Switzerland debates money for everyone - Unconditional Basic Income (Corporate Profits, education, Illinois)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Totally false. Taxes aren't even considered in that progression.
What does progression refer to if not to taxes? The US is a paradise for wealthy and rich people...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Incomes will not equalize until taxes do. No one is going to continue to pay more while earning less.
Liberals, put your money where your mouths are. Equalize the tax burden distribution to that seen in Switzerland, etc.
Again, I think that is nonsense. Taxation, progression, etc. depend on income, not the other way round. So, if for whatever reason incomes happen to become less extreme, the government can correct its progression formula.
Unlike the US, Switzerland has a robust economy, very little poverty, a strong middle class. Thus they can afford to have a less progressive tax system, but it is not the consequence of a less progressive tax system, but of good economic and other governance.
Exactly. The whole "loopholes for the rich" meme is a liberal propaganda myth. Like I said, tax deductions and credits are PHASED OUT at higher income levels, AND the AMT applies.
That's EXACTLY why the top 5% of income earners are paying an average effective federal income tax rate of OVER 20% while everyone else is paying a rate of less than 12%.
If liberals actually had any higher level thinking skills, they would know that and not be so easily manipulated by deliberately misleading propaganda.
Taxes are not mentioned, and are not even considered in the ranking.
Quote:
Unlike the US, Switzerland has a robust economy, very little poverty, a strong middle class.
Yet another reason to equalize the U.S. tax system. Clearly, the progressive tax system exaggerates winners and losers, and makes the federal government SO dependent on the winners that they have no choice but to keep their income levels as high as possible.
The 25% decline in income tax revenue during an only 5% economic contraction clearly illustrates the government's dependency and therefore its obligation.
Taxes are not mentioned, and are not even considered in the ranking.
Yet another reason to equalize the U.S. tax system. Clearly, the progressive tax system exaggerates winners and losers, and makes the federal government SO dependent on the winners that they have no choice but to keep their income levels as high as possible.
The 25% decline in income tax revenue during an only 5% economic contraction clearly illustrates the government's dependency and therefore its obligation.
There you have your ranking after taxes, the US is still one of the worst of those OECD countries. Go the most recent data (last column) and sort with those little arrows at the top. The US is worse than Portugal even, which is known to be the European country with one of the worst if not the worst Gini coefficients
I don't agree that the US government has an interest in keeping the income situation as extreme as it is. It probably just doesn't know how to change it without half of Americans yelling socialism
Not surprising as the U.S. has THE MOST PROGRESSIVE tax system.
Make U.S. taxes MUCH less progressive, and watch incomes equalize to be more in line with the countries that have FAR more equitable tax systems.
Your links support EXACTLY what I'm saying: countries with LESS progressive tax systems have MORE equal income distributions.
Their countries DON'T depend on only the high income earners for tax revenue. Duh.
I am starting to wonder if we are talking about the same thing. Afaik, a more progressive tax system means that the tax rate increases stronger with increasing income (more towards an exponential rather than a linear curve, so to speak), right?
I am starting to wonder if we are talking about the same thing. Afaik, a more progressive tax system means that the tax rate increases stronger with increasing income (more towards an exponential rather than a linear curve, so to speak), right?
Yes. Most OECD countries do not have that type of tax system:
As such, their income distributions are more equal as their governments do not depend on only the higher income earners for tax revenue.
OK, at least we are talking about the same thing
Still, I just don't understand your logic. Those countries on those diagrams can afford a different tax progression as their economies are different from the American one to begin with.
If the US government decided to somehow reduce income tax progression, all that would happen is that the middle class and poor would have an even harder life, thus they would spend less money on products, which, because of the huge number of people, would seriously impact the economy as a whole.
What might help is reducing taxes for small and medium-sized companies (not big corporations of course) so they can keep more of their earnings and as a consequence pay higher salaries and hire more people. Thus lots of regular people would have more money and thus be able to pay higher taxes.
a $2700 a month cash out system would be a steal here
BTW what does $2700 buy there? a cup of coffee?
any no work freebie has tremendous appeal here. lol
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US is a paradise for wealthy and rich people...
