OECD report points out, progressivity is not the same as redistribution. Progressivity measures how the distribution of the tax burden is shared, while redistribution measures how much the tax system reduces inequality. Redistribution is influenced both by the progressivity of taxes and the level of taxes collected.
In fact, the US system of direct taxes actually reduces inequality more than any other country as well. But overall, the USA reduces inequality a lot less than most other countries, because the other thing that you need to take into account is what taxes get spent on.
Now the US system of social security and cash benefits reduces inequality by less than any other OECD country except Korea. The US social security system is marginally less progressive then the OECD average, but the level of spending is very low – only Mexico and Korea spend less in the OECD.
So while the US tax system is progressive and reduces inequality, the US welfare state is much less effective at reducing inequality. And because the US has a very unequal distribution of income from capital and a much wider wage distribution than many other OECD countries, it ends up as a relatively unequal country after taxes and benefits.
If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality.
So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively.
|
On April 20 2015 05:07 Introvert wrote:
Nye and Tyson are some of the most obnoxious science "popularizers" out there. Their strange devotees are annoying as well.
Nevermind that they wouldn't know jack all about running government.
The biggest problem with politics is the amount of rhetoric. In contrast, here you have a profession, scientist, that is trained to ignore its own preconceptions and biases (let alone anyone else's) in light of observational evidence. Sounds like fucking heaven coming to politics.
If Louis Gohmert and Al Franken can run the government, then I believe Bill Nye can do it too.
|
It's not necessary (though certainly helpful) for someone to be highly skilled in lawmaking; at high levels there are always assistants and staff to help out with things, so there are several ways of running things that can work.
I could imagine a president who is very good at picking people who will do their jobs well, and making sure they do their jobs well. That president might succeed well even if he almost never sets/decides things on his own, he simply picks the right people for the job and lets them decide.
Or a president who's very good at making judgments on issues and assessing things, who has others write stuff, and he focuses on making sure tis good and/or tweaking it. (e.g. like an editor, who doesn't write the book, but fixes issues and optimizes wording)
|
On April 20 2015 05:29 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 05:07 Introvert wrote:
Nye and Tyson are some of the most obnoxious science "popularizers" out there. Their strange devotees are annoying as well.
Nevermind that they wouldn't know jack all about running government. The biggest problem with politics is the amount of rhetoric. In contrast, here you have a profession, scientist, that is trained to ignore its own preconceptions and biases (let alone anyone else's) in light of observational evidence. Sounds like fucking heaven coming to politics. If Louis Gohmert and Al Franken can run the government, then I believe Bill Nye can do it too.
There's no reason to think their scientific training will apply to politics. That's not the nature of the beast. Scientists are people too, and they have their own ideas and opinions.
Nye and Tyson like to talk about things that they know nothing about. Their background doesn't help them there.
I'm not sure why people hold scientists in such high esteem- they're just people. They have a unique skillset, but so does anyone who has a specialized profession. They aren't any more noble or honest than anyone else.
|
On April 20 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 04:54 Leporello wrote:On April 20 2015 04:47 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2015 04:32 Leporello wrote:
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to.
edit: It's such a wonder, with the "leftist socialist" Obama, we have the same tax brackets that George W. gave us... Most progressive tax scheme in the OECD is not progressive enough? Except, it's nowhere near the most progressive tax scheme in the OECD? Just picking one country at random, you'll likely find bigger increases between income tax brackets than you will in the U.S.'s... So... Where do you get the crazy idea that we have the most progressive income tax system in the OECD (basically, the world)? Most countries in the OECD tax more overall, but also use a lot more regressive taxes, like high rate VATs. Article on this here. Overall our tax system is highly progressive, but we tax less overall and fund a smaller welfare state. Longer explaination: + Show Spoiler +I am the person who wrote the chapter in the OECD report that is the basis of these figures. It is part of a report on the distribution of income to households, so it doesn’t include taxes that are not directly paid by households, since these are not included in income surveys....[T]he table also calculates the distribution of taxes for the household as whole after adjusting for the number of people in the household, so it will differ from data calculated on income tax returns which are not adjusted for household size.
As others have pointed out this measure includes all direct taxes on individuals so it includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer payroll taxes. It also doesn’t include sales taxes, but these are much heavier in most other OECD countries, and not as progressive as direct taxes, so if you added indirect taxes in through some sort of modelling it is almost certain that the USA would still have the most progressive overall tax system.
However, as the OECD report points out, progressivity is not the same as redistribution. Progressivity measures how the distribution of the tax burden is shared, while redistribution measures how much the tax system reduces inequality. Redistribution is influenced both by the progressivity of taxes and the level of taxes collected.
In fact, the US system of direct taxes actually reduces inequality more than any other country as well. But overall, the USA reduces inequality a lot less than most other countries, because the other thing that you need to take into account is what taxes get spent on.
Now the US system of social security and cash benefits reduces inequality by less than any other OECD country except Korea. The US social security system is marginally less progressive then the OECD average, but the level of spending is very low – only Mexico and Korea spend less in the OECD.
So while the US tax system is progressive and reduces inequality, the US welfare state is much less effective at reducing inequality. And because the US has a very unequal distribution of income from capital and a much wider wage distribution than many other OECD countries, it ends up as a relatively unequal country after taxes and benefits.
If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality.
So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively.
That is interesting, and I will take the time to read the article.
But what I'm noticing right off is you're defining this all based on government revenue, not simply what individuals are paying in taxes.
Which is fine. But that reflects on a lot more than just taxes. The income distribution of these countries becomes more of a factor. Countries with a smaller percentage of "rich" people will see less revenue from them, regardless of how progressive their income tax rates are. So... it's in-depth, but not really saying anything definitive about what the personal tax rates are.
From the article:
Interestingly, countries with top personal income tax rates that are higher than in the U.S., such as Germany, France, or Sweden, have ratios that are closer to 1 to 1. Meaning, the share of the tax burden paid by the richest decile in those countries is roughly equal to their share of the nation's income. By contrast, we prefer to have the wealthiest households in this country pay a share of the tax burden that is one-third greater than their share of the nation's income.
Which is interesting, thanks, and I will read the whole article. But the fact is, other countries have higher income taxes than we do. That the government revenue doesn't show a likewise higher percentage of its revenue coming from those higher income taxes, well... there are a lot of factors there.
I will also say that since we see "more from less" when it comes to our higher-income tax-brackets, well... all the more reason to raise it a couple points, maybe?!
|
On April 20 2015 05:40 zlefin wrote:
It's not necessary (though certainly helpful) for someone to be highly skilled in lawmaking; at high levels there are always assistants and staff to help out with things, so there are several ways of running things that can work.
I could imagine a president who is very good at picking people who will do their jobs well, and making sure they do their jobs well. That president might succeed well even if he almost never sets/decides things on his own, he simply picks the right people for the job and lets them decide.
Or a president who's very good at making judgments on issues and assessing things, who has others write stuff, and he focuses on making sure tis good and/or tweaking it. (e.g. like an editor, who doesn't write the book, but fixes issues and optimizes wording)
Imo this is much more important for the job of President then lawmaking ability, whatever that means.
A President has to deal with so many diverse issues that he cannot possible be knowledgeable on them. I would much rather have someone who surrounds himself with competent people and is able to weight their recommendations.
|
A President has to lead, not to read.
#Arnold2016
|
On April 20 2015 05:43 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2015 04:54 Leporello wrote:On April 20 2015 04:47 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2015 04:32 Leporello wrote:
Regardless of "classifying" various items, a sales tax in lieu of an income tax is a blatant, huge, disgusting way to shift the tax-burdens to the poor -- to such a degree that it isn't even feasible. There's no way to get around it, and I have no idea why we should even try.
If anything we should eliminate all sales taxes altogether.
Progressive income tax is kind of the lesser of all evils. Although to call our current system progressive is a bit of a stretch. It technically is bracketed so the rich pay a higher percentage, but, it's only a couple of points. It needs to be more progressive, i.e., we need to start taxing rich people again, like we used to.
edit: It's such a wonder, with the "leftist socialist" Obama, we have the same tax brackets that George W. gave us... Most progressive tax scheme in the OECD is not progressive enough? Except, it's nowhere near the most progressive tax scheme in the OECD? Just picking one country at random, you'll likely find bigger increases between income tax brackets than you will in the U.S.'s... So... Where do you get the crazy idea that we have the most progressive income tax system in the OECD (basically, the world)? Most countries in the OECD tax more overall, but also use a lot more regressive taxes, like high rate VATs. Article on this here. Overall our tax system is highly progressive, but we tax less overall and fund a smaller welfare state. Longer explaination: + Show Spoiler +I am the person who wrote the chapter in the OECD report that is the basis of these figures. It is part of a report on the distribution of income to households, so it doesn’t include taxes that are not directly paid by households, since these are not included in income surveys....[T]he table also calculates the distribution of taxes for the household as whole after adjusting for the number of people in the household, so it will differ from data calculated on income tax returns which are not adjusted for household size.
As others have pointed out this measure includes all direct taxes on individuals so it includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer payroll taxes. It also doesn’t include sales taxes, but these are much heavier in most other OECD countries, and not as progressive as direct taxes, so if you added indirect taxes in through some sort of modelling it is almost certain that the USA would still have the most progressive overall tax system.
However, as the OECD report points out, progressivity is not the same as redistribution. Progressivity measures how the distribution of the tax burden is shared, while redistribution measures how much the tax system reduces inequality. Redistribution is influenced both by the progressivity of taxes and the level of taxes collected.
In fact, the US system of direct taxes actually reduces inequality more than any other country as well. But overall, the USA reduces inequality a lot less than most other countries, because the other thing that you need to take into account is what taxes get spent on.
Now the US system of social security and cash benefits reduces inequality by less than any other OECD country except Korea. The US social security system is marginally less progressive then the OECD average, but the level of spending is very low – only Mexico and Korea spend less in the OECD.
So while the US tax system is progressive and reduces inequality, the US welfare state is much less effective at reducing inequality. And because the US has a very unequal distribution of income from capital and a much wider wage distribution than many other OECD countries, it ends up as a relatively unequal country after taxes and benefits.
If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality.
So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively. That is interesting, and I will take the time to read the article. But what I'm noticing right off is you're defining this all based on government revenue, not simply what individuals are paying in taxes. Which is fine. But that reflects on a lot more than just taxes. The income distribution of these countries becomes more of a factor. Countries with a smaller percentage of "rich" people will see less revenue from them, regardless of how progressive their income tax rates are. So... it's in-depth, but not really saying anything definitive about these countries' tax rates. From the article: Show nested quote +Interestingly, countries with top personal income tax rates that are higher than in the U.S., such as Germany, France, or Sweden, have ratios that are closer to 1 to 1. Meaning, the share of the tax burden paid by the richest decile in those countries is roughly equal to their share of the nation's income. By contrast, we prefer to have the wealthiest households in this country pay a share of the tax burden that is one-third greater than their share of the nation's income. Which is interesting, thanks, and I will read the whole article. But the fact is, other countries have higher income taxes than we do. That the government revenue doesn't show a likewise higher percentage of its revenue coming from those higher income taxes, well... there are a lot of factors there. I will also say that since we see "more from less" when it comes to our higher-income tax-brackets, well... all the more reason to raise it a couple points, maybe?!
Progressiveness is how much higher income taxpayers pay relative to lower income taxpayers. A country that taxes the rich at 10% and the poor at 0% has a more progressive tax code than a country that taxes the rich at 99% and the poor at 99% equally. It is a relative metric, and the table is trying to display that.
A country where the rich earn 25% of all income and pay 25% of taxes, does not have a progressive tax code. The rich are paying proportionally their weight in taxes, and by implication, so is everyone else. Such a situation would be displayed in the table as a ratio of "1" in the final column.
If you are concerned about inequality, there are other factors to consider such as the overall level of taxation, overall level of transfers, the progressiveness of transfers and inequality in market incomes.
To summarize the US, we have a very progressive tax code, but do not tax as much overall. We do a fair job spending progressively, but do not spend much overall (esp. in terms of social expenditures). We also have somewhat higher market income inequalities.
None of that precludes you from wanting higher taxes on the rich, just that 'the tax code isn't progressive' isn't a correct argument to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
