[Psudo]

The United States has some of the richest rich in the world -- not #1 in the world, but up there. The US also has the single most progressive taxation system in the world, wherein the rich are taxed more harshly than in any other nation. Seems fitting, some might say. But even accounting for the magnitude of the wealth they possess, the US rich are still the absolute most taxed in the world, That's the summary of this article from the Tax Foundation.

Progressive taxation is not the same as economic redistribution. The US Government and it's spending programs are unusually disinterested in redistribution of wealth, so it's top-of-the-world progressive taxation does not translate into unique economic equality. That's the summary of this comment from the author of the figures. (The blog on that page is a response to this blog post.)

The US tax system is plenty progressive, but it's welfare programs are ineffective. If we want more economic equality, we need welfare reform to improve efficiency rather than tax increases to send good money after bad.

[Pseudonym]

Although the author does note that he doesn't capture certain taxes in his calculations - I would be interested in how including corporate and sales taxes would change this. State taxes would also be a good subject - although giving the US 50 different spots on the table might be overkill.

[Quantum_Wizard]

This is quite surprising. I had thought that Denmark had the steepest tax progression among industrialized countries.

[andyt]

Psudo wrote:

The US tax system is plenty progressive, but it's welfare programs are ineffective. If we want more economic equality, we need welfare reform to improve efficiency rather than tax increases to send good money after bad.

From another forum that also discusses this:

Quote:

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.

http://buckyville.yuku.com/reply/490073/Re-Most-Progressive-Tax-System

[Psudo]

That quote is included verbatim in the third link in my original post. I oversimplified him in my summary, though -- he said we don't need to worry about the progressivity of taxation (in other words, we don't need the rich to pay a larger proportion of taxes), but I incorrectly summarised that as not needing to increase taxes generally. My attention was on the inefficiencies of our welfare system, so I glossed over the taxation side. I stand by that focus (The welfare inefficiencies should be fixed first!), but I stand corrected otherwise.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Pseudonym wrote:

State taxes would also be a good subject - although giving the US 50 different spots on the table might be overkill.

And not only US but also other countries with state or provincial taxes should be given multiple spots. Of course you should not forget municipal taxes either. Therefore, you should obviously give most countries hundreds of spots on the table.

On a more serious note, the best way to treat local taxes would probably be to add them as a some sort of weighted average.

[andyt]

Psudo wrote:

That quote is included verbatim in the third link in my original post. I oversimplified him in my summary, though -- he said we don't need to worry about the progressivity of taxation (in other words, we don't need the rich to pay a larger proportion of taxes), but I incorrectly summarised that as not needing to increase taxes generally. My attention was on the inefficiencies of our welfare system, so I glossed over the taxation side. I stand by that focus (The welfare inefficiencies should be fixed first!), but I stand corrected otherwise.

I would be all for fixing the welfare system. I would basically like to eliminate welfare. Disability payments are something else, people who can't work need to be supported somehow. But for people who can work, some sort of workfare/training/community service program so they don't feel they're just getting free money. And a huge focus on finding them real jobs, tho with the present economy I don't know if that's possible. For people without kids, maybe some sort of welfare hostel as well, rather than just money in hand. I stayed in one for a few weeks when I hit the road looking for work. I was supported in the sense of having food and shelter, and Manpower helped me get a job right away. I thought it was a pretty good deal.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I think welfare is largely single Moms, people who's lives have been screwed up. I think they are a write off. If entry level jobs weren't so mean these single Moms might be able to work. So I look to a market solution.

I saw a statistic about people on welfare. As soon as the economy improved they got jobs. The welfare rate is so low people will work for minimum wage instead. It's pretty mean down there. Compared to my concerns that I have enough in my pocket for my next trip to the pub with friends it's rotten.

[BartSimpson]

I really hate this BS of whining about 'economic equality'.

Sounds like a bunch of bitchy kids crying ,"IT'S NOT FAIR!!!" over every little thing.



Bottom line on this argument is that if this communist BS ever comes close to reality I hope the communists who support it know how to fight because those of us who oppose it will do so.

[PostFactum]

If we had a "USA propaganda medal" Psudo would have it.

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

I really hate this BS of whining about 'economic equality'.

Sounds like a bunch of bitchy kids crying ,"IT'S NOT FAIR!!!" over every little thing.



Bottom line on this argument is that if this communist BS ever comes close to reality I hope the communists who support it know how to fight because those of us who oppose it will do so.

It's reality in your country, Bart. As Pseudo says, you have a very progressive tax system - that's income redistribution. Anything except 100% libertarianism involves some income redistribution. So throwing the word communism out is just bullshit.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

It's reality in your country, Bart. As Pseudo says, you have a very progressive tax system - that's income redistribution. Anything except 100% libertarianism involves some income redistribution. So throwing the word communism out is just bullshit.

Progressive taxation, which I oppose, was originally based on the idea that those who had more could pay more. I'd rather a flat tax with no clever deductions and I've oft said so. My idea would have most rich people, like Al Gore, paying more in taxes than the current system does.

Changing tax policy to make 'income equality' the goal is communism for the simple reason that communist societies are the only societies that have ever practiced this utterly failed authoritarian policy.

Anyone who tries to impose it in the USA will do so at their own peril.

I've several times sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution and that oath never came with an expiration date.

If someone wants to try to amend the Constitution to allow this, they should feel free to fail. If they try to do it any other way, then they should make sure their affairs are in order first.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

you have a very progressive tax system - that's income redistribution.

No, taxes are merely income confiscation. The redistribution is what the government does after they collect taxes and, right now, the Federal and various state and local governments are rethinking the 'redistribution' part.

One pleasant side-effect of this recession will be more liberty for Americans at the end of it as governments have to cut back on all of their pet programs and vote-buying give-away programs.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

It's reality in your country, Bart. As Pseudo says, you have a very progressive tax system - that's income redistribution. Anything except 100% libertarianism involves some income redistribution. So throwing the word communism out is just bullshit.

Progressive taxation, which I oppose, was originally based on the idea that those who had more could pay more. I'd rather a flat tax with no clever deductions and I've oft said so. My idea would have most rich people, like Al Gore, paying more in taxes than the current system does.

Changing tax policy to make 'income equality' the goal is communism for the simple reason that communist societies are the only societies that have ever practiced this utterly failed authoritarian policy.

Anyone who tries to impose it in the USA will do so at their own peril.

I've several times sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution and that oath never came with an expiration date.

If someone wants to try to amend the Constitution to allow this, they should feel free to fail. If they try to do it any other way, then they should make sure their affairs are in order first.

Fix the loop holes that allow mutli-million and billion companies to pay a fraction of their tax share by HQing in Ireland and the Bahamas.

I gotta say your countries financial situation (and peril) reflects entirely on its population. It seems every US citizen thinks the other guys should be paying taxes and not them and that what they want paid for by the government is the most important thing.

As with Canada your deficit/debt is entirely in the hands of the will of the voters.

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

Changing tax policy to make 'income equality' the goal is communism for the simple reason that communist societies are the only societies that have ever practiced this utterly failed authoritarian policy.

No sane person wants income equality. What we want is a reasonable amount of inequality that still spurs people on to improving their finances but not to the point that it totally fucks over people on the bottom. And the kids of those people at the bottom. That's why it's usually presented as elimination of child poverty. I know it's easier to argue black or white, but we're talking about matters of degree here.