Are Bernie Sanders supporters willing to pay Denmark, Sweden, Norway levels of taxes and fees? (Americans, military)
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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
Sounds like excuse making.
No, simply pointing out it's hardly an apples/apples comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
Any evidence to support German drivers are better drivers than Americans as a result?
I never claimed they were now, did I? But my subjective opinion from driving in Germany is that they are, at least they know what that little stalk on the left side of the steering wheel is for and don't stay in the left lane at 10 under the limit acting as if it's their birth-right as so many American drivers do.
Do you have any idea what a minimum wage earner makes and the type of benefits they get in Scandinavia?
I've already explained why that is. And economists KNOW it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Because of our highly progressive tax system, the government is overly dependent on making sure the income gap is as wide as possible, and that they don't discourage the revenue producers too much by taxing them at rates that are too high therefore either driving them and/or their capital available for investment out of the country, or causing them to scale back on their productivity and income because there's a tipping point at which they decide they have enough for now and don't need to earn as much thereby significantly lowering their effective tax rate and dramatically reducing federal tax revenue.
I'll let this economist explain it:
Quote:
"[Economist Anatole] Kaletsky argues that over-reliance on progressive taxes creates "a perverse incentive for governments to promote income inequality. Ifthe solvency of the stateand the ability to fund basic services for the poorest people in society depends on the rich getting even richer, it is tempting for even the most progressive politicians to support widening inequalities."
For example, in the U.S., the top 1% earns 18.7% of the income, but pays 35.1% of the federal income tax revenue, roughly twice their fair share which is 4 times what the middle class pays (the middle class pays only about half of their fair share of the federal income tax compared to their share of the income). The problem with our country's progressive tax system is that it creates a perverse incentive for the federal government to enact policies that promote as wide of an income gap as possible in order to maximize tax revenue.
As long as the U.S. has a progressive tax system, the incentive remains to keep the income gap as wide as possible, and this is why: When the top 1% loses income share, the federal government loses twice that much in tax revenue. But when the top 1% gains income share, the federal government consequently gains twice that much in tax revenue. Another way to look at it is that the federal government receives 4 times more income tax revenue per dollar earned from the top 1% than they do from the middle class, so guess whose income they're going to favor and protect.
Furthermore, the countries with more income equality have regressive tax systems, mostly based on VAT, consumption, etc., instead of one's income. Pay close attention to the charts:
Think very carefully about that... It's counterintuitive, and some people get angry when this is pointed out to them, but it actually turns out to be true.
And true to form, Mr. 'tax the rich's' presidency has resulted in EXACTLY what was predicted by the liberal economist quoted above.
The government is responsive to the needs of the people. Even if they have a VAT in Europe, rich people still pay far higher tax rates than the poor in Scandinavia
Already proven false. Look at the Tax Progressivity charts:
It's funny that most of the measures for a better tax system that the article that you linked to suggest are precisely the suggestions Bernie Sanders has suggested; higher capital gains tax, higher inheritance tax and a Wall Street transactions tax.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Read the article:
Nothing could be further from the truth. Read the article:
Why not read the article you posted yourself. I am quoting:
Quote:
None of this means that the affluent should not pay more taxes. Lifting the cap of income on the Social Security payroll tax above the first $106,800 of income would bring in more revenues through the existing payroll tax.
The best way to address income inequality in America is to focus on reducing exorbitant and unproductive pre-tax incomes. We want people to get rich by inventing new products or by long-term investment in enterprises that create jobs and wealth in the U.S. But steep inheritance taxes can nip hereditary dynasties in the bud. A financial transaction tax can close off short-term speculation as a road to riches, while encouraging patient investors. Capital gains can be taxed at the same rate as other forms of income.
The guy you quote proposes these 4 tax proposals to make a better system for everyday Americans, and every one of them are core parts of the Sanders platform!
After these tax proposals have been implemented, sure a VAT or a flat payroll tax can be introduced to pay for healthcare for all instead of the middle class paying $20 000 a year or 20% "insurance tax" in private health insurance premiums for families! Much cheaper for the middle class, entrepreneurs dont have to worry about insurance anymore and cheaper for business, I'm all for it!
"The United States has by far the most progressive income, payroll, wealth and property taxes of any developed country. Scandinavian social democracies like Denmark, Sweden and Norway have quite regressive direct taxes, as do the Netherlands and Switzerland.
...UC Davis's Peter Lindert has argued in his book "Growing Public" that European social democracies were only able to develop the programs they did because they used efficient consumption taxes that didn't lower growth as much as progressive income taxes, particularly those on capital income. European countries needed tax systems that could raise a lot of money without hurting growth, and only regressive consumption taxes fit the bill.
...Prasad and Deng found that the progressivity of countries' tax codes is negatively correlated with the amount of redistribution they do. In English: The less progressive the code, the more progressive the system."
So you quote Michael Lind, an economist that you argue knows what he is talking about, and then when it comes to his proposals you are vehemently opposed to all of them. Great.
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.
