Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
That was a graph from 2005....of only France and the US. Shirley you can point to something more up to date to hang your hat on.
How many times have I already done that? Search for "OECD" under username Tiny.
The definitive OECD study on progressivity of income tax among OECD member states was done using mid 2000's data. Our tax system has become more progressive since then, as (1) marginal rates on capital gains and dividends increased from 15% to 23.8% for upper income earners and (2) in percentage terms, the TCJA cut rates on upper income earners less than on middle and lower income earners.
The study is available for purchase from the OECD. I bought it. I'm not sure I can find it though. Anyway if you want a copy PM me and if you promise not to tell anyone I might send it to you.
I mentioned a post earlier in this thread that I thought had disappeared from Greg Mankiw's blog. Well, it's magically reappeared:
Progressivity of tax systems is measured by dividing the "share of taxes" of the richest decile by the "share of income" of the richest decile. The U.S., with a ratio of 1.35, is the most progressive.
I've mentioned here that the comments of the OECD economist who did the work appear in the Mankiw blog. What he said is spot on with what I've been telling you repeatedly in this thread and others about inequality in the USA. Our highly progressive tax system reduces inequality, in fact more than any other country according to Peter Whiteford, the OECD economist. It's the way the government spends the money that's the problem. Here's what he had to say:
I am the person who wrote the chapter in the OECD report that is the basis of these figures. It is part of a report on the distribution of income to households, so it doesn’t include taxes that are not directly paid by households, since these are not included in income surveys....[T]he table also calculates the distribution of taxes for the household as whole after adjusting for the number of people in the household, so it will differ from data calculated on income tax returns which are not adjusted for household size.
As others have pointed out this measure includes all direct taxes on individuals so it includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer payroll taxes. It also doesn’t include sales taxes, but these are much heavier in most other OECD countries, and not as progressive as direct taxes, so if you added indirect taxes in through some sort of modelling it is almost certain that the USA would still have the most progressive overall tax system.
However, as the OECD report points out, progressivity is not the same as redistribution. Progressivity measures how the distribution of the tax burden is shared, while redistribution measures how much the tax system reduces inequality. Redistribution is influenced both by the progressivity of taxes and the level of taxes collected.
In fact, the US system of direct taxes actually reduces inequality more than any other country as well. But overall, the USA reduces inequality a lot less than most other countries, because the other thing that you need to take into account is what taxes get spent on.
Now the US system of social security and cash benefits reduces inequality by less than any other OECD country except Korea. The US social security system is marginally less progressive then the OECD average, but the level of spending is very low – only Mexico and Korea spend less in the OECD.
So while the US tax system is progressive and reduces inequality, the US welfare state is much less effective at reducing inequality. And because the US has a very unequal distribution of income from capital and a much wider wage distribution than many other OECD countries, it ends up as a relatively unequal country after taxes and benefits.
If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality.
So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively.
And as to his last point, increasing the level of taxes, I ask why kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Our median disposable income per person, including all forms of income as well as taxes and transfers in kind from governments for benefits such as healthcare and education, is the highest in the OECD precisely because we don't tax the hell out of people and businesses. That is, because we leave more money in the hands of the productive private sector and in the pockets of the people instead of channeling it to an inefficient federal government.
That was a graph from 2005....of only France and the US. Shirley you can point to something more up to date to hang your hat on.
Hey moron - it's not OUR job to disprove your ignorant talking points (although Tiny is doing exactly that). Rather, the burden is on YOU to prove your own bullshit.
As I already told you, the 3 smartest guys in this forum all say you're wrong to claim the overall US tax system isn't progressive enough by global standards. That is your argument, right? It's hard to be certain what your point is, given how you flit, ramble and deflect all the time.
Here's what CM posted 6 months ago in Tiny's "how are we gonna pay for all this shit?" thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
...the U.S. tax code is, with all types of taxes taken into account, vastly more progressive than that of Europe's social democracies.
Do you think CM was relying on outdated data when he said that?
Go ahead and prove him wrong, if you can - the floor is yours!
I have more floggings in store for you and your repetitive, unsubstantiated bunk. But right now I'm going to relax with a Mint Julep.
How many times have I already done that? Search for "OECD" under username Tiny.
If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality.
.
So you are saying we need to increase taxes and spend the increased taxes on Social Services to reduce income inequality?
I guess now the question is should we do so with regressive or progressive taxes!
Think of it like this....even if we have the most progressive tax system (and for argument sake, I'll pretend that is true) we still have a high Gini Coefficient. Which means to reduce income inequality we need to start spending MORE on the lower quadrant folks. That is the spending problem you speak of? You want to spend more on the poor?
Hey moron - it's not OUR job to disprove your ignorant talking points (although Tiny is doing exactly that). Rather, the burden is on YOU to prove your own bullshit.
As I already told you, the 3 smartest guys in this forum all say you're wrong to claim the overall US tax system isn't progressive enough by global standards. That is your argument, right? It's hard to be certain what your point is, given how you flit, ramble and deflect all the time.
Here's what CM posted recently in Tiny's "how are we gonna pay for all this shit?" thread.
Do you think CM was relying on outdated data when he said that? Go ahead and prove him wrong, if you can - the floor is yours!
I have more floggings in store for you and your repetitive, unsubstantiated bunk. But right now I'm going to relax with a Mint Julep.
watching the race now. Trump is there. probably Tommy Brady as well. let's hope no Kardashians are there but probably are.
Derby week is a hell of a party. attended many Derby Eve Jam concerts. and the Derby itself of course.
So you are saying we need to increase taxes and spend the increased taxes on Social Services to reduce income inequality?
No, I say fuck the Gini coefficient. Making all of us poorer in order to make us more equal is not a good idea. Please see post #100 in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
Think of it like this....even if we have the most progressive tax system (and for argument sake, I'll pretend that is true) we still have a high Gini Coefficient. Which means to reduce income inequality we need to start spending MORE on the lower quadrant folks. That is the spending problem you speak of? You want to spend more on the poor?
I want better education, which would not necessarily require more spending. We spend lots on public education without good results. It's like our health care system. And yes, we should spend more to help poor children. I'd like to see that done more at the state and local level. Finally, while it goes against my Libertarian instincts, maybe we need something to make Americans save and invest. Something like the Central Provident Fund of Singapore or the superannuation scheme in Australia would be a good idea.
...I want better education, which would not necessarily require more spending. We spend lots on public education without good results. It's like our health care system. And yes, we should spend more to help poor children. ....
You are aware that fallacy is garbage science. Right? Turns out the secret, typically missing, ingredient is Parental Involvement -- not mo munny-hunny.
You are aware that fallacy is garbage science. Right? Turns out the secret, typically missing, ingredient is Parental Involvement -- not mo munny-hunny.
There are hundreds more on the topic of "Parental involvement in education" and "Parental involvement and poverty" and on and on.
All the answers to all the problems of society is not more of others peoples money. That's the recipe for Socialism.
So if outlawing abortion which effects disproportionately the poor and single potential mothers more than the better off....one would expect even more "Parental involvement and poverty " or better verbiage "Lack of Parental involvement due to poverty" in the future.
Sounds like we should be be funding more to PP to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education, free contraceptive and generous use of Plan B.
But we will not. We will continue on with shitty to no sex education classes in this country, abolish the option of abortion for those least capable of supporting a child and continue with this sham of promoting our progressive tax system while ignoring the fact that the majority of education taxing entities are from state and local authorities....which are regressive in nature.
So yes Tiny....other countries tax and spend more on decent education than we do. Which could benefit poor and prevent a huge tax burden to funnel to the prison industry in this country.
That is where people like WYID prefer throwing away tax dollars.
To recap they prefer
To not spend on the poor on basic sex education
Which contributes to more unwanted pregnancies
Then force the poor to have these unwanted embryos
Which basically runs a continuous loop supplying our prison system with clients
No, I say fuck the Gini coefficient. Making all of us poorer in order to make us more equal is not a good idea. Please see post #100 in this thread.
.
The Gini Coefficient does not make any rich or poor. It is just a measurement of the difference or distance between the two....that would be like blaming gravity for a weight gain.
Being fat has negative health benefits just as having a growing Gini Coefficient has negative benefits to moving forward as a Democratic society.
As I already told you, the 3 smartest guys in this forum all say you're wrong to claim the overall US tax system isn't progressive enough by global standards. That is your argument, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
Sounds like we should be be funding more to PP to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education, free contraceptive and generous use of Plan B.
But we will not.
Which basically runs a continuous loop supplying our prison system with clients
But they're the smart ones. "I'm not here because I'm stupid. I'm here because I'm fuckin' cray-Z!"
Happy Motherfuckers' Day.
I'm making it a tradition now, Tiny
You are aware that fallacy is garbage science. Right? Turns out the secret, typically missing, ingredient is Parental Involvement -- not mo munny-hunny.
There are hundreds more on the topic of "Parental involvement in education" and "Parental involvement and poverty" and on and on.
All the answers to all the problems of society is not more of others peoples money. That's the recipe for Socialism.
You quoted me selectively. You failed to include "I'd like to see that done more at the state and local level." If I were dictator we'd have a balanced budget or close to it when times are reasonably good, e.g. there's no recession. Tax rates would be lower, loopholes would be closed. My priorities as dictator would lean more towards helping disadvantaged children than shoveling out pork and the like.
