US Taxes Second Lowest in Developed World

[RodISHI]

I'm just trying to illuminate the issue because I believe there is a lot of misinformation around.

I think a lower tax rate on business is better than a high tax rate. However, we have to have both an intellectually honest and accurate understanding of the issues to make an informed decision.

Does a corporation actually pay taxes before paying dividends to share holders?

 

[manu1959]

I'm just trying to illuminate the issue because I believe there is a lot of misinformation around.

I think a lower tax rate on business is better than a high tax rate. However, we have to have both an intellectually honest and accurate understanding of the issues to make an informed decision.

Does a corporation actually pay taxes before paying dividends to share holders?

if the corporation does not disburse all the profits to the shareholders it will.....

 

[RodISHI]

I'm just trying to illuminate the issue because I believe there is a lot of misinformation around.

I think a lower tax rate on business is better than a high tax rate. However, we have to have both an intellectually honest and accurate understanding of the issues to make an informed decision.

Does a corporation actually pay taxes before paying dividends to share holders?

if the corporation does not disburse all the profits to the shareholders it will.....

So basically by using writeoffs, the standard property deductions, ect.. and paying out dividends a corporation can spend as much as it may bring in profits/sales depending on the accounting and such.. Thus bringing their tax liability down to zilch.

The tax liability then transfers to the individuals or other corporations recieving the dividends, rents etc...

If one were to make a comparison with any other country one would have to actually factor in any tax deductions or breaks in before one could reach an accurate comparison on tax rates.

 

[Agnapostate]

Ah. The original link was blocked at the office.

It makes the European countries look like socialist countries. Oh, I forgot. They are.

No, they aren't. Even the social democracies of Scandinavia are fundamentally based around the maintenance of capitalism. The fact that Rhine capitalism performs better than Anglo-Saxon capitalism is ultimately a testament to the fact that it's actually a greater for of socialism than more rightist forms are, considering its role in preventing economic collapse, placating worker militancy, etc.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What are the unemployment rates in those socialist countries? she wondered!

Even with our current problems, more than us and their annual growth is next to nothing.

The reason they pay so much is cause they are a Liberals wet dream, social programs that eat every dime raised.

 

[Agnapostate]

Even with our current problems, more than us and their annual growth is next to nothing.

If this is intended to serve as a critical remark about social democracy and related forms of Rhine capitalism, it's not an especially thorough one. Existing empirical data contradicts your assertion rather effectively. For instance, we could refer to Headey et al.'s Is There a Trade-Off Between Economic Efficiency and a Generous Welfare State? A Comparison of Best Cases of `The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’. Consider the abstract:

A crucial debate in policy-making as well as academic circles is whether there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and the size/generosity of the welfare state. One way to contribute to this debate is to compare the performance of best cases of different types of state. Arguably, in the decade 1985-94, the US, West Germany and the Netherlands were best cases - best economic performers - in what G. Esping-Andersen calls the three worlds of welfare capitalism. The US is a liberal welfare-capitalist state, West Germany a corporatist state, and the Netherlands is social democratic in its tax-transfer system, although not its labor market policies. These three countries had rates of economic growth per capita as high or higher than other rich countries of their type, and the lowest rates of unemployment. At a normative or ideological level the three types of state have the same goals but prioritise them differently. The liberal state prioritises economic growth and efficiency, avoids work disincentives, and targets welfare benefits only to those in greatest need. The corporatist state aims to give priority to social stability, especially household income stability, and social integration. The social democratic welfare state claims high priority for minimising poverty, inequality and unemployment. Using ten years of panel data for each country, we assess indicators of their short (one year), medium (five year) and longer term (ten year) performance in achieving economic and welfare goals. Overall, in this time period, the Netherlands achieved the best performance on the welfare goals to which it gave priority, and equalled the other two states on most of the goals to which they gave priority. This result supports the view that there is no necessary trade-off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state.

Do you have any studies or similar empirical analyses available to support your own claims? An editorial from the Heritage Foundation obviously won't suffice.

The reason they pay so much is cause they are a Liberals wet dream, social programs that eat every dime raised.

There are several significant distinctions between liberal democratic capitalism and social democratic capitalism. Regardless, neither is "socialist" in nature. Claiming that they are is merely an abuse of political economy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what if US taxes are low on your list?

The very fact that the US became the country that it has without the high tax levels of those European countries so often considered lately to be the standard to which the US should follow is proof that what we were doing worked. But the more we try to be like Denmark, the less it will work.

As stated above, low taxation is not our problem, excessive spending is. The government already collects enough tax to fulfill its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. It's the expansion of government power that is causing our problems. Expansion to more and more intrusive government regulation and legislation that comes with the growing power is what costs more and is responsible for ever increasing tax rates.

It comes down to a philosophical choice, really.

What's more important; Equal opportunity or equal results? The two are antithetical.

 

[Neser Boha]

I think the reason why people are not rioting in the streets and holding Tea Parties to lower taxes and spending and whatnot in Europe (esp. nordic countries such as Sweden) is because they GET SOMETHING FOR THAT MONEY - like high-quality education, universal healthcare, childcare, etc. and so on... The problem is when you pay out of your ass and then you pay even more for the things listed above.... Then there is ideology and what you consider to be 'human rights'... countries like Sweden believe that healthcare and education are also among your basic rights.

 

[Neser Boha]

I think the reason why people are not rioting in the streets and holding Tea Parties to lower taxes and spending and whatnot in Europe (esp. nordic countries such as Sweden) is because they GET SOMETHING FOR THAT MONEY - like high-quality education, universal healthcare, childcare, etc. and so on... The problem is when you pay out of your ass and then you pay even more for the things listed above.... Then there is ideology and what you consider to be 'human rights'... countries like Sweden believe that healthcare and education are also among your basic rights.

To add to that... I also think that another major difference between countries such as the USA and Sweden is the way the majority of the population views the government and its role. In Sweden, government is mostly seen as the agent of the people - through the government, the people get what they need. They seem to trust their government generally more. In the US, however, the government is seen as some sort of separate (evil) entity that needs to be resisted whenever necessary and always kept in check.

What d'y'all think?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think the reason why people are not rioting in the streets and holding Tea Parties to lower taxes and spending and whatnot in Europe (esp. nordic countries such as Sweden) is because they GET SOMETHING FOR THAT MONEY - like high-quality education, universal healthcare, childcare, etc. and so on... The problem is when you pay out of your ass and then you pay even more for the things listed above.... Then there is ideology and what you consider to be 'human rights'... countries like Sweden believe that healthcare and education are also among your basic rights.

To add to that... I also think that another major difference between countries such as the USA and Sweden is the way the majority of the population views the government and its role. In Sweden, government is mostly seen as the agent of the people - through the government, the people get what they need. They seem to trust their government generally more. In the US, however, the government is seen as some sort of separate (evil) entity that needs to be resisted whenever necessary and always kept in check.

What d'y'all think?

I think you're right. That attitude goes directly to the genesis of the US. the philosophy of the founding fathers was the individual, not the state was the priority. Government is prone to corruption and the more powerful government becomes the more that propensity increases.

I'll admit that a philosophy based on individual liberties can be considered by some to be Darwinist but considering the alternative, I would rather see individuals be responsible for their lives and have to live or die by their choices than to have the state tell me I have to pay for the consequences of another's poor decisions.

I disagree that basic civil rights include health care and education but rather include economic liberty that those in high tax, socialist leaning countries do not have. With economic freedom comes the means for individuals to procure what they need and want including health care and education without the State deciding what those needs and wants are and what they should cost.

 

[Care4all]

I think the reason why people are not rioting in the streets and holding Tea Parties to lower taxes and spending and whatnot in Europe (esp. nordic countries such as Sweden) is because they GET SOMETHING FOR THAT MONEY - like high-quality education, universal healthcare, childcare, etc. and so on... The problem is when you pay out of your ass and then you pay even more for the things listed above.... Then there is ideology and what you consider to be 'human rights'... countries like Sweden believe that healthcare and education are also among your basic rights.

To add to that... I also think that another major difference between countries such as the USA and Sweden is the way the majority of the population views the government and its role. In Sweden, government is mostly seen as the agent of the people - through the government, the people get what they need. They seem to trust their government generally more. In the US, however, the government is seen as some sort of separate (evil) entity that needs to be resisted whenever necessary and always kept in check.

What d'y'all think?

I think you're right. That attitude goes directly to the genesis of the US. the philosophy of the founding fathers was the individual, not the state was the priority. Government is prone to corruption and the more powerful government becomes the more that propensity increases.

I'll admit that a philosophy based on individual liberties can be considered by some to be Darwinist but considering the alternative, I would rather see individuals be responsible for their lives and have to live or die by their choices than to have the state tell me I have to pay for the consequences of another's poor decisions.

I disagree that basic civil rights include health care and education but rather include economic liberty that those in high tax, socialist leaning countries do not have. With economic freedom comes the means for individuals to procure what they need and want including health care and education without the State deciding what those needs and wants are and what they should cost.

I agree with this last statement.

But how come, the USA with the smallest government (compared to all of these other nations that provide the healthcare and higher education costs for all their citizens) hasn't made us prosperous enough for the 45 million Americans that do not or can not afford, health care coverage?

Obviously it is NOT lower tax rates than the rest of the world that makes the economy prosperous enought for everyone to afford their own healthcare and their own higher educational costs for their children....so what is it? What is making your last comment, not come in to fruition for everyone, here in the usa?

Care

 

[WorldAHope]

Wondering why US are less competitive and why jobs are leaving elsewhere?

Here is the chart that shows corporate taxes.

That chart shows the tax RATES, but the amount that US corporations ACTUALLY pay is far below that.
The loopholes and exenptions and tax credits allowed in the dellberately convoluted US corporate tax code results in less then 50% of all US corporations paying ANY Federal income tax. I know. My corporation is one of those. Sorry. I'm just doing what my tax accountant advises.

Also - offshore and out of country tax havens are a particularly American phenomona.
Extra legal and secretive tax havens are well protected by certain nations' laws, and the US governments lose more $100 billion in income tax revenue each year.

 

[WorldAHope]

So what if US taxes are low on your list?

The very fact that the US became the country that it has without the high tax levels of those European countries so often considered lately to be the standard to which the US should follow is proof that what we were doing worked. But the more we try to be like Denmark, the less it will work.

As stated above, low taxation is not our problem, excessive spending is. The government already collects enough tax to fulfill its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. It's the expansion of government power that is causing our problems. Expansion to more and more intrusive government regulation and legislation that comes with the growing power is what costs more and is responsible for ever increasing tax rates.

It comes down to a philosophical choice, really.

What's more important; Equal opportunity or equal results? The two are antithetical.

Which spending, which government services should be cut ?
Military spending and Interest on the debt are the two largest items in the Federal budget.
How can we possible pay down our government debt without raising taxes AND reducing spending
in the largest, most wasteful budgetary sectors ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

To add to that... I also think that another major difference between countries such as the USA and Sweden is the way the majority of the population views the government and its role. In Sweden, government is mostly seen as the agent of the people - through the government, the people get what they need. They seem to trust their government generally more. In the US, however, the government is seen as some sort of separate (evil) entity that needs to be resisted whenever necessary and always kept in check.

What d'y'all think?

I think you're right. That attitude goes directly to the genesis of the US. the philosophy of the founding fathers was the individual, not the state was the priority. Government is prone to corruption and the more powerful government becomes the more that propensity increases.

I'll admit that a philosophy based on individual liberties can be considered by some to be Darwinist but considering the alternative, I would rather see individuals be responsible for their lives and have to live or die by their choices than to have the state tell me I have to pay for the consequences of another's poor decisions.

I disagree that basic civil rights include health care and education but rather include economic liberty that those in high tax, socialist leaning countries do not have. With economic freedom comes the means for individuals to procure what they need and want including health care and education without the State deciding what those needs and wants are and what they should cost.

I agree with this last statement.

But how come, the USA with the smallest government (compared to all of these other nations that provide the healthcare and higher education costs for all their citizens) hasn't made us prosperous enough for the 45 million Americans that do not or can not afford, health care coverage?

It is not, nor should it be the government's responsibility to make one prosperous. Prosperity is the responsibility of the individual. If 85% of Americans have health insurance and the government is not involved, why is that considered a bad thing. 85% of people have obviously chosen to pursue lives that enable them to afford some kind of heath insurance the 15% who do not choose to do so are living with their choices.

Obviously it is NOT lower tax rates than the rest of the world that makes the economy prosperous enought for everyone to afford their own healthcare and their own higher educational costs for their children....so what is it? What is making your last comment, not come in to fruition for everyone, here in the usa?

Care

Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal results.

 

[WorldAHope]

I think the reason why people are not rioting in the streets and holding Tea Parties to lower taxes and spending and whatnot in Europe (esp. nordic countries such as Sweden) is because they GET SOMETHING FOR THAT MONEY - like high-quality education, universal healthcare, childcare, etc. and so on... The problem is when you pay out of your ass and then you pay even more for the things listed above.... Then there is ideology and what you consider to be 'human rights'... countries like Sweden believe that healthcare and education are also among your basic rights.

To add to that... I also think that another major difference between countries such as the USA and Sweden is the way the majority of the population views the government and its role. In Sweden, government is mostly seen as the agent of the people - through the government, the people get what they need. They seem to trust their government generally more. In the US, however, the government is seen as some sort of separate (evil) entity that needs to be resisted whenever necessary and always kept in check.

What d'y'all think?

I think you're right. That attitude goes directly to the genesis of the US. the philosophy of the founding fathers was the individual, not the state was the priority. Government is prone to corruption and the more powerful government becomes the more that propensity increases.

I'll admit that a philosophy based on individual liberties can be considered by some to be Darwinist but considering the alternative, I would rather see individuals be responsible for their lives and have to live or die by their choices than to have the state tell me I have to pay for the consequences of another's poor decisions.

I disagree that basic civil rights include health care and education but rather include economic liberty that those in high tax, socialist leaning countries do not have. With economic freedom comes the means for individuals to procure what they need and want including health care and education without the State deciding what those needs and wants are and what they should cost.

Regarding healthcare costs: fully 1/3 of employer's personnel expenses are healthcare related.
More, if retirement expenses are included.
If adotping a national healthcare system can provide healthcare coverage for those millions of citizens who do not have it, while also relieving American employers of some or all of their healthcare expenses,
we would get better healthcare coverage and allow US corporations to be more competitive, and more profitable.
American employers are carrying a 200 pound rock in their knapsack while competing against foreign corporations whose governments bear healthcare burdens.
National healthcare coverage is not a matter of ideology, it is sound business.

 

[editec]

The USA has the second lowest taxes in the industrialized world and we STILL not getting our money's worth.

How sad is THAT?

 

[Care4all]

I think you're right. That attitude goes directly to the genesis of the US. the philosophy of the founding fathers was the individual, not the state was the priority. Government is prone to corruption and the more powerful government becomes the more that propensity increases.

I'll admit that a philosophy based on individual liberties can be considered by some to be Darwinist but considering the alternative, I would rather see individuals be responsible for their lives and have to live or die by their choices than to have the state tell me I have to pay for the consequences of another's poor decisions.

I disagree that basic civil rights include health care and education but rather include economic liberty that those in high tax, socialist leaning countries do not have. With economic freedom comes the means for individuals to procure what they need and want including health care and education without the State deciding what those needs and wants are and what they should cost.

It is not, nor should it be the government's responsibility to make one prosperous. Prosperity is the responsibility of the individual. If 85% of Americans have health insurance and the government is not involved, why is that considered a bad thing. 85% of people have obviously chosen to pursue lives that enable them to afford some kind of heath insurance the 15% who do not choose to do so are living with their choices.

Obviously it is NOT lower tax rates than the rest of the world that makes the economy prosperous enought for everyone to afford their own healthcare and their own higher educational costs for their children....so what is it? What is making your last comment, not come in to fruition for everyone, here in the usa?

Care

Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal results.

Someone's gotta wait on your table or mow your business's lawn, or pick the fruit and vegies you eat or ring the register when you buy something, no? Or are you picturing some kind of society that doesn't have these kind of menial jobs that do not provide health care coverage opportunities?

Or are you fine with 45 million jobs in America not having affordable healthcare coverage, as long as you can afford it?

Providing for the general welfare of its citizens is the duty of our government...this does not necessarily mean the government has to pay for it, but providing the business atmosphere for more people being covered by their employers should be part of the big picture....imo. And I don't know what this entails....whether it be lower taxes on these businesses so they have the money to provide healthcare for their employees or some sort of incentive of some kind, or what?

I don't think our health care system is sustainable by business as it stands with double digit increases each and every year the past 10 years...more and more working people will not be offered coverage by their employers....something is wrong with the healthcare system we have....and this could and should be addressed....again, imo.

care

 

[Iriemon]

Does a corporation actually pay taxes before paying dividends to share holders?

if the corporation does not disburse all the profits to the shareholders it will.....

So basically by using writeoffs, the standard property deductions, ect.. and paying out dividends a corporation can spend as much as it may bring in profits/sales depending on the accounting and such.. Thus bringing their tax liability down to zilch.

The tax liability then transfers to the individuals or other corporations recieving the dividends, rents etc...

If one were to make a comparison with any other country one would have to actually factor in any tax deductions or breaks in before one could reach an accurate comparison on tax rates.

I'm pretty sure taxes are taken before dividends. Taxes are based on profit, and dividends are a distribution of profit to the shers. If taxes were levied after distributions, there would be little if anything to tax.

 

[Iriemon]

Wondering why US are less competitive and why jobs are leaving elsewhere?

Here is the chart that shows corporate taxes.

You are absolutely correct. It makes little sense to tax corporations a lot and individuals a little. That to at least some degree creates a hidden sales tax paid by consumers, while minimizing the tax on the wealthy, not to mention the cost associated with corporate taxation and the fact it does make our companies somewhat less competitive.

Eliminate or greatly reduce corporate taxes, and jack up individual income taxes (including dividend and cap gain taxes) instead.

 

[Terral]

Hi Toro:

This data comes from the OECD, specifically this spreadsheet.

Only Slovakia has a lower tax take relative to GDP than the United States.

I believe that Toro's point is that Americans look really stupid for having 'tea party' whining sessions, when the USA rates so far down the taxation list. In that case, miracles do happen; because Toro and I finally agree on something. :0) The teabag fiasco amounts to effort thrown after complete foolishness, because the real problem has more to do with uncontrolled 'spending' and the illegal FED printing up trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars that We The People simply do not possess. The FED has found a way to place private banker debt onto the growing national debt, which means our children and their children and their children will be stuck holding the bill; IF the entire U.S. Economic System does not collapse (which it will).

The big fat 800-pound gorilla in this room is the fact that the people manipulating Senor Obama's strings (like they did Senor Bushie) are destroying the U.S./Global Economy very much on purpose, while lying to your face on the television every day and every night under the guise of creating economic 'stimulus.' These same inside-job bad guys stoled over 3 Trillion Dollars during the 9/11 attacks (story) , but they soon realized that the American people are idiots 'and' they can rob you of 13 Trillion dollars without all missiles and fake Cover Stories. After all, Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES (pic and pic) will believe just about anything . . .

GL,

Terral