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.
This has actually been studied by many economists. The only way the large amount of tax revenue needed to fund social programs for all while harming the economy the least is to flatten every other kind of tax (income tax, etc.) and implement a national VAT tax:
Quote:
"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.
...The disparity is even starker when you bring sales taxes into the mix, as VATs are an extremely important source of revenue for most European countries as well as Australia and Canada
...This isn't an accident. 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.
...[Researchers] 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 [tax] code, the more progressive the system."
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.
Yes but I think your post fails to take into account that the rich in other countries do pay MORE taxes on incomes above a certain guideline. I also believe the rich in other countries pay greater inheritance taxes and taxes on things like capital gains.
Yes but I think your post fails to take into account that the rich in other countries do pay MORE taxes on incomes above a certain guideline.
That's all accounted for.
"The United States has by far the most progressive income, payroll, wealth and property taxes of any developed country."
The result is still highly regressive taxation, particularly in the countries clustered on the left side of the scatter plot graph (the negative value range along the horizontal axis).
Which country on that chart spends the most on Military?
The US, because we pay to defend European countries. Even with that financial boost, European countries still must tax highly regressively to adequately fund their social programs without stalling their economies.
Yes but I think your post fails to take into account that the rich in other countries do pay MORE taxes on incomes above a certain guideline. I also believe the rich in other countries pay greater inheritance taxes and taxes on things like capital gains.
Its word games. All European countries have progressive income taxation systems.
Id absolutely be for a 50/50 payroll tax to replace private health insurance with universal for the employed. The unemployed/poor (sort of) are already covered by medicaid and elderly by medicare. Note I mean WITH copays and deductibles. Something along the lines of pay dollars 1 to 200 (checkup and or the flu) and dollars 2700 and above. The gap between 201 and 2700 is the problem of the person who is free to get gap insurance on the private market or not. Double the number for families. Think of it as insurance against very high bills. Needing an operation is going to cost. It simply wont ruin financially.
At the same time, efforts to curb the cost side need to be taken. Medical/ doctors/ pharma do everything in their power to kill any resemblance to a normal market plus the simple fact that an emergency precludes shopping. Balance billing, out of network docs working in in network hospitals, hedge fund managers buying exclusive rights to drugs, big pharma playing a patent game... You can shop all day for a car. College... I already told my kids they are doing the first 2 years at the county college and they will have to get jobs. Im lucky that NJ is pretty active in making sure that the first two years will transfer to a 4 year college.
Note I do not endorse free college tho I would benefit as my kids are tweens and teens.
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.
