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.
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.
The $81K and up earning people who you call 'middle' pay over 50% tax in those countries. Not so in US.
The $81K and up earning people who you call 'middle' pay over 50% tax in those countries. Not so in US.
That's exactly the point. Read the research. Only regressive taxation is capable of generating enough revenue to fund NHC and other European-style social programs.
How did you vote in the poll? "Yes" to fund NHC, etc.?
That's exactly the point. Read the research. Only regressive taxation is capable of generating enough revenue to fund NHC and other European-style social programs.
How did you vote in the poll? "Yes" to fund NHC, etc.?
I tried to explain it, but it is not sinking in. When the lower income people pay a lower tax rate. and the higher earners pay a higher rate, it is called progressive, not regressive. Just because they draw the line at a different income level than us, does not mean it is regressive. It is still progressive.
I did know answer the poll, because I knew you were asking a question you do not understand.
I tried to explain it, but it is not sinking in. When the lower income people pay a lower tax rate. and the higher earners pay a higher rate, it is called progressive, not regressive. Just because they draw the line at a different income level than us, does not mean it is regressive. It is still progressive.
I did know answer the poll, because I knew you were asking a question you do not understand.
You are missing the point. Adopting a European style VAT tax to pay for healthcare would make overall federal taxation in this country more regressive. The poll question was pretty clear. It has nothing to do with what Americans or Europeans currently pay in income tax. It would put a heavy tax burden on low income individuals who are likely to receive free medical care already and not get any benefit from a VAT.
I tried to explain it, but it is not sinking in. When the lower income people pay a lower tax rate. and the higher earners pay a higher rate, it is called progressive, not regressive.
Read an explanation of why a flat VAT tax rate (in which everyone is taxed at the same rate) is actually regressive:
And which is a more progressive income tax system? Taxing the middle class and above at the highest income tax bracket rate? Or taxing only the top 1%-2% at the highest income tax bracket rate? The latter, of course.
Would you agree to applying that in the US to get NHC, etc.?
Again, you are ignoring earned income tax credits and and the EFFECTIVE tax rate is much lower than that. I am fine with 30% effective tax rates for someone making $60 000 a year and 55% for those making $330 000 a year.
You also must take into consideration that these countries have strong unions so naturally, that's where the revenue is. Not so in America, ever since unions were demolished and Reaganomics implemented with lower taxes on the rich, inequality has skyrocketed.
You are missing the point. Adopting a European style VAT tax to pay for healthcare would make overall federal taxation in this country more regressive. The poll question was pretty clear. It has nothing to do with what Americans or Europeans currently pay in income tax. It would put a heavy tax burden on low income individuals who are likely to receive free medical care already and not get any benefit from a VAT.
No country pays national health care through a VAT. The OP is making up stuff as he goes along.
Americans already pay more in health care taxes than all of these countries. With no VAT.
I am not really against a VAT, but it must be combined with stronger unions and higher minimum wages so inequality can be lowered and more of the national income brought back to the 99%. Simply taxing like Alabama does, with low wages, no benefits and high sales taxes wont work.
Again, you are ignoring earned income tax credits and and the EFFECTIVE tax rate is much lower than that. I am fine with 30% effective tax rates for someone making $60 000 a year and 55% for those making $330 000 a year.
It's a simple question, Mike. Would you agree to put the US middle class in the highest income tax bracket, as they are in Sweden, etc., PLUS add a 20%-25% VAT tax on top of that to fund European-style NHC and other European-style social programs? Yes or no?
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.
