Complaining About High Taxes? Don't Tell France And Germany...

Tyler Durden's picture

To all Americans complaining about high taxes, better keep your beef on this side of the Atlantic. According to a recent OECD report, captured by the Economist, when it comes to total taxes paid out by both employees and employers, the US doesn't even come close to its just slightly more socialist European cousins. In fact, while total taxation as a % labor costs is about 30% in the US, comparable with Japan and Ireland, in France and Germany this number is nearly half of the total. Which explains why there is no greater threat to these two countries than the perpetuation of the status quo welfare state. Should Greece file Chapter, who knows what will happen to the Bismarckian ideal. Incidentally, on the other end: Chile, which pays out just 7% of labor costs to taxes. Per the article: "The report splits out the tax burden on employment which is paid by employers (in the form of social-security payments) and employees (as income tax and more social security). France and Germany have some of the most costly tax regimes—with people who earn the average wage taking home just over 50% of their total labour cost. The effect of fiscal austerity, particularly across Europe, has meant that the tax burden rose in 22 out of the 34 countries in the OECD from 2009 to 2010. Meanwhile real incomes for average-wages earners fell in 15 OECD countries. As the second chart shows, these reduced earnings caused by the world recession and subsequent inflation tend to have a much larger impact on incomes." Also notable: these charts exclude any Value Added Taxes: another favorite European mechanism to fund the welfare state. Should that be included in the total and the take home may in fact drop to less than 40% in some cases.

Of course, one may say that the American perspective is certainly stunted, as among the chief taxes omitted are property taxes, city taxes, private medical insurance, not to mention sales tax. Perhaps a more objective analysis would confirm that the US is just as bad on the communism scale. One thing is certain: the global population is already taxed seemingly to the max. How the global population will be able to afford another round of imminent, austerity and/or debt ceiling debate induced tax hikes, is completely unclear...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sudden Debt's picture

Belgium 52%



Cash_is_Trash's picture

SD, speaking of ruling, where is your government?

Are they ever going to form one??

Sean7k's picture

Belgium and Portugal are the european experiment in having bureaucracies rule the people. For the bankers, it cuts out the middlemen.

Fat Ass's picture

This article is unbelievably silly.

They forgot about FICA, state and city taxes.

How bizarre.

AGuy's picture

+1. Exactly. US taxes are much more than Federal Taxes. I wish all we had to pay is federal taxes.



A_S's picture

Everything is fine here, you don't even notice we don't have a government. Government spending even dropped, great!


TheTmfreak's picture

So wait a minute... let me make sure I'm getting this right...

Without a functioning government..... life keeps... going on..? You're telling me you can live your life without having somebody plan it for you? Hmmm.

disabledvet's picture

It's called Chimay mofo.  back off.

writingsonthewall's picture

America is very like 'Wall Mart' - you get what you pay for...and as American pay nothing - they get nothing.

Great system - until you're on the wrong side of it....born into chance of getting out....

despite the claims of wealthy turds like Trump - they don't actually 'work their way to the top' - 99% of them have some assistance along the way, either from wealthy family, a network of friends...or the odd 'fracture' of the law in the early days to get them started.


In trumps case he made his millions off the back of his shareholders who didn't - when he went bust a couple of times over.


This is why so many Americans can stand and decry the Government spending levels - at least the Europeans got free healthcare and unemployment benefits and social help - what did the US get? - Absolutely f**k all.


America got socialism - without the 'social' bit - so they just got 'ism' - which is shit frankly.

It's one in the eye for free market capitalism - it's the unions of Europe which have ensured that Europeans have austerity to challenge - the case on the other side of the Atlantic is truly sad.

4 million + on food stamps - and the right wing are complaining about Medicare.

It just goes to prove that 'freedom to spend your own disposable income' is not such a good idea - it seems that over the last 40 years the 'socialist' Europeans have been buying useful things - but the average American spunked his up the wall on frviolous shit - not realising the mother of all collapses was coming.


Again - an advantage of handing spending to the Government - like your ma and pa - they buy things which you don't immediately consider useful....but when that rainy day comes...


I hope the US are learning their lessons and not listening to the ramblings of the right regarding public spending.


The largest public spending in the US of course being on security and wars - now how much did the American public have in the choice between free medical care and fighting wars....and how many would have chosen the former in preference to the latter?

disabledvet's picture

having personally experienced the medical care in the war profession i'll opt for the "war fighting" option hands down--especially given my observations and experience of the "free" civilian care.

Caviar Emptor's picture

Trump came from a wealthy real estate family. His father started the business he's in now and was a successful real estate developer in the boroughs of NYC

aerojet's picture

Yours was not a very well-conceived rant.  Remember that Europe has suffered through many wars while the US has participated in a few, but hasn't had a serious dust-up since the 1860s.  I would argue that "freedom to spend your own disposable income" aka "economic freedom" is the only real freedom worth having--vote with your wallet and with your feet.  The rest is hogwash.  And what do you mean we pay nothing so we get nothing?  Our taxes are only a few percent lower than those of Europe.  The US middle class pays everything and gets very little in return.  We've got a giant military, and fake democracy.  Those things don't come cheap!

writingsonthewall's picture

This is a failed outlook I'm afraid.

" I would argue that "freedom to spend your own disposable income" aka "economic freedom" is the only real freedom worth having"

So the freedom to elect your leaders is worthless? The freedom to speak your mind is pointless?

What is the point of being able to choose your soap powder if you can't tell anyone why you're switching?


"vote with your wallet and with your feet."

Really? - and how do you make a rational decision when so much is based on deception? I used to buy McDonalds - until I found out that they are made with offal from the cow - however it didn't stop me buying 20 years worth of food and making Ronald a rich man before I 'voted with my wallet' - too late, Ronald used all that money of mine to deceive the next generation with whacky and expensive advertising and sponsorship.

How about the 'choice' - you can choose to buy fuel from whomever you like - oh but a limited range of suppliers. I don't like Exxon, Shell or BP - they are destroying the world - so which 'supplier' shoudl I use that uses none of these - and is my choice practical?

Your claim of 'choice' is hogwash - choice is but an illusion. You use the word like you know what you're getting, but actually your choice is limited to the options the corporations decide to let you have.

"And what do you mean we pay nothing so we get nothing?  Our taxes are only a few percent lower than those of Europe.  The US middle class pays everything and gets very little in return.  We've got a giant military, and fake democracy.  Those things don't come cheap!"

Point taken - but the idea is you pay nothing and get nothing - but I guess even that bit has gone awry in the US. You have merely highlighted your deal is worse that everyone elses.

....and it seems to many Americans were stuck on 'choice' to notice the progressively worse deal they were getting.

goldsaver's picture

Dude, that is the beauty of having choices in the world. If you don't feel competent enough to manage your life and finances, move to China, North Korea or Cuba. If you feel somewhat competent, move to Europe. If you feel fully competent to manage your life, but are willing to put up with a nanny socialist state, move to the US. If you want complete freedom and free association with other humans... well, sorry, there is no place left on earth were that can happen anymore...

blueRidgeBoy's picture

it's easier to whine about it

DaveyJones's picture

Geez, the more you describe Trump the more I realize he has all the prerequisites for an american politician

fockewulf190's picture

Free healthcare?  Not in Germany.  Do some research before you start talking crap.


AGuy's picture

<sarcasm>Socalism is working well over in Europe. Those aren't riots in France, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, and the UK. They are Giant Block Parties!</sarcasm>

You think that there are no Rich elites in Europe? They make Donald Trump look like Jesus. You just don't hear about them, unless one of them happens to be in the US when a crime is exposed, DMK (for example). Europe is just as corrupt as the US and in many cases much more corrupt. Socialism = Central planning = a few people with near absolute power that take advantage of the common worker. Hiter, Mousulini, Stalin, and Franco were all die-hard socialists. Why would anyone want the gov't control their lives is beyond me.

"Lazy, Dumb and Socialist is no way to go through life, son." -Dean Wormer

bank guy in Brussels's picture

Yeah, Belgium rocks!

Seriously, despite what these European tax figures seem to show ... it feels a damn lot cheaper to live in Europe now, than it did to live in the USA when I sojourned there more than ten years ago, and I was not in an 'expensive' US area.

Seems overall that in Continental Europe we have a much higher quality of life for less payout, with things like health care and so on being much better handled ... and food and drink of higher quality and lower price.

Above all, there seems much less 'grifting' in the system here in Europe ... seemed like in America you often had a shoddy experience but with a high 'vig' collected by the legal and financial mafias from everything.

Taxes here are fine to me because life is so good here.

goldsaver's picture

...and that is great! Some are children who need someone to take care of everything. Some are teenagers who believe in personal freedom but not on personal responsibility and some are grown ups, who just want to be left to their own choices and decisions while willing to take responsibility. To each his own.

Arttrader's picture

"...Belgium, which of course is pretty much a non-country."

"You have the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk. Who are you? I've never heard of you. No one in Europe had ever heard of you!" 

agent default's picture

 I love it when politicians think they know what to do with your money better than you who earned it.  When the time comes France and Germany will crash harder then anybody else.  Nobody has ever taxed his way into prosperity.  It's just another bubble.

Doc's picture

Common dude,

Paying to blow up bridges in Iraq and then rebuild them is a very efficient allocation of capital.

G-R-U-N-T's picture

"It's just another bubble."

As the Oligarchs continue manufacturing bubbles from their bubble machines it gives colluding governments opportunity to take more and more freedoms away and as you can see the dumb shit politicians, bureaucrats, and an apathetic welfare lazy ass European peoples are willingly to destroy themselves for the good of the collective.

writingsonthewall's picture

...meanwhile you have retained your freedom - but at what cost?

No government assistance for the next decade of joblessness. Lets see how free you feel at the end of that.


The French and Germans will be getting free 'obama care' to fill their time for the next decade - hell it might even provide some jobs!

Strike Back's picture

Government assistance entails taking capital away from investments, which results in joblessness.  Just like the minimum wage. 

You are not talking about freedom.  You are pandering guarantees, i.e. the guarantee to be free from economic insecurity, granted by the government.  You argue that this guarantee is antagonistic to freedom, which I agree with, but don't get freedom and government largess confused. 

writingsonthewall's picture

"Government assistance entails taking capital away from investments, which results in joblessness. "

...and private sector investment is not always good for society - I mean would you be happy with Dow opening a nice brand new chemical plant by your house so they can make new 'plastic shoes' for all the people who can no longer afford leather?

Governments can (and often do) make good decisions about spending - but the private sector owned media is all too keen (I wonder why) to point out the mistakes.


Speaking of investments - how good were all the investments that the private sector bansk made in the sub-prime market upon reflection? - good use of capital (resources) - or a bad one in your opinion?


The private sector is littered with bad investment choices - the cost is usually passed to the sharehoder - but now it seems the taxpayer is carrying the can too!


It amazes me how people can even talk about private sector investment efficiency when we're sitting looking down the precipice created by the worst ever investments ever made by the private sector.


As for guarantees - well yes, you should have some of your production stored for hard times - whether you like it or not.

For example, car insurance is compulsury (like taxes) - but if there were a choice many people wouldn't bother - assuming that "I will never have a crash" - however when they do have one and mow down a child - the court says the compensation needs to be crica $20 Million - which the car owner simply doesn't have.


You will find the world is littered with those who will gamble with other peoples lives and liberty - or who are too stupid to foresee the risks involved in their choice. If these people didn't exist then we wouldn't need compulsory taxation - but they do I'm afraid - and most of them are republicans.


I do agree there is evidence of Government largess - this is because our Governments get too powerful and safe, they act like autocratic bodies. However this is partly the fault of people who want to hand their involvement of the running of the country to 'someone else' - so can you really complain about the result of something you 'passed on'?


Governments owned by the people, working for the people is what we need. So why not round up all the unemployed and lets get them working in Government - because there clearly isn't enough demand based work around (because Capitalism (supply) overshot....again)

Strike Back's picture

Companies that make bad investments would fail without government assistance.  Without the massive bailouts, the banks, the music industry, the automobile industry, etc. that made those bad investments would have failed and more productive industry would have taken its place.  It is BECAUSE the government has the power to make bad investments in the form of wealth redistribution that these inefficient and immoral businesses remain today.

The fact that governments can make good decisions is besides the point.  The point is that it can and will make bad investments behind the barrel of its monopoly on violence and continue to force these bad investments on the governed that is harmful to society.  You make a point on wars, the classic force fed bad investment.

People should be permitted to save, not forced to.  Once the government gets private funds in order to provide a safety net, it abuses its control over these funds.  For examples, see the recent U.S. and Irish government tapping into retirement accounts.  See the endless shifting of tax revenues between different categories to fund the drug war, bailouts, etc.  For your beloved Germany, see how the government is itching to provide a bailout to non-productive countries' economies such as Greece and Portugal from the German public coffers, a move that is massively opposed by the private citizenry.

It is a waste of time to try and perfect government.  Time and again, history shows that a liberalized economy with a restricted government leads to the most prosperity for all.  Government malinvestment, enforced through the threat of violence, is what creates a lack of demand for jobs, not "Capitalism supply overshoot."  Herding all of the unemployed into government work would create more malinvestment and drain more capital from the economy to pay these workers, which would create more unemployment.

AdTheNad's picture

You are living in a dream world if you subscribe to the meme that the world would be perfect if "the government would just get out of the way."  We would be left with a few oligopolies and cartels controlling everything instead of what we have now.  What do you think would happen when the sociopaths that control the most powerful companies in the world have vastly more power than the sociopaths that run the government?  I think it would be pretty much the same as we have now if not worse since they wouldn't even need to pretend to care about the common man.

Do oligopolies fail without government assistance, or do they just start to take what they want and ignore any form or justice or morality?

Clearly the right answer is to have a strong government that is run for the people, and independent from specific lobbies and business interests that have bastardised the system for their own private gain.

Sean7k's picture

Perhaps you can illuminate us and tell us who this government would be? You are confusing what should be or could be with what is and always has been. If wishes were horses, beggers would ride. 

Oligopolies do fail without the police power of the state. They revert back to having to please the consumer, because otherwise- no one buys their products.

Clearly, the right answer is no government. Organization with decentralization. No lobbies, no business interests to bastardize the system, liberty and free choice.

AdTheNad's picture

People like Bernie Sanders?  Just make a new rule, anyone who wants to be in government gets a nice big pay check, and gives up the right to any private bank accounts.  There are enough good people could out there who could fill a few hundred seats without just attracting the power hungry a holes we get at the moment.

You understand that no government = no regulations right?  What about where a company can kick the can so far down the road and can obfuscate the facts the consumer is helpless?  Like where a building is put up and asbestos is used, or radioactive materials.  You die in 10 years prematurely through no fault of your own, but the company using asbestos who also owns all the media outlets is supposed to be worried about how the other consumers will react? No chance.  Life with no regulations is far worse than life with good regulation.

If market forces held companies accountable for their bad behaviour BP would no longer exist.  I'm not sure you could claim BP is being held afloat by government when Obama gave Tony a shake down, yet they still exist with a drop in share prices far less than the suffering that has been caused.  There is no way in many cases that oligopolies care or even have to care about the consumer.

Sean7k's picture

The Bernie Sanders government? One person does not a government make. It is a structure. 

One, regulations are written by the people whom control the government and therefore can profit from them. Two, you fail to understand the concept of private property and personal responsibility. Your company would be responsible for all the costs, including the cost to recover. Even if it bankrupts ALL the holders of shares, they would still be responsible to make additional restitution through future labor. 

The company would not own all the media outlets, because they could not depend on a government to restrict access. 

Social regulation is cheaper, more persuasive and cooperative. Market forces are not allowed to work, as in BP's case ,as government intervenes.

I suggest you learn more about the subject, then you might understand the benefits. Anarcho-capitalism is not perfect or even fully formed, but it has a potential far exceeding any government structure we know of. 


AdTheNad's picture

Your dream only works with small local companies at best.  Do you think somehow with no government, companies would stop growing before they got too big to start employing anti competitive business practices such as predatory pricing and effectively killing off any competition even without regulations?  Oligopolies would occur with or without government, and that makes everyone on average worse off. 

How would you restrict companies from getting so big no one could make them be responsible for all costs?  If you seriously think market forces would stop people buying from these companies you are forgetting the layers of obfuscation and just how removed the average person is from where products come from.  People buy goods that come from slave labour because they are cheaper.  People buy stolen goods from the back of a lorry because they are cheaper.  People would buy eggs from a farm with salmonella if it came from the other side of the country because word of mouth doesn't work with generic products shipped from hundreds of miles away.  People would still buy from a company even if the company negligently killed your family because they don't give a fuck as long as the good is cheap, especially where there is no alternative.

How do you properly charge negative externalities where there is no accountability due to the above?

If given all of the above you still somehow think market forces would work with no regulatory oversite then you are missing any logical reasoning.

Sean7k's picture

What does company size have to do with this? You have some way of supporting this argument?

How would oligapolies occur with or without government, when we have always had government? You have a test world somewhere? Then you assume this makes everyone worse off? If the product is comparable at a smaller price- oligopoly on. 

If a company damages private property they would be responsible to pay the costs- otherwise the community would boycott their products. There would be  no government to protect them and allow them to do the damage they do now -WITH GOVERNMENT. If they are already doing all this terrible things with government, how could the elimination of government be any worse, I mean other than having to pay huge taxes to be abused by a large company.

I don't see the point of your argument about what people buy. You want to attach a moral superiority to a product based on a personal value system. Excuse me if I don't find value in your attempt at tyranny. Many would say Americans are warmongers, murders and debt slaves- does that mean no one should buy our products?

How does present government charge for negative externalities? Has GE cleaned up the Hudsen yet fella? Damage done to private property can be recovered in a private property, free market system. Yours, not so much.

Given that you have failed to make a case for your outlandish claims, with no support, evidence (historical or anecdotal), or even a good example, it may be that you have no idea what logical reasoning is. You are emotionally committed to the myth of law and government- and emotions are usually a poor bellweather of rational decision making.

AdTheNad's picture

Look at Somalia.  No government there to mess things up for those lucky entrepreneurs.  Must be paradise.  Or what it looks like from over here, is a warlord takes over, or it could be the biggest group of organised people, be it a gang or company and thus become the de facto government for the local area.  Excuse me local warlord, you've damaged my private property and killed my family, would you mind paying me restitution or all these people who are scared shitless of you won't buy your heroin?  How do you envision for a minute that this governmentless world could work?

The point of the moral argument was nothing to do with my value system, but to point out that people don't give a shit about morals when they buy the goods I mentioned.  People don't boycott products now, and they wouldn't in your dream world.  The only way it could possibly work is in small local communities, if they cared enough about the person who had been wronged.  And if the company has a local monopoly with no competition good luck with a boycott even if you want to.  Do you see how all the points I made are coming together?

There is a lot wrong with the way the government is run at the moment, but the answer isn't to get rid of government but to make it better and actually answerable to the general public and average person.

Complex systems such as deep sea oil drilling need big companies to operate, so big companies have to exist unless you want to remove complex systems entirely from your world.  With no regulation big companies would still not have to fear market forces in any scenario where it is cheaper to advertise and obfuscate the truth then pay to clean up after their own mess.  With no government in the BP oil spill, BP would blame Halliburton and other sub contractors, Halliburton would blame BP.  The people would never know who was really to blame and the entire Gulf of Mexico would now be a write off since it would have been cheaper for the companies involved to just abandon it and lie about whose fault it was.

knowless's picture

i've never taken unemployment, i just lived with less, i don't understand why people think they are entitled to it..

still kicking's picture

That's usually because they have paid unemployment taxes for years and have been shortpaid by their employers for the amount they also have to kick in to the state, so actually they are entitled to it, that's kind of the point of it.  That being said I don't think they should get 2 years worth.  Fyi, I have never been on unemployment.

writingsonthewall's picture

..but the Germans will still get health care and unemployment benefits for the next 'lost decade' of depression.

What will US citizens get? - the freedom to die where you like?

The Government in Europe has been used like a savings scheme - the US declined to set one up - now they will see the error of their ways.

Maybe it's time you considered that the Government beaurocrats DO have a better idea of how you spend the money you earned - because those old vegas chips aren't going to get your son or daughter better when you have no job!

Sean7k's picture

Amazing you can liken theft to savings. They must be breaking windows all over Europe- just think of the jobs and benefits!

The bureaucrats must be better because they are not as inefficient as those other bureacrats. Do you listen to yourself think?

Government can't provide jobs, they can only provide more opportunities to tax. If the job was legitimate, it wouldn't require a government to create it. It would be the result of profit in a private business.

You're a pot calling the kettle black. 

writingsonthewall's picture

Theft? - is it theft to take from those who can afford to provide for those who can't....especially when those who can't were created by those tho can afford?

"The bureaucrats must be better because they are not as inefficient as those other bureacrats. Do you listen to yourself think?"

Oh the Beaurocrats are better because they bought useful things - you got some depleted uranium and Hawkeye missiles - I do hope you enjoyed them.

"Government can't provide jobs, they can only provide more opportunities to tax. If the job was legitimate, it wouldn't require a government to create it. It would be the result of profit in a private business."


Now I know you're out of your depth - ever heard of social costs and benefits? There is no 'private job' in stopping forest fires burning across California. In fact the cleared land is infact a private benefit....and yet you have firemen to put them out - now why would that be?

There's no profit in the NYPD - so are you saying these people are no longer required? Shall we tell them all to leave and you will manage by yourself?


My only complaint with the European model is that the state provision is owned by the Government - which is NOT owned by the people (as it should be) - however in the past when we did have more control we made them build hospitals, schools, police stations, fire stations etc. - so we can still receive these services - even in hard times. It also ensures that some people will continue to work through the private sector wilderness that will be the next decade.


"You're a pot calling the kettle black. "


No - you're someone confused about freedom and social needs. You'll probably work it out when you're being burgled 3 times a week by the starving masses on the streets who no longer care about getting shot, beated or arrested.

Sean7k's picture

Yes, it is theft. The government is taking the money against your will. Blaming the rich for the poor? Poor reasoning and no way to show causation.

They bought useful things? People could have bought the same at a cheaper price. 

There are no social costs and benefits that cannot be provided by the private sector at a cheaper price. 

The private sector can provide security and justice at a cheaper cost, it would be driven by the needs of the consumer and it would reflect the benefits of cooperation rather than power principles that lock up and criminalize at additional costs while the victim remains all the poorer. 

All your schools, police and fire are provided at greater cost and poorer quality. You want public ownership? What do you think private property is? Do you think because there is no  government,there would be no social organization? People are incapable of creating communities that reflect their unique culture? That it is better to have one size fits all government? 

Who determines these social needs? You? 

You are typical of the those that would imprison all of society to provide the freedom you have determined to be necessary. Which is what totalitarian socialism is all about.


knowless's picture

i've payed taxes at every one of my menial jobs, i could easily qualify for section 8 housing, food stamps, unemployment.. but i don't, because i don't want to be dependant, if you give up responsibility, you give up rights, i'de rather be hungry and cold then collared, and i've been both.


and i don't know what you're talking about there not being private jobs in stopping forest fires in california.. i worked for a private crew which was contracted by governments... soo.. yeah.

G-R-U-N-T's picture

Who would allow leeches to continue sucking the life blood from those who create, produce and make profits? Easy answer the appointed parasitical leech infested bureaucrats whom have throughout history have NEVER had a better idea because they don't think, their thinking is done for them bitch!

writingsonthewall's picture

...and yet the whole existence of banking is through parasitical means.

They don't make anything they simply utilise the power of exploitation to ensure that they get a slice of every piece of action.


At leats the Beaurocrats are taking a pay cut - the bankers are just boosting their wages as we speak!

You must be glutton for punishment.

Sophist Economicus's picture

I junked you because you are stupid

writingsonthewall's picture

I won't bother junking you because you simply don't understand what you're talking about.


I see you like the ape in the zoo, he looks like me, he has the same mannerisms as me - but I don't pick my nose and eat bananas all day and I would have escaped my cage by now.

Don't forget, you're the one living in a country which has the most debt in the world, not a lot to show for it....and no safety net.

I feel quite comfortable being junked - I have free healthcare and unemployment benefits should I lose my job.

DaveyJones's picture

nothing is free, except maybe... humility 

Sophist Economicus's picture

First, let's be clear.   You don't have 'FREE healthcare'.   Unless you perform your own diagnosis and treatment using wild berries, sticks and rocks - somebody, somewhere is paying for your health care.   You, being the driveling idiot that you are, may not care, but it isn't free.

Second, you don't have a job.  But, if you did, and your employer was smart enough to notice that he'd be better off hiring a bag of rocks and fired you -- then your unemployment benefits would be paid by someone else -- i.e., you would be living off of others.   

Now, I know you don't care about living off of others -- leeches never do.    They feel entitled.   Well, that will slowly change, but I do have get a satisfaction knowing that people like you NEED us to support you.   YOU are a pet, a play thing, an insignificant societal leech.   Enjoy the trinkets your are handed by productive citizens like ME.

j0nx's picture

"Don't forget, you're the one living in a country which has the most debt in the world, not a lot to show for it....and no safety net."

Took you a while but you got there. Game, set, match. There simply is no refuting the point above unless you consider the world's largest military and the most 3rd world countries that hate you as something to show for it. Americans are taxed out the ass everywhere we look. I will EASILY take the pepsi challenge with any European citizen for most taxed when you add in every aspect of your life. The MIC simply has to FOAD at this point because I for one am sick of paying to be the world's police force and I don't think I am alone. Bring 'em ALL home and stick them on the border with orders to shoot to kill. Have them do repairs to our infrastructure, etc instead of slinging a rifle halfway around the world in some 3rd world shit hole that I could care less about.

In Vino Veritas's picture

Your health care is most assuredly NOT free.  You are just living off the backs of others, having them pay for your health care - and feeding armies of bureacracies along the way.  Anyway, the health care system here in the US has been excellent to me and my family.  We've never had to wait more than two days for any of the care & procedures received.  I know first hand how that's not conceivable when dealing with British and German national/public health care systems.  Of course, if you have private health care over there (where such is legal), you'll find a similar high quality.  It's interesting how that works, no?

We left Europe for the US many years ago and find our standard of living here is much better than it was there.  Our families in Germany and the UK are universally less well off.  We have more disposable income, can afford higher quality product and have more saved.

Unfortunately, the US is drifting toward the European model.  The consequence of which is that we're retreating somewhat from seeking new business.  The bureaucracy and taxation involved once one gets past a certain point is simply not worth it (I can enumerate if requested, but I don't think it'll be news to anyone here who runs a business).  The more this kind of nonsense continues to advance, the more we'll retreat.

The fatal flaw in the philosophies of people like you, is that you rely on others' monies - and believe said others won't react to minimize the confiscation.  Either they'll readjust operatons to lessen the tax burden, move away from the high taxed regions, or just bow out altogether.  We have taken two of those measures already, and as I mentioned above, are starting to engage in the third.