We should copy some stuff from their tax code, too. As you said, they're not collecting significantly more than us, they just have a way simpler rate. Netherlands was explained to me as "25% up to 100k, 50% on income over that". That's fair, simple and actually a lower rate for the vast majority of people. Our system is a bloated mess in comparison.
Not saying that automatically everything done by Europe is better than everything done in the US.. but mindless rah rah just leads to myopia. Let's steal good ideas where we can.
> We should copy some stuff from their tax code, too. As you said, they're not collecting significantly more than us, they just have a way simpler rate.
Actually, I didn't say anything about how taxes are collected.
However, I will point out that even when the US had significantly higher rates, the feds never managed to collect more than 22% of GDP in taxes and even those two years were "unstable", in that folks adjusted their behavior.
The sustainable maximum appears to be around 21%, and even that isn't possible during a recession.
> Netherlands was explained to me as "25% up to 100k, 50% on income over that". That's fair, simple and actually a lower rate for the vast majority of people.
No, it's not a lower rate for "the vast majority". It's actually a significantly higher rate for the vast majority.
Most employed folks in the US don't pay income taxes. They pay SS, which has very progressive payback, so it's actually a good "investment" for folks who don't pay income taxes. They also pay medicare, but again, their benefits outweigh their costs.
So, 25% (up to 100k) would be a huge increase for most Americans. 50% is higher than the current highest marginal rate, so anyone paying it would also see an increase.
I don't remember where the 30% bracket kicks in, but if it's less than 100k, maybe there are some folks who'd pay less under your scheme, but they're not anywhere near a majority.
> Let's steal good ideas where we can.
I agree, but until we "steal" the good ideas related to efficient govt spending, better taxation is a disaster.
Yeah, you played the old familiar canard of "I'm going to advocate for the government to do things less efficiently and then bitch about how inefficient they are". Par for the course for republicans.
Personally, I'd be in favor of a simplified tax rate with a flat/progressive system that doesn't have an encyclopedia built into it. You might be in favor of a slightly different version of that non-encyclopedia but we're basically on the same side. Rush Limbaugh is trying to divide us -- who's side is he on?
EDIT: btw, most people with under 100k of income in the US pay significantly more than 25%, closer to 40%. Do you think they should pay more? Or less?
> Yeah, you played the old familiar canard of "I'm going to advocate for the government to do things less efficiently and then bitch about how inefficient they are".
No, I didn't. I wrote that the US govt should be more efficient.
> btw, most people with under 100k of income in the US pay significantly more than 25%, closer to 40%.
That's not true. See http://www.taxbrackets2011.com/ . Singles with AGIs between $83-173k pay 28% marginal. The 25% bracket (for singles) starts at $34k.
No, you don't get to count SS. As I explained, SS is a forced savings plan with a rather good return for folks who don't max out, which happens over $100k. (They're subsidized by folks who do max out.) You can argue medicare, but it's <4%.
What? Of course SS and Medicare count. They're taxes. Europeans get pension plans too, and they have universal healthcare, and those services are included in the taxes that europeans pay.
You just argued "If I take the tax rate, and subtract 15%, I get 28%". That's ridiculous.
And, nobody in SS is subsidized by anyone -- those who max out don't pay any more beyond the max.
> What? Of course SS and Medicare count. They're taxes.
I pay the City of San Jose for garbage services - is that a tax? Of course not.
SS isn't a tax because the benefits are (roughly) in proportion to what you pay?
> And, nobody in SS is subsidized by anyone -- those who max out don't pay any more beyond the max.
Do you really misunderstand this or are you just being annoying?
For low-income/low-contribution folks, the ROI for their SS "contributions" is positive. The ROI for high-income/high-contribution folks is negative. The positive return for the low-income folks is the money that the high-income folks lose.
On the off-chance that you think that SS problems can be solved by removing the cap, I'll explain why SS advocates introduced it. They wanted a system that had popular support and didn't encourage organized opposition. For popular support, they wanted to cap payouts. To avoid organized opposition, they wanted roughly proportional payouts.
If you want uncapped contributions, do you want uncapped payouts? If so, you get to explain why Ross Perot gets $300k/year. If not, you get to defend a program that is a significant tax on folks who are very good at fighting taxes.
Ok, well go do some accounting on the dutch government, figure what % of their tax take goes to pensions and medical stuff, deduct that from their tax take and you can get back to me with an apples-to-apples comparison. Since those aren't really taxes.
I didn't say anything about uncapping SS. And I know my history, thanks.
Not saying that automatically everything done by Europe is better than everything done in the US.. but mindless rah rah just leads to myopia. Let's steal good ideas where we can.