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.
Let's look at the redistribution of wealth in the form of government-provided services and benefits in relation to how progressive or regressive countries' tax systems are, shall we, Mike?
Pay close attention to what that scatter plot chart tells us... Note that the highest levels of government benefits and services are provided by countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium) in which taxes are flat (everyone pays the same tax rate) or regressive (shown as the negative values along the bottom axis, meaning a greater tax burden is placed on those with lower incomes). And note where the USA falls on the graph. The USA has the most progressive tax system and therefore is least able to fund social program "wants" like single-payer Medicare for All health care, because the tax base is too narrow and overly dependent on the top.
What you fail to understand is that taxes in different countries include different things. In your example of Denmark, everything (or almost) is included - health, pension, child care for the most part, huge paid maternity, college, graduate school, unemployment, etc. None of this is included here in the federal tax, get it? So when you compare regressivity do that: How much individual health insurance (pre-ACA) as a percentage would cost here for somebody making minimum wage - yes more than 100%. What is the equivalent percentage for somebody making millions? Should I call this a highly regressive tax, because that's essentially the end result? Day care 12-20k a year, how much as a percentage is that in the years needed, 100% for low income, still huge percentage for even upper middle class? College, what is the percentage? Now granted there would be some subsidies for very low income.
And lastly, even though on paper the federal tax here looks reasonably progressive, the end result is not because upper middle class pays higher rate than the very top. (you know like the 20% instead of 40%)
What you fail to understand is that taxes in different countries include different things. In your example of Denmark, everything (or almost) is included - health, pension, child care for the most part, huge paid maternity, college, graduate school, unemployment, etc. None of this is included here in the federal tax, get it? So when you compare regressivity do that: How much individual health insurance (pre-ACA) as a percentage would cost here for somebody making minimum wage - yes more than 100%. What is the equivalent percentage for somebody making millions? Should I call this a highly regressive tax, because that's essentially the end result? Day care 12-20k a year, how much as a percentage is that in the years needed, 100% for low income, still huge percentage for even upper middle class? College, what is the percentage? Now granted there would be some subsidies for very low income.
And lastly, even though on paper the federal tax here looks reasonably progressive, the end result is not because upper middle class pays higher rate than the very top. (you know like the 20% instead of 40%)
How do you NOT understand that the scatter plot is exactly all about comparing government benefits received compared to the progressivity/regressivity level of tax systems? If you want all those government benefits, we need to tax regressively, like Denmark. Their middle class pays a 45% income tax rate plus a 25% VAT.
This is why we never get anywhere in the US. Too many ill-informed people. Too many people who can't read and understand a simple chart.
And lastly, even though on paper the federal tax here looks reasonably progressive, the end result is not because upper middle class pays higher rate than the very top. (you know like the 20% instead of 40%)
Honestly, where do you all get that crap? Try not to be so misinformed.
Two liberal think tanks analyzed US local, state, and federal tax rates and came up with the following, to their surprise...
Here's the average effective TOTAL (local, state, and federal) tax rate, by income group.
Quote:
Data sources for chart: Tax Policy Center and Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
This is why we never get anywhere on anything in the US. Too many ill-informed people. /SMH
Repeating "Too many ill informed people" twice in separate posts would lead one to conclude you think the bulk of Americans are too stupid to know what's in their best interests............or have I got that wrong?
Repeating "Too many ill informed people" twice in separate posts would lead one to conclude you think the bulk of Americans are too stupid to know what's in their best interests............or have I got that wrong?
Have you read their posts in this thread?
How can anyone in this day and age of easily available factual info think the top 1%-ers in the US don't pay, by far, the highest tax rate? Or don't know that European and Scandinavian countries' governments can afford to provide the services/benefits they do because their tax systems are flat or regressive?
Instead, they buy into deliberately deceptive and manipulative propaganda. And what does the fact that so many Americans are so easily misled say about our country's public school system, the results of which lags other industrialized nations?
There are a couple of things you're not taking into consideration. Some doctors won't take new Medicare patients because Medicare payments for billed services are inadequate (hence, Medicare's lower costs). And some medical practices are charging Medicare patients a 'concierge fee' of $1,000/year or more just to have access to make an appointment with a doctor. The 'concierge fee' is charged to make up for Medicare's inadequate payments for services rendered, and the cost of the 'concierge fee' is not covered by Medicare. That's an out of pocket expense.
I live in Washington DC and had no problem transitioning from a standard private insurance program to Medicare. All my doctors accepted the coverage. It is also true that some doctors don't accept Medicare, but then they don't accept some private insurance either.
I'm no expert, but I believe it would be illegal for a medical practice to charge the additional fee you reference. They have to conform to Medicare billing practices.
How can anyone in this day and age of easily available factual info think the top 1%-ers in the US don't pay, by far, the highest tax rate? Or don't know that European and Scandinavian countries' governments can afford to provide the services/benefits they do because their tax systems are flat or regressive?
Instead, they buy into deliberately deceptive and manipulative propaganda. And what does the fact that so many Americans are so easily misled say about our country's public school system, the results of which lags other industrialized nations?
The reason the highest 1% of earners don't pay the highest tax rate is that most of their income is derived from investment income and that is taxed at a lower rate than employment income. You can find that out by reviewing the IRS website if you wish.
The reason the highest 1% of earners don't pay the highest tax rate is that most of their income is derived from investment income and that is taxed at a lower rate than employment income. You can find that out by reviewing the IRS website if you wish.
I'm glad that so many people seem ignorant of this fact, otherwise we would be hearing how we need to literally confiscate their wealth instead of "just" trying to tax their income to death.
How do you NOT understand that the scatter plot is exactly all about comparing government benefits received compared to the progressivity/regressivity level of tax systems? If you want all those government benefits, we need to tax regressively, like Denmark. Their middle class pays a 45% income tax rate plus a 25% VAT.
This is why we never get anywhere in the US. Too many ill-informed people. Too many people who can't read and understand a simple chart.
I do not know if too many , but certainly there are some on this forum, lol.
So let me spell it out for you again (probably for the last time, it is tiring):
So let's do middle class:
200k married household, 2 kids
After say standard deduction, exemptions, 401k: effective federal tax about 13-14% (of the total 200k). Wow very low, right?
Let's continue, FICA taxes - about 8%. And then we have to come back to those tax-deducted 15% for 401k. So we've got 13+8+15=36%. Hmmm, this is growing.
Now, the two kids - day care 20-30k. So that's like 10-15% effective tax. Obviously day care is not for life, but then comes the college...
Now we are at 46-51%. Then comes the insurance premiums, so I don't know, best case employer subsidized, say 6k a year, wow that's another 3% on the total income. Property tax? Well, take Texas 2-3% of the value, value 2 times the income, so that's another effective 4-6% on the gross 200k
Now add to the income above a couple of zeros and calculate the effective percentages.
So that's what is called regressive.
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.
