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.
Looks like the middle class here in the US can afford higher taxes more than Scandinavians.
Questionable. Those figures aren't adjusted for expenses for child care, college education, health care, private transporation (because of lack of mass transportation). Those figures from the OECD and other organizations are always questionable. The economic well-being of an average household is way to complex, that it would be possible to measure it with just a few figures. Just take the size of an average household. These OECD figures aren't adjusted to the household size. You also can't adjust those figures to the compositions of an average household. That all differs strongly from country to country. And it's also not possible to define a basket of goods for all different countries. That makes it impossible to adjust nominal GDP figures to price adjusted ones between different countries.
I think it makes more sense to look around how certain things are done in other countries. And then think about whether it makes sense to adjust the own system or not.
Questionable. Those figures aren't adjusted for expenses for child care, college education, health care, private transporation (because of lack of mass transportation).
Yes, they are. That's why I specifically quoted the OECD's following description:
Quote:
Household disposable income includes income from economic activity (wages and salaries; profits of self-employed business owners), property income (dividends, interests and rents), social benefits in cash (retirement pensions, unemployment benefits, family allowances, basic income support, etc.), and social transfers in kind (goods and services such as health care, education and housing, received either free of charge or at reduced prices).
Joe makes $25,000 and Bob makes $250,000. Each spends $500 a month on groceries subject to 10% sales tax.
Joe pays $600 a year in grocery tax (2.4% of income) compared to .24% by Bob.
Sounds like food taxes are regressive. The same applies to sales taxes for basic goods and services.
Except Bob also buys a Ferrari and pays another $20 000 in sales taxes. Bob chips in far more to the sales tax system than Joe. That money goes to the fire department so both Joe and Bob are equally protected. The alternative is a private user fee for a privatized fire department. Joe now has to pay the same rate as Bob, $10 000 per person. Previously their payments had taken into account their ability to pay because it was funded by a progressive tax system. Not anymore.
Yes, they are. That's why I specifically quoted the OECD's following description: OECD Better Life Index
lol, it's not even adjusted for income inequality. 2 Koch bros and 10 000 starvin' Marvins can cause the average to look really good on paper, but not for people living in the real world.
Except Bob also buys a Ferrari and pays another $20 000 in sales taxes. Bob chips in far more to the sales tax system than Joe. That money goes to the fire department so both Joe and Bob are equally protected. The alternative is a private user fee for a privatized fire department. Joe now has to pay the same rate as Bob, $10 000 per person. Previously their payments had taken into account their ability to pay in a progressive tax system. Not anymore.
You realize you're making an argument for a flat income tax, no?
The same could be said of both Joe and Bob paying a flat 15% federal income tax. Bob earns more, so would be paying far more in federal income tax than Joe. That money goes to the federal government so both Joe and Bob get equal access to government services and benefits.
You realize you're making an argument for a flat income tax, no?
The same could be said of both Joe and Bob paying a flat 15% federal income tax. Bob earns more, so would be paying far more in federal income tax than Joe. That money goes to the federal government so both Joe and Bob get equal access to government services and benefits.
No, I'm saying a flat tax is still far better and more progressive than the real regressive solution some advocate: privatization and user fees.
Only the cream of the crop gets to go to college for free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
... a very short work week,....
It's called "job-sharing".
It was created by government to hide the continually constant high employment rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Without comparative populations, your numbers lack context.
The populations are comparable.
If you want to put things into context, then know that the US has subsidized the defense of Norway and Denmark since 1946, and that Finland and Sweden have benefitted from NATO even if they aren't members.
No, I'm saying a flat tax is still far better and more progressive than the real regressive solution some advocate: privatization and user fees.
Not really. Take a look at private toll roads (yes, they do exist). Never use them or use them only sparingly and it costs nothing or very little. Choose to use them a lot, and it'll cost you more.
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.
