« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

US tax code the one of the most progressive …

By: Soren Dayton (Diary)  |  April 7th, 2009 at 09:10 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Clive Crook reminds us that our tax code is one of the most progressive in the developed world. And the Democrats want to take even more from the wealthy:

Mr Obama intends to squeeze the rich, but the scope for this may be more limited than US liberals would wish. Few Americans seem aware that the US income tax code, as a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study showed, is already one of the most progressive.* Even before the rise in top marginal rates promised by Mr Obama, the US income tax collects 45 per cent of its revenues from the highest-income decile. Compare that with Britain at 39 per cent, Canada at 36 per cent, France at 28 per cent, Sweden at 27 per cent and an OECD average of 32 per cent.

Just a helpful reminder. With facts.
Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • BlueLandRed

    but let’s not forget that

    In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

    • robmikpet

      Wealth is stocks, bonds, your house, etc. So you must be happy because not only are these people getting taxed the most but using your figures they have lost the most wealth during this downturn.

      Are you richer now that their wealth declined? I wonder how wealthy Madoff and Stanford and all those Wall Street CEO whose firms give most of their political donations to Democrats. The wealthiest Senators are almost all Democrats.

      As for the progressive nature of the US income tax I have a warning for the bottom 90%. The reason the “rich” pay less of total taxes in the other, let’s say, more socialist countries like Sweden and Canada is government spending. The rich do not have enough money to fund government so taxes are higher for the bottom 90%.

      Understand where am going with this? Obama and the Dems cannot get the money they want from the top 10% they have to spread the misery to the bottom 90%.

      • DerKrieger

        Cap and Trade is the means that will be used to extract wealth from the rest of us who aren’t “rich”.

      • BlueLandRed

        bottom 90%ers, I have to say, I’ve already seen quite a bit of misery, thank you very much. And, FYI, I’m not expecting to suddenly get wonderful anytime soon.

        Perhaps we’ll all have to give up our champagne and caviar dreams for a while.

        • DONTREADONME

          I am in the bottom 90% and I am doing quite fine thank you. Maybe you should have paid attention more in school, or get a second job, or take a risk, or save some money, or live within your means. Perhaps you should get a dream and strive for it rather than use wikipedia as your source for information. Sheesh.

    • Jack

      As soon as Jay Rockefeller, Warren Buffet, George Soros, John Corzine, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, you know the super rich Democrats give up their wealth I will send my check in right behind them.

      • robmikpet

        if defined as the top ten percent of income earners are NOT a static class. I believe up to 33% of the top decile move in and out. America is a class less society (two words not one) meaning anyone can be rich. To use Jack’s excellent examples Messrs Gates and Allen are FIRST generation multi-billionaires. America’s free market generates the most wealth for the most people and it is achievable for anyone.

        Now comes the “tough love” generally speaking a big percentage of the top 10% of INCOME earners work harder for longer and take more risks than the rest of us, sorry but it is true. The rich and successful, let’s call them the entrepreneurial class, seem to be equipped for this as some studies have shown. They are not adverse to risk and that is a good thing from Henry Ford to Bill Gates millions of jobs have been created. But the untold story is this does not guarantee success, the road to riches is littered with the failures and the bankrupt. For every successful entrepreneur many do not make it.

        Yet they still persist and cannot be disusaded from their goals, Ray Kroc (McDonald’s) went bankrupt a couple times at least. Phil Gramm put it best when he ran for President “I have never worked for a poor person”

        That is also what is dangerous about taking their excess capital ( that might have gone to new business ventures) and taxing it away and giving it to the most unproductive sector, the government. It becomes a double hit to the economy by stopping future wealth creation and the creation of new PRIVATE sector tax payers.

        • DONTREADONME

          the super rich i.e. Gates and Allen is the example used by the liberals against the larger percentage decreases in the top bracket of income earners over the lower ones. This is a misdirection on all levels, since they use this excuse to rule out the economic effects of cutting the top bracket from 39% to 34% is giving a tax break to the rich, well when you characterize the rich as Gates and Buffett of course the masses are going to say, What? Truthfully, the majority of the top 10% of income earners are no where near the income levels that people associate with the Gates of the world. So that being said, allowing more of the money to stay with the people who bring in 500k a year allows for more capital to expand a business or upgrade the bathroom in a 900,000k house. The same holds true for those that have a household income of 125k for the time being, fix that deck, refinish the bathroom, reshingle the roof or landscaping. W/o that extra income or the fear of excess taxes will suspend the reshingling of the roof until such time as that individual can raise the funds to reshingle or just do something much less expensive like place new shingles over the old. Anyway, after all that I was just trying to merge your comment with the one before that I thought was a good point.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
    • blooch

      All hail the Clinton Economy!

  • DerKrieger

    on what the Dems would do if there were no GOP opposition at all? Has Kos or DU ever put up a post of their ‘ideal’ government? I’d love to know what they would advocate if they had no obstacles.

    • vettepilot

      Actually, my wife and I were discussing that as it related to Obama forcing Wagoner out. I was wondering what GM would end up looking like if they put labor in charge and allowed them to run the company as they see fit. Even if GM weren’t in the dire situation they’re already in, I’m certain it’d be a quick ride to liquidation-ville…

  • passerby25

    But that doesen’t take into account that we have much higher income inequality then those nations.

    • bags64

      and i’m not so sure that isn’t a good thing. is it the top end that makes this statement so?

      i cannot believe it’s the bottom end (which is constrained, of course), if you count welfare receipts as income. America’s poor have it pretty good comparatively.

      • passerby25

        Though, I think it would be better if we had more even income distribution (though, I would prefer a more efficient way then just welfare)

        And Here is a chart: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Gini_Coefficient_World_Human_Development_Report_2007-2008.png

        (from this article)
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      …they keep on crawling out to spout the KGB DNC party line.

      • passerby25

        Can I borrow a blanket so I don’t have to get a job and buy one please? :P

  • papalee

    and the whole idea of hating the rich. Indeed it is time to purge our whole society of all Marxist ideas and ideals while being entirely honest in the reasons for so doing. If we are going to strip anyone of their wealth, it should be those who believe its use is for the enslavement of others to big government.

    In a republic the purpose of government should be the greatest freedom for ALL and not the enslavement of any. The Democrats, Obama included, may want to spread the wealth around, but they never seem to do it with their personal funds and they also never seem to mind robbing the government for their own enrichment – as Michelle’s 300K hospital salery. They love the taxing of corporations because they are passed along to the consumer and thus hidden from the voter. If we want a truly honest and transparent tax code, the Fair Tax would seem to be the way to go. The others all have the element of ‘tax him but not me’ which seems about as dishonest and distasteful as one can imagine.

  • Skanderbeg

    Well, it’s good to see that this issue is finally getting more attention – and it is indeed interesting that it brings the DNC talking-points-trolls out from under the bridge.

    I’ve been banging on about this problem for a long time, since I see it and deal with it first-hand. The U.S. tax system – in just about all its facets – is becoming increasingly uncompetitive with many, many other jurisdictions.

    The talking-points crowd would rather compare with the really diseased jurisdictions in western Europe (many of which, interestingly, are already moving in the right direction now out of desperation), or just prattle on mindlessly about “fairness” rather than real-world implications and real-world results.

    Those same people like to rant and rave about the evils of outsourcing – well golly-gosh, why do you think jobs are being outsourced? If you can’t compete, you lose the business.

    If the plan in DC now is to make this even worse, we’ll see more job flight and more capital flight – and perhaps (worst of all) talent flight.

  • Common_Cents

    It shows how arrogant and/or stupid our ElectedElite are. On one hand they say it is a global market, but as far as taxes, they think we are the only game in town.

    We should be hammering this over and over and over.

    I’m looking to start a new biz. If it is online related I will probably locate it offshore legally. I doubt I am the only one looking at that.