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.
Did we have NHC and the other European-style social programs with those tax rates? No. And we know why: Inadequate tax revenue. Read the research.
It was an overall poorer society than today. Europe didnt have the same programs back then either. But we did have much higher taxes on the rich (more progressive tax system), much stronger unions and much more equal distribution of income. Those three factors are key.
It was an overall poorer society than today. Europe didnt have the same programs back then either. But we did have much higher taxes on the rich (more progressive tax system), much stronger unions and much more equal distribution of income. Those three factors are key.
So... you're not interested in actually adequately funding NHC and other European-style social programs. Interesting...
Again, that highest tax rate applies to the middle class and up in Scandinavia instead of only the top 1%-2%, as in the US. That's what makes it much more regressive. You, too, seem to be having a hard time understanding the concept and the math.
I'm not sure if you could consider the aggregate taxation level as "regressive." It's still progressive, this is just semantics.
Again, that highest tax rate applies to the middle class and up in Scandinavia instead of only the top 1%-2%, as in the US. That's what makes it much more regressive. You, too, seem to be having a hard time understanding the concept and the math.
But MUCH flatter, and therein lies the regressivity:
Convert that highest tax rate from Euros to US$ (I've done that, in blue), and notice the flatter tax rates, and the lower income at which the highest tax rate applies in Finland. The US highest federal income tax rate (doesn't include state income tax) doesn't apply until an income of $418,400.
It seems you do not understand what progressive rate means.
Quote:
Would you agree to drop the highest tax bracket cut-off in the US to apply to incomes of $81,017.80 and above, as in Finland?
Would you? I'd end up paying well over 50% when the rest of the taxes are added on.
For comparison; a well heeled person making $330 000 a year in Ohio pays 34% in payroll, state and federal income taxes. The Swede at that high income level pays over 20 percentage points more in payroll, state and federal income taxes.
Seems like we have PLENTY of room to increase taxes on the well off.
Someone making $60 000 pays 30.5% in payroll, state and federal income tax.
Someone making $330 000 pays 54.8% in payroll, state and federal income tax.
Is this a highly regressive income tax system?
In Sweden (and Finland, as another poster noted), the middle class is in the highest national income tax bracket. In the US, only the top 1%-2% are in the highest federal income tax bracket.
Since NHC and other federal social programs are funded via federal taxes, would you support dropping the highest US income tax bracket rate to apply to the middle class, Mike?
It seems you do not understand what progressive rate means.
The concept is progressive taxation, not rates. For example, although a flat VAT tax rate of 20% in and of itself is not regressive, the effect of that 20% VAT tax rate IS regressive as lower income earners pay more of a percentage of their income in VAT than higher earners.
Do you understand?
Quote:
Would you? I'd end up paying well over 50% when the rest of the taxes are added on.
In Sweden (and Finland, as another poster noted), the middle class is in the highest national income tax bracket. In the US, only the top 1%-2% are in the highest federal income tax bracket.
Since NHC and other federal social programs are funded via federal taxes, would you support dropping the highest US income tax bracket rate to apply to the middle class, Mike?
I dont have a problem with a 30% effective tax rates on someone making $60 000 and a 55% effective tax rates on someone making $330 000, no. Whats so bad about that? Seems more than progressive enough to me. And most importantly, the rich actually pays substantially more than in America.
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.
