US Taxes Second Lowest in Developed World

[Toro]

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?

Yes. Dividends are an after-tax expense.

 

[Toro]

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.

Absolutely.

The point wasn't to say that American taxes were too low. Rather, it was to compare our taxes paid relative to other countries so we can understand the context when we say that taxes are "too high" compared to other countries.

Whether or not taxes are "too high" relative to what Americans want is a completely separate issue.

 

[Iriemon]

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.

Absolutely.

The point wasn't to say that American taxes were too low. Rather, it was to compare our taxes paid relative to other countries so we can understand the context when we say that taxes are "too high" compared to other countries.

Whether or not taxes are "too high" relative to what Americans want is a completely separate issue.

Even comparing it what Americans have paid in the past gives context - top tax rates were up to 91% in the '50s.

But today we have a big part the nation going apoplyctic about 40%. In another thread most conservatives are saying they'd rather see the country go bankrupt than pay more taxes.

Kind of makes you wonder.

 

[xsited1]

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.

Yes, they are. These countries have very small homogeneous populations. As long as you can get most of the people to march in lock-step with one another, you're fine. The moment someone wants to achieve more than others and actually keep some of their wealth, you've got problems. As we've seen, these people usually move to freer countries. As expected, the productivity of these countries cannot compete with the United States.

 

[Toro]

Even comparing it what Americans have paid in the past gives context - top tax rates were up to 91% in the '50s.

But today we have a big part the nation going apoplyctic about 40%. In another thread most conservatives are saying they'd rather see the country go bankrupt than pay more taxes.

Kind of makes you wonder.

Its pretty ignorant but fairly representative of a group that thinks you can balance the budget by cutting taxes.

An American default would be enormously costly - far, far more than raising taxes 5%.

 

[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.

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.

Who will pay for health care then? You seem to think that the government can run health care more efficiently and less expensively than the private sector. I have yet to see the government do anything better or less expensively than what the private sector does. Taxes will have to be raised (yet again)

There will be no net savings

Do you really want the government rationing your health care?

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey - Bloomberg.com

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.



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?

This is such a non-argument. The guy who mows my lawn (if I had a guy because I do it) would be in business for himself or would work for someone else. If he was in business for himself, his health insurance would be his responsibility and it would be his choice to buy insurance or not. If his employee mowed my lawn, he has the choice not to work for a guy who doesn't provide health insurance or he can work more hours and buy his own.

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

Yes I am fine with it. now you may be being a little disingenuous here. You stated earlier that 45 million people didn't have health insurance. Do you have statistics proving that those 45 million people are working full time at a job or are a large number of those people drug addicts and homeless people or other people who do not work?

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?

85% of people are already covered I don't see the big deal here.

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

I basically agree with this last statement. but have you considered how much of those rising costs are due to government interference in the health care industry?

 

[editec]

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.

Absolutely.

The point wasn't to say that American taxes were too low. Rather, it was to compare our taxes paid relative to other countries so we can understand the context when we say that taxes are "too high" compared to other countries.

Whether or not taxes are "too high" relative to what Americans want is a completely separate issue.

Even comparing it what Americans have paid in the past gives context - top tax rates were up to 91% in the '50s.

But today we have a big part the nation going apoplyctic about 40%. In another thread most conservatives are saying they'd rather see the country go bankrupt than pay more taxes.

Kind of makes you wonder.

Doesn't make me wonder.

One of the things that is necessary for civil society is for enough people to sign onto the idea that one wants to live in a civil society.

As you can plainly tell, a whole lot of American don't really want a civil society.

Oh they think what they want is civil, but if they ever get all the so-called freedoms they think they want, they're going to discover that civil society is not that social darwinist concept they think it is.

If these people really got all they wanted we would all constantly have to walk around armed and most of us would have had to use those guns too, because things would become THAT BAD.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Absolutely.

The point wasn't to say that American taxes were too low. Rather, it was to compare our taxes paid relative to other countries so we can understand the context when we say that taxes are "too high" compared to other countries.

Whether or not taxes are "too high" relative to what Americans want is a completely separate issue.

Even comparing it what Americans have paid in the past gives context - top tax rates were up to 91% in the '50s.

But today we have a big part the nation going apoplyctic about 40%. In another thread most conservatives are saying they'd rather see the country go bankrupt than pay more taxes.

Kind of makes you wonder.

Doesn't make me wonder.

One of the things that is necessary for civil society is for enough people to sign onto the idea that one wants to live in a civil society.

As you can plainly tell, a whole lot of American don't really want a civil society.

Oh they think what they want is civil, but if they ever get all the so-called freedoms they think they want, they're going to discover that civil society is not that social darwinist concept they think it is.

If these people really got all they wanted we would all constantly have to walk around armed and most of us would have had to use those guns too, because things would become THAT BAD.

Why is it so hard to base a political philosophy on the simple premise that if people were allowed to be responsible for themselves that they would be just that, responsible.

You define civil as what, the government taking more and more of your money and property in an attempt to equalize the ends? Is civil the government telling you what is best for you and then legislating it thereby forcing you to comply under threat of incarceration?

Doesn't sound too civil to me.

 

[editec]

Even comparing it what Americans have paid in the past gives context - top tax rates were up to 91% in the '50s.

But today we have a big part the nation going apoplyctic about 40%. In another thread most conservatives are saying they'd rather see the country go bankrupt than pay more taxes.

Kind of makes you wonder.

Doesn't make me wonder.

One of the things that is necessary for civil society is for enough people to sign onto the idea that one wants to live in a civil society.

As you can plainly tell, a whole lot of American don't really want a civil society.

Oh they think what they want is civil, but if they ever get all the so-called freedoms they think they want, they're going to discover that civil society is not that social darwinist concept they think it is.

If these people really got all they wanted we would all constantly have to walk around armed and most of us would have had to use those guns too, because things would become THAT BAD.

Why is it so hard to base a political philosophy on the simple premise that if people were allowed to be responsible for themselves that they would be just that, responsible.

Oh it's not a all hard to base a political philosophy on that.

All you've got to do is know NOTHING about history or human nature.

You define civil as what, the government taking more and more of your money and property in an attempt to equalize the ends?

No, I don't. I define civil society as that society which one can exist in without living in constant fear.

You know like where I live now and apparently MOST of you don't?

Is civil the government telling you what is best for you and then legislating it thereby forcing you to comply under threat of incarceration?

It might be.

Depends on what they're legislating and what they are forcing you to comply with.

For example, if they're legislating that you can't kill me, I', going to SIGN ONTO that legislation.

You aren't?

Doesn't sound too civil to me.

Well to the extent that you rewrite my views into something completely absurd, I can hardly blame you for not signing onto that which I never said.

I can't sign onto that absurd blather you believe I believe, any more than you can.

Here's a clue, instead of insinuating philosophies onto me, why not discuss what I actually write?

You think you can do that?

Or is your caracturized version of what I believe (your straw man editec, if you will) so compelling for you, that you'd rather make shit up about me, than discuss what I really think?

 

[Iriemon]

Even comparing it what Americans have paid in the past gives context - top tax rates were up to 91% in the '50s.

But today we have a big part the nation going apoplyctic about 40%. In another thread most conservatives are saying they'd rather see the country go bankrupt than pay more taxes.

Kind of makes you wonder.

Doesn't make me wonder.

One of the things that is necessary for civil society is for enough people to sign onto the idea that one wants to live in a civil society.

As you can plainly tell, a whole lot of American don't really want a civil society.

Oh they think what they want is civil, but if they ever get all the so-called freedoms they think they want, they're going to discover that civil society is not that social darwinist concept they think it is.

If these people really got all they wanted we would all constantly have to walk around armed and most of us would have had to use those guns too, because things would become THAT BAD.

Why is it so hard to base a political philosophy on the simple premise that if people were allowed to be responsible for themselves that they would be just that, responsible.

You define civil as what, the government taking more and more of your money and property in an attempt to equalize the ends? Is civil the government telling you what is best for you and then legislating it thereby forcing you to comply under threat of incarceration?

Doesn't sound too civil to me.

I'm totally cool with that.

I certainly don't think the Govt should try to equalize things. And I've never heard Obama or any Democrat say that is his goal. No one is saying that everyone should be equal.

Just not quite so disparate.

 

[Agnapostate]

Yes, they are. These countries have very small homogeneous populations. As long as you can get most of the people to march in lock-step with one another, you're fine. The moment someone wants to achieve more than others and actually keep some of their wealth, you've got problems. As we've seen, these people usually move to freer countries. As expected, the productivity of these countries cannot compete with the United States.

This rambling does nothing to assert that such countries maintain socialist economic policies, which they do not, inasmuch as the means of production are not collectivized. Moreover, I've already posted an empirical analysis (that isolated the critical factors), indicating that your assertion that productivity is hampered is simply wrong. Do you have any contrary evidence? Selective incorporation of raw data will not avail you, incidentally.

 

[garyd]

In exactly what way is rhine capitalism outperforming Anglosaxon capitalism? It sure isn't unemployment which has been in the 8-10% range since 1986.

 

[Iriemon]

In exactly what way is rhine capitalism outperforming Anglosaxon capitalism? It sure isn't unemployment which has been in the 8-10% range since 1986.

I had to look the term "rhine capitalism up" but cam across this statement by the author who developed the term:

Against this Albert wrote - 1991 already - for example: “The largest banks know, however, that they are literally 'too big to fail' and can count on a helping hand from government if the worst comes to the worst. America's political leaders would step in to prevent the crash of a major financial institution on the grounds that it could set off a lethal chain reaction culminating in widespread disaster. ... Thus, in yet another intriguing but ominous irony of history, 10 years of ultra-liberalism have resulted in a US financial system whose future may only be assured with the help of federal government handouts”

Wasn't he prophetic?

No company in America should be so big that it is too big too fail.

Teddy Roosvelt, Sherman, Clayton, we need you trust busters back!

 

[mash107]

In exactly what way is rhine capitalism outperforming Anglosaxon capitalism? It sure isn't unemployment which has been in the 8-10% range since 1986.

I had to look the term "rhine capitalism up" but cam across this statement by the author who developed the term:

Against this Albert wrote - 1991 already - for example: “The largest banks know, however, that they are literally 'too big to fail' and can count on a helping hand from government if the worst comes to the worst. America's political leaders would step in to prevent the crash of a major financial institution on the grounds that it could set off a lethal chain reaction culminating in widespread disaster. ... Thus, in yet another intriguing but ominous irony of history, 10 years of ultra-liberalism have resulted in a US financial system whose future may only be assured with the help of federal government handouts”

Wasn't he prophetic?

No company in America should be so big that it is too big too fail.

Teddy Roosvelt, Sherman, Clayton, we need you trust busters back!

Why are they too big to fail? That's a nonsense term created by government to scare us into whatever they think is necessary. It's akin to Weapons of Mass Destruction.

And, ultimately, banks are only big because of regulations that prevent smaller banks from competing legitimately.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

It doesnt make sense. If what you say is correct, why do we have taxes at all if nobody is paying them? What makes you think that loopholes and tax credits exist in US economy only?

 

[code1211]

What is the remedy you seek? Do you wish to reduce our GDP to the levels of the others so our obviously much larger tax revenues are put into the proper perspective or should we increase our taxes to the levels of the others as a percent completely eliminating the reward for risk and making our economy a mirror of these other powerhouses?

Our fiscal crisis is not one based on the low amount of taxes collected. It's based on the outrageous spending. Not a partisan statement. Both parties are spending our money like it has no value. Pretty soon it won't have any value left. I thought that it was interesting that Bush was cited as a free spended.

The Congress refused to approve 12 months of the Bush budget. When they approved the second have of the fiscal year, they added 8%. That 8% had nothing to do with the TARP or the recovery plan. Soon our taxes and GDP will look just like Sweden's.

The Chinese are already asking for guarentees on the debt we owe them.

Its pretty silly to ask if I am in favor of reducing GDP. I offer this data for information so people can be informed when they make international comparisons.

I wonder how many layers of tax are being measured. I pay income tax to the Feds, the State and the County. I pay Property Tax to the County, Sales Tax to the State, Excise taxes to the Feds, the State and the County, Auto License tax to the State and there are probably others that I just am not thinking about right now.

Do you know if the table above reflects all of the tax paid by Americans v other countries or just the income taxes? I wonder if the other countries have income taxes at the levels reflected by Federal, State and County or if one of them has been eliminated. Those countries are usually smaller than the US.

 

[code1211]

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.

I heartily agree with the part that I highlited in red. I think the tax system is complex so that it will be un-understandable. The simple fact that about half of the citizens are paying tax and about half are not is a very dangerous equation all by itself.

Whether it's a flat tax or a state based tax, it needs to be less complex and more simple. Anytime something gets complex, I feel like the screwing has begun.

Our tax system is a maze of confusion right now that punishes and rewards based on caprice. If you want to see a movie, you need to pay the admission. If you want to be a citizen, you only need to pay according to your means and, if you need increasingly more assistance from the government, you pay increasingly less. What's wrong with this picture?

 

[Care4all]

According to our Constitution, no one has to PAY for their citizenship, thank God!

 

[Toro]

Do you know if the table above reflects all of the tax paid by Americans v other countries or just the income taxes? I wonder if the other countries have income taxes at the levels reflected by Federal, State and County or if one of them has been eliminated. Those countries are usually smaller than the US.

Its all taxes paid.

Generally, those countries have much higher sales taxes or value-added taxes.

The primary reason why taxes are higher in those countries is because they have far more extensive social security nets.