America Already Has The Most Progressive Tax Code Of Any Western Nation

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

America Already Has The Most Progressive Tax Code Of Any Western Nation

Written By : John Hawkins

The more the rich pay in America, the more people insist that they’re getting a free ride. Never mind the fact that 47% of Americans pay no income tax at all, we have the 2nd highest corporate income tax in the world, and even if we confiscated EVERYTHING the rich are making, it wouldn’t fix our deficit woes. Somehow, they’re still getting off easy.

If only Americans would stop demanding all these tax cuts and would instead embrace the tax policies of our more enlightened European superiors! Well, here’s a little bad news for liberals who think that way. We’re already putting a higher tax burden on the rich in America than they do in Western Europe:

During my recent testimony before the Senate Budget Committee (found here), I cited an OECD statistic that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax system among industrialized nations.

The first column shows that the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. pays 45.1 percent of all income taxes (both personal income and payroll taxes combined) in the country. Italy is the only other country in which the top 10 percent of households pays more than 40 percent of the income tax burden (42.2%). Meanwhile, the average tax burden for the top decile of households in OECD countries is 31.6 percent.

By contrast, column #2 shows that the richest decile in America earned 33.5 percent of the market income in the country in 2005 – the year in which this snapshot was taken, but little has changed since then. But, a few other countries do have a greater or similar concentration of income as does the U.S. For example, the OECD table shows that the wealthiest decile of households in Italy and Poland earn a greater share of their country’s market income than do our “rich” – 35.8 percent and 33.9 percent respectively – while the share of income earned by the top decile of households in the U.K. is about on par with those in the U.S. at 32.3 percent.

The table then adjusts for the underlying allocation of income by showing the ratio of income taxes paid to the share of income earned by the top decile in each country. The ratio for U.S. households is 1.35, far greater than the ratio of taxes to income in any other country. Even in the three countries with a comparable distribution of income, the ratio of taxes to income was less, 1.18 in Italy, 0.84 in Poland, and 1.20 in the U.K.

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.

In other words, Europe may have higher tax rates overall, but their tax burden is more evenly divided. Incidentally, that’s much healthier and more feasible economically than trying to get the rich to pay everyone else’s way.

Anonymous

IF the left can’t play racial or class warfare, it removes their two default arguments.

Soaking the successful to purchase votes from the poor by choice always plays big on the left.

Over and under on trolls on this thread is 3.

Anonymous

Still carrying water for the wealthy, eh Dick? So tell us: how has all of this Nixon verbiage improved your own income status?

Anonymous

Flagged for personal attack and overall idiocy.
Anonymous

Flagged for personal attack and overall idiocy.

Anonymous

Well, you have two already. (three if you count Vega, who does not always troll)
I’ll take four as the final number. They love these tax threads as it feeds into their class warfare rhetoric and envy of the successful.

TR

Anonymous

That’s what we have been saying all along: GOP part of the rich.

The gap between rich and poor has grown in more than three-quarters of OECD countries over the past two decades, according to a new OECD report.

OECD’s Growing Unequal? finds that the economic growth of recent decades has benefitted the rich more than the poor. In some countries, such as Canada, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway and the United States, the gap also increased between the rich and the middle-class.

Countries with a wide distribution of income tend to have more widespread income poverty. Also, social mobility is lower in countries with high inequality, such as Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, and higher in the Nordic countries where income is distributed more evenly.

Launching the report in Paris, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría warned of the dangers posed by inequality and the need for governments to tackle it. “Growing inequality is divisive. It polarises societies, it divides regions within countries, and it carves up the world between rich and poor. Greater income inequality stifles upward mobility between generations, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the rewards they deserve. Ignoring increasing inequality is not an option.”

http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_2649_201185_41530009_1_1_1_1,00.html

In the USA, taxcuts for the wealthy have benefitted only the wealthy and has failed to produce economic growth. Reagan proved the trickle up doesn’t work, and Bush merely flogged a dead horse. Our economic system belongs to all of us and until we return to regulation, we will continue to slide economically as a nation.

Anonymous

That’s “trickle down” Sorry.
Anonymous

That’s “trickle down” Sorry.
Anonymous

More…

“A report issued yesterday by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revealed the United States has the third worst level of income inequality and poverty among the group’s 30 member states. Only Mexico and Turkey ranked higher in those categories. OECD states in western Europe, along with Japan, South Korea, Canada and Australia, all recorded better figures than the US, as did central and eastern European states, including Poland and Hungary.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10643

Ergo, the top should pay more, since they have arranged to earn more.

Anonymous

Why should they pay more? Is it because they are more successful? Thus, are we not penalizing people for making more money? We’re telling them, “You are successful in creating wealth and that cannot be tolerated. We have to take it some of it from you for being so well off.” How is that fair at all?

StanW

The only thing ‘fair’ to idiots like Joe is that some people have more money than he does, so they are bad and should have that money taken from them.

Anonymous

It all stems from the belief that the rich stole wealth from the general populace. That is the bread and butter of the left, because once you believe they stole it, you can pretty much justify trying to steal it back. That’s Michael Moore’s philosophy, that the wealth belongs to all of us since it comes from a limited supply. It’s a completely stupid belief.
StanW

But they always compound that stupidity by claiming that THEY are not subject to the same rules. Michael moor claims wealth belongs to us all, yet he never manages to give HIS wealth away.

It is no different from the daily hypocrisy that is Liberalism.
StanW

But they always compound that stupidity by claiming that THEY are not subject to the same rules. Michael moor claims wealth belongs to us all, yet he never manages to give HIS wealth away.

It is no different from the daily hypocrisy that is Liberalism.

StanW

The only thing ‘fair’ to idiots like Joe is that some people have more money than he does, so they are bad and should have that money taken from them.

StanW

More wealth envy from JoeBlow.

Your act is stale and boring us, Joe. You may go now!

Anonymous

Care to refute what he stated Stanley or is name calling all that you have left?

StanW

Piss off and die, crthns. This is not your conversation, and we are tired of refuted the SAME TALKING POINTS from Joe!

Anonymous

Nobody has ever refuted anything from me except with nasty insults. Anti-intellectualism as its best.
Anonymous

Nobody has ever refuted anything from me except with nasty insults. Anti-intellectualism as its best.
StanW

You’ve been told already, JoeBlow. If you don;t like it, LEAVE!

Everything you have posted, which is EXACTLY the same thing you always post, has been refuted. but you seem to think that saying “Naa Ahh” and restating your point is meaningful.
Anonymous

Of course the leftist meaning of “intellectual” includes the likes of liar/idiot/hypocrite Algore, so much like you, it’s worthless.
Anonymous

Given your sorid history on the site, your unwillingness to play by the rules, and your undisputed troll and sock puppet status you deserve every bit of nastiness you get, shergald.

Glad to clarify that for you, son.

TR
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You’d have to post something of substance for anyone to be able to refutes it.

“Anti-intellectualism as its best.”

Pot meet kettle, using statistics to create lies is nothing but stupid, and that’s all you do.
Anonymous

Stan,

Kinda hard to refute what JoeBlow says because HE doesn’t say anything. Joey’s content has never been his own. WU, JBlow, Smartha et all lack the capacity for original thought ala their heroes Joe and Barry. The temptation to play “Wack a Troll” is potent. Most of them should attend the self help meeting for mindless chatterers, On and On Anon. Til then I guess we’ll keep taking the troll bait. Oh yeah, I’ll take the over Nix.
Anonymous

To the several posters adjacent to this post. I am much impressed with the crowd effect my post above caused. It must have said something important, like providing conclusions from actual data supplied by the OECD.
Anonymous

Then provide anything to show that what he is saying is wrong, I notice that you cant. Typical Stan, call people names when you dont agree with them.
StanW

It’s already been done, crthn, REPEATEDLY. He thinks the same way you do. That you can post the same lies and demand people disprove them over and over again.

It is a waste of time, just like you are a waste of DNA. Now PISS OFF AND DIE!
Anonymous

To Stanley,

What bullshit, no one has given any refuting evidence to what Joe posted TODAY, not one. Stanley at some point you have to live in the real world and you simply cant make shit up like you normally do. He provided a report, to which Hawkins talked about as well and yet you say he is wrong without providing any support. Which part did he lie about, which part was misleading. Perhaps you can explain why we still subsidize the oil industry when they are making record profits? That is simply one example of the rich getting richer at the tax payers expense.
StanW

He has posted the same thing in the past and it was refuted then. It is hardly out fault that you are too STUPID to keep up.

But please, keep demanding we all prove a negative. We’ll keep that in mind the next time you are asking us to prove something we posted.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Care to prove slow is right, because we all knows he’s full of shit and posting nothing but misleading stats as facts to run down the rich.

Anonymous

dipshit Joe actually provided some proof, which none of you has disputed or proven wrong. Either man up or shut up.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Read ‘How to lie with statistics’ And get back to us with just how accurate slowjoe’s proof is. FYI it’s very misleading, which as Stan has told has already been proven here multiple times.

So be a big girl and take your head of joe’s ass.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Well you know, when a leftist can’t handle the facts they’re given, they start repeating their mindless cant that they’ve been drilled with by their commissars.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Reagan proved tickle down does work, more people at bottom got more from their jobs because their incomes grew, their COL dropped or remained flat, and they turned that into buying power. That’s what a fuels an economy. But Dems keep spending tax money on frivolous things and wasteful programs our economy stagnates. Every time the debt grows our economy slows, look at the numbers it’s a history replete with examples that you fail to recognize.

Anonymous

Poverty went up and the rich got richer. There was no real growth in the 80s, just a natural resolution of a recession, providing artifactual evidence that the economy grew. No, it just normalized, at least until the Reagan recession of 1987.
Anonymous

Poverty went up and the rich got richer. There was no real growth in the 80s, just a natural resolution of a recession, providing artifactual evidence that the economy grew. No, it just normalized, at least until the Reagan recession of 1987.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Prove it, joe, because your facts don’t match reality, Carters policies would have kept the recession alive, kinda like what Odrama’s doing now!
Anonymous

There was no real growth in the 80s, just a natural resolution of a recession, providing artifactual evidence that the economy grew.

Wrong again, moosebreath. A comparison of the 2-year growth (annualized) for the five recessions preceeding the current one (excluded because 2 years worth of data is unavailable).

Nov-01 2.9%
Mar-91 3.0%
Nov-82 6.6%
Jul-80 0.9%
Mar-75 4.7%

That growth rate in bold was during Mr. Reagan’s presidency. You’ll note that it is the highest rate there.

Anonymous

OECD’s Growing Unequal? finds that the economic growth of recent decades has benefitted the rich more than the poor.

What? You mean in an era when tremendous wealth is being generated through the development and implementation of new technologies the rewards accrue to those who did the development and implementation?! I’m SHOCKED shocked I tell you!!

/rolls eyes

Anonymous

The problem w/ your argument is that although our corporate tax rate is high, amazingly many corporations have an effective US tax rate far lower than my income tax rate. Some examples include Exxon Mobile (0%), Chevron (paid only 200mil), GE (negative – uncanny really), Bank of America (0 for a long time to come, probably), Ford (2.3%), HP (18.6%), Verizon (10.5%)…. I could go on.

Anonymous

Oh, and many of these industries get great subsidies or bailouts from our very own gov’t and pay us back in spades. Right? Oh, wait… no they don’t.

Corporate profits not only just hit record highs in absolute terms, they also hit a record high in relative terms as a percentage of the GDP…

Anonymous

It is all about who controls our government, which in turn creates rules advantageous to the wealthy. What we have been witnessing since Reagan is a takeover of government by the corporations, what is more popularly known as Corporatism. Want democracy? Stick with the state you live in and, as in Wisconsin, refuse to allow the wealthy, like the Koch brothers, to take it over. Fight.

Anonymous

Bring it, bitch.
Anonymous

Bring it, bitch.

Anonymous

It is all about who controls our government, which in turn creates rules advantageous to the wealthy. What we have been witnessing since Reagan is a takeover of government by the corporations, what is more popularly known as Corporatism. Want democracy? Stick with the state you live in and, as in Wisconsin, refuse to allow the wealthy, like the Koch brothers, to take it over. Fight.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Proof?

Anonymous

Forbes. And one more: Google (2.4%)

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Links!

Anonymous

Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_slide.html

ABC:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Tax/ge-exxon-paid-us-income-taxes-09/story?id=10300167

CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/09/news/economy/corporate_tax_reform/index.htm

Oh, and since the article mentions the rich carry a heavier tax burden, I thought I’d point you to the IRS evaluation of the top 400 reported incomes, another Forbes piece:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/1011/rich-list-10-investing-taxes-capital-gains-best-breaks-go-to-rich.html
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

The top 1% richest Americans pay more than half the taxes in America.
Anonymous

@Christopher Taylor:

I love when people don’t read. The top 400 reported income paid an effective tax rate of 16.6%. And since I’ve been discussing effective tax percentages this entire time, my argument still stands. After them, the effective tax rate was 24% for those in the 1mil-5mil category. And then, those making < 100,000? 28%.

Anonymous

I’d actually be quite willing to discuss a reduction of the actual corporate tax level due to the fact that high tax levels hurt small, non-multinational corporations in a big way. However, all tax loops that multinational take advantage of in my above post need to be closed so that the effective tax rate of all corporations is exactly the same across the board.

Anonymous

The appropriate tax level for the rich (hereafter defined as anyone making a dollar more than the liberal proposing said taxes) is “more”.
D-Vega

The problem with this entire arguement is that is uses the tax revenue base to determine progressiveness, when that not what a progressive tax is.

A progressive tax means the more make, the greater percentage of your income goes to taxes. Not the great percentage of total revenue you cover.

Why? Because we run huge deficits. If we were truly progressive, and had a more progressive system like in Europe, there would be A LOT more taxes on the rich, especially super-rich who avoid taxes.

A European comparison doesn’t wash, because the rich in this country MAKE A HELL OF A LOT MORE than their European counterparts.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I guess it comes down to what you think the purpose of the tax system really is. If its meant to fund the government for its constitutional and reasonable duties then the amount each person is taxed is irrelevant. If you think its to fairly hurt each person and shape social behavior, then its all that matters.

D-Vega

“fairly hurt each person”?

I say it’s neither. It’s everyone paying their fair share.

And a fair share is not a flat tax. A fair share is in proportion of your income.

Anonymous

And in just about any other circumstance, a simple pro rata divying up of bills or rewards is considered fair. Taxes is the only place where you hear anyone calling charging some more than others fair.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Right, equally hurting each person. That’s what you think taxes are about, rather than funding the government’s proper expenses.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

“And a fair share is not a flat tax. A fair share is in proportion of your income.”

English language fail for DV, a flat tax is proportionate, DV, by all pertinent definitions of the word.

proportion, in mathematics, the equality of two ratios. Two pairs of quantities a,b and c,d are in proportion if their ratios a/b and c/d are equal, i.e., if the equation a/b=c/d is true.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/proportion#ixzz1HMhIm8W5

Broken down for the mathematically illiterate: if A pays 100 tax and makes 1000 income to be proportionate B making 1,000,000 would pay 100,000. 100/1000=100,000/1,000,000.

Optimus_Maximus

I have never understood the legality of the “progressive” income tax rate.

I think it is the most insidious enabler of big government, because it shields beneficiaries of those who vote for politicians that support higher taxes, and more entitlements, from those very taxes for which they are in essence voting.

Look, if equal protection is to mean anything, it should apply to my property (wages) as well as to my other legal liabilities. How can we constantly preach equal protection under the law while allowing one person to be taxed at a lower rate than another, regardless of income levels?

If we had a flat tax, say 10%, then someone that makes $1 Million annually is going to pay $100,000 in taxes while someone making $10,000 annually would only pay $1,000 annually.

However, since they pay the same rate, that would be equal protection under the law. The rich guy is still paying 100 times in actual taxes what the poor guy is paying, but now the poor guy has to pick up some share of the tax burden, and is less likely to vote for the tax and spend type of politician, as it will come back to bite him in the wallet.

When near 50% of the eligible voters pay no income tax at all, we have reached an unsustainable and immoral level of unfairness to the producers.

Anonymous

Only about a third of taxes come from income. Everyone say in Michigan pays a 8% sales tax. Nothing for millionaires like Governor Snyder, but quite a bit for a guy who only earns 10K. There are also real estate taxes which are shifted down to the poor in terms of rent. So quit kidding yourselves.

Governor Snyder, who makes multimillions yearly pay as much in state income taxes as the poor man who makes only 15K: that would be 4.35%. Now Synder wants to help out himself and his friends by reducing that to 4.25%. You can always tell a fiscal loser if he is packaging trickle down with a new face.

Until Michigan gets a progressive state income tax on the books, we will all lose out. Not all nerds are named Bill Gates who is now giving his wealth away. Give it a try Governor.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

He’s talking Fed taxes only dipshit, quit moving the goalposts.
Anonymous

6%, Michigan’s Sales Tax is 6%. Everyone pays 6%. From the woefully pathetic 10K/yr earner to the multi-millionaire.

Anonymous

Thanks for the correction. But Michigan does have a flat rate state income tax of 4.35% that applies to millionaires like Snyder and low income folk alike. Will Snyder introduce a progressive income tax to pay off the state’s debts. No way.

Optimus_Maximus

Florida and Texas have no income tax, and not coincidentally, have the some of the lowest unemployment rates.

You myopically continue to insist more money is needed, ignoring the fact that money is confiscated in taxes from the very type of people and corporations needed to get Michigan’s economy growing.

Again, nationally and locally, there is much less of a revenue problem than there is a spending problem.

Cut spending, reduce red tape and regulations (which facilitates lower spending by not needing as many government employees), let people keep more of what they earn, and get out of the way of the American entrepenuer.

Then stand back and watch the economy boom. Works every time.

Higher taxes, more spending ALWAYS leads to further economic decline.

The people that have money are not stupid sheep that will stand around to be shorn. They will move away and take their jobs and money with them.

As they should.

No government has a moral claim on the fruits of my labor, any more than a thief accosting me on the street.

Anonymous

What rot.

1. The voting amount doesn’t equal the labor force. Housewives, retirees can vote, but don’t work. They don’t have an income. I don’t think any of us would like our wives being called “immoral” in any circumstances.

2. If we had a flat tax of 10%, this bloody country would go under so fast it would be unbelievable. So now you need to increase your flat tax. And, as everyone here seems to scream, the poor earn nothing, and they’re *still* paying an effective tax rate in the high 20s. Even if you *do* jack their taxes up to 35%, you’re not going to get a hell of a lot from them.

ALSO, please don’t forget capital gains tax or company tax. Capital gains and companies are crying that everyone here seems to think the burden of tax rests solely on people.

Which, as it happens, companies will soon technically be.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You assume no changer in spending and a10% rate, fix spending and 10% could easily pay all expenditures and reduce the debt. The problem is the left’s sacred cows that they refuse to cut.

Anonymous

I don’t know if that’s really sustainable. US GDP is 14.58 trillion – so at 10%, assuming that *all* that amount is funneled into citizens (and not companies, say – which a lot of it is) – there will be 1.458 trillion income. That’s not very close to expected US payments right now – which is to be 3.5 trillion.

What I’m pushing here is that we’re forgetting company tax and capital gains tax, AND (more importantly), the fact that there is a shortfall of 1.4 trillion dollars. Trillion.

That’s not something that can easily be cut away… for example: you could wipe out *all* medicare and *all* social security, and you’d *just* be cutting 1.4 trillion. And lets face it, that is completely unfeasible.

This problem isn’t something that can be as easily solved as leveling it at the lower-paying people. They really really don’t have that kind of money. Real reforms are needed, and making trite posts – as left (no iraq!) and right (tax the poor!) are doing – takes away from progress.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Cut 1.4 trillion from the 3.55 trillion dollar budget you need 2.15 trillion income, cut 2.5 trillion and you only need a trillion dollars. It’s all in finding the right things to cut like SS, Medicare/Medicaid, DHHS, DHUD, DoEd, DoEn, DoAg, EPA, SSA, NSF, NIB, CNCS, thats almost 1.7 trillion and there are plenty of more that can be trimmed.
Optimus_Maximus

True, you can’t make up a $1.4 trillion deficit by taxing the poor. My point is that the poor need to be helping pull the wagon, not riding in the wagon, so that they are NOT incentivized to vote for tax and spend politicians.

I don’t know that there is a majority in either the House or Senate that has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the media and special interest onslaught that they would endure if they took the necessary steps required to handle that sort of deficit.

Rand Paul has the only serious proposal I’ve seen. He has proposed cutting entire departments, such as Energy, Education, and others, which is what will be required to balance the budget, and is a necessary step in downsizing the government. Government has grown to be a parasite that is strangling its economic host, which is our national economy.

It must be pared back to its constitutional limits.

Optimus_Maximus

I couldn’t disagree more. The country is already going downhill, as anyone with the slightest bit of analytical skills can see. High unemployment, inflation, high taxes, high energy prices, and anemic GDP are all signs of the decline.

We have out of control spending that is not only bankrupting the nation, but is also devaluing our currency at an alarming rate, due to the spendaholic enablers at the Fed creating new money out of thin air with QE2, which will be followed by QE3, QE4, ad infinitum until the major economic powers in the world move to institute a new world reserve currency, one that is perceived to be more stable in value.

That near 50% of the eligible voters pay no income tax, and thus feel free to vote for high tax and spend politicians is no slap at the American housewife.

You go to absurd lengths to satirize my immoral designation. Most of those housewifes would fall into the category of “married filing jointly” and it’s as much their money as their spouse’s that go to paying taxes.

However, if you are a member of a household that is paying no taxes, while receiving government benefits, I certainly would make the case that is an immoral situation, unless they fall into the category of incapacitated and unable to work.

A flat tax rate of 10% would more than fund the constitutionally limited functions of the federal government. The fact that we can not fund the current Federally sanctioned programs with a 10% flat tax does not make those programs constitutional, and is a poor argument for increased taxes considering the effectiveness of those programs, as well as their detrimental effect on the American people’s characteristic self-sufficiency, which is disappearing rapidly

We do not now, and have never had, a revenue problem. We have a spending problem due to unconstitutional mission creep of the Federal Government.

If we do not change course, and we continue to insist on punishing the economic producers, and rewarding with subsidies the economic takers (those that receive more in government subsidies than they pay in taxes), the future of the nation can be seen by looking no farther than Detroit, or looking overseas at all the other failed socialist experiments which have everywhere and always let to declining standards of living of their citizens.

Finally, corporate and capital gains taxes should be either eliminated or drastically reduced. Both inhibit economic growth, and are detrimental to the innovational spirit that made this country the economic powerhouse that was once the envy of the world.

Corporations do not pay taxes, their customers pay their taxes as the companies raise their prices on their products to cover those taxes.

You need to go read and study the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, or some von Mises or Hayek. The above concepts are not rocket science, simply the accumulated historical wisdom from observing what does and does not work in stimulating a nation’s economy.

Anonymous

What rot.

1. The voting amount doesn’t equal the labor force. Housewives, retirees can vote, but don’t work. They don’t have an income. I don’t think any of us would like our wives being called “immoral” in any circumstances.

2. If we had a flat tax of 10%, this bloody country would go under so fast it would be unbelievable. So now you need to increase your flat tax. And, as everyone here seems to scream, the poor earn nothing, and they’re *still* paying an effective tax rate in the high 20s. Even if you *do* jack their taxes up to 35%, you’re not going to get a hell of a lot from them.

ALSO, please don’t forget capital gains tax or company tax. Capital gains and companies are crying that everyone here seems to think the burden of tax rests solely on people.

Which, as it happens, companies will soon technically be.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

President Obama wants to tax everyone more anyway. The budget he released presumes a gas tax increase of 25 Cents a gallon.
Anonymous

…wait. You are approving a european-style tax system?

HAHAHAHAHAAHA. Yeah, let’s have the GOP run themselves into the ground with that plan.

Here, let’s have some fun, huh? Let’s go… GERMANY!!
Max Tax rate: 45% @ €250,730 (€501,460 for married couples)
Penultimate Rate: €42% @ €52,881 upwards (€105,762 for married couples)

Not good enough? Then let’s go… FRANCE!
30% @ €26,030 to €69,783
40% Beyond €69,783

Conversion: 1.00 EUR = 1.42132 USD (so just increase the numbers above by 50% to get US income levels.)

This is the most ridiculous advice i’ve seen yet for the GOP. They’ll annihilate themselves with this.

ALSO, JOHN PLEASE STOP WITH THE 47% AMERICANS PAY NO INCOME TAX RUBBISH.
47% OF AMERICANS ARE NOT PART OF THE LABOR FORCE. 47% OF AMERICANS INCLUDES THE RETIRED, CHILDREN, HOUSEWIVES… NOT THE UNEMPLOYED, NOR THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT HELP.

The Labor Force is the population in a country that is working, or actively looking for work. They’re also the people that pay taxes. And the people eligible for government assistance in the vast vast VAST majority of cases. They just happen to be about 53% of the population.
Which means 47% of Americans, would you believe, aren’t working. Or are we frogmarching school children and women to sweat shops now?

In your brave new world, the GOP are going to propose a flat 45% tax on everyone earning more than 75K, and start a toddler tax to balance the budget.
The country is in trouble, yes, but that doesn’t mean we need to let the crazy cats out of the crazy cupboard to cook up some crazy cool-aid.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Like you’re not being crazy? Not all of that 47% is unemployed, many of them are actually receiving real incomes just like me. But because of things like the Earned Income credit some of them actually get money back from the govt every year. So their effective contribution is zero or negative that’s not a small portion of that 47% either. The 47% isn’t voters, it’s person who actually file income tax returns each year. But because of credits for child care, and significant deductions for the number of dependents they care for on lower incomes, their effective tax rate is ZERO! Person’s who don’t file aren’t even included in the that percentage such as children, and many retirees.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

So get off your high horse, moo. You’re assuming things about the stats that are not written into the equation. So is John, since he said all Americans.

Anonymous

Fair enough – my mistake. I can’t cast doubt on the figures – so let’s assume they’re completely accurate.

More importantly, let’s assume that *all* the households in the “50K” bracket are earning exactly 50K and that they’re paying an effective tax of 25% on that (that’s the marginal rate on 50K) (which is more than they would pay, earning 50K).

That makes, using the numbers the site gives, 91 million people in the 50K bracket. Again using their numbers, nearly 70% of them (a rather massive 64 million households) aren’t paying any tax. So, assuming *all* those households are somehow dodging the system –
that’s 800 billion extra.

That is *still* not enough to balance the budget, and it’s using all sorts of manic numbers. Incorrect tax rates, everyone earning 50K…

Using the proper rates, if they *were* to all be earning 50K, the amount you’d get in taxes is 556 billion.

This isn’t a small amount, to be sure… but its assuming that everyone is earning 50K. And they’re not.

Anonymous

I think this is important to point out: IRS data paints a different picture. While actual tax rates are highly progressive, effective tax rates are regressive.

See: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/1011/rich-list-10-investing-taxes-capital-gains-best-breaks-go-to-rich.html

Really, really rich: 16.6% effective income tax rate
Rich: 24% effective income tax rate
<100,000: 28% effective income tax rate

The problem with effective corporate tax rate is that its all over the place. Ranging from GE's whopping 0% to CVS's 38.8%. The true solution is to lower the corporate tax rate while closing all the loop holes the international corporations use to hide income. This will give local corporations a break from ridiculous taxes that kill their business and force international corporations to finally pay their fair share. Win-win.

But… my own liberal force balks at the idea of lowering taxes…. and the conservatives balk at the idea of closing the loopholes that allow them to get effective rates lower than anywhere in the world.
Anonymous

I think this is important to point out: IRS data paints a different picture. While actual tax rates are highly progressive, effective tax rates are regressive.

See: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/1011/rich-list-10-investing-taxes-capital-gains-best-breaks-go-to-rich.html

Really, really rich: 16.6% effective income tax rate
Rich: 24% effective income tax rate
<100,000: 28% effective income tax rate

The problem with effective corporate tax rate is that its all over the place. Ranging from GE's whopping 0% to CVS's 38.8%. The true solution is to lower the corporate tax rate while closing all the loop holes the international corporations use to hide income. This will give local corporations a break from ridiculous taxes that kill their business and force international corporations to finally pay their fair share. Win-win.

But… my own liberal force balks at the idea of lowering taxes…. and the conservatives balk at the idea of closing the loopholes that allow them to get effective rates lower than anywhere in the world.
Anonymous

Um. All the comments have gone!

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

Because John’s perspective was soundly rejected as a conservative suddenly embracing european tax codes, thanks to his ignorance about what he was actually trying to claim.

Seriously, the comments were a thing of beauty and I say it’s the reason he made the site change now was…to lose those comments.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

Because John’s perspective was soundly rejected as a conservative suddenly embracing european tax codes, thanks to his ignorance about what he was actually trying to claim.

Seriously, the comments were a thing of beauty and I say it’s the reason he made the site change now was…to lose those comments.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

Because John’s perspective was soundly rejected as a conservative suddenly embracing european tax codes, thanks to his ignorance about what he was actually trying to claim.

Seriously, the comments were a thing of beauty and I say it’s the reason he made the site change now was…to lose those comments.

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN