This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Complaining About High Taxes? Don't Tell France And Germany...
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...
»
- 19396 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
You get Ben Bernanke and the private FED Ponzi...you know that evil called "socialism"...practiced by the rich 0.1%... but socialism nevertheless!
America does not need higher taxes because it socialises its currency printing throughout the planet.
America is a grossly inefficient place because it does not have to pay for inefficiency - the rest of humanity does.
When it was making worthwhile things and technology it was bearable and when it was protecting us from the dreaded Russian bear it was bearable but now what does it do for its dinner ?
Mexico income tax among the lowest, with the highest poverty rates....
Is it any wonder that the world's richest man is from Mexico AND a flood of poor people want to leave Mexico and get on Uncle Sugar's Dole? We should reject every Mexican Illegally coming to America until Carlos Slim is paying at least as much tax as Americans. Oh, and BTW, high school education rates in Mexico are less than half of America's. Go figure.
Latin America is the way it is because the rich have absconded and bear no responsibility towards society in general. It is a window into what the US will look like more and more in the future. It is also an argument for the breakdown in libertarian ideals--but I don't think government is a solution as much as having rich people who give a shit towards helping their fellow man instead of being greedy fucks. Wealth should bring enlightenment because the rich have the luxury of becoming enlightened.
Lower taxes but much higher debt in U.S. Stop making it political and calling some "socialists" as if it demonstrates a broken system. And stop calling it "welfare" while ignoring "warfare".
Comparing US medical costs to those of countries with purely socialized medicine is apples and oranges. For example, in Canada, unless a drug appears on the official formulary, it might as well not exist. Here in the US, a doctor is free to write script for the best drug for the purpose, as long as the either the patient or the insurance carrier will pay for it. The best drug probably costs more, but is this a bad thing? In Canada, all patients may think that horrible side effects are just normal, not knowing they could be treated without any side effects at all. Side effects don't move the actuary if the cost savings are sufficient enough.
Countries with socialized medicine effectively draft their medical professionals into service of the state with either direct or indirect wage controls. For years I have worked on the perfumery of the medical profession in a town with a major medical school. I once asked a well know faculty member about immigrant doctors gaining privileges to practice medicine at the teaching hospital. His reply, was that they often take a lot of remedial education before they are up to western standards. At the extreme end, we can see this in how little education it takes before a person is put to work as a doctor in Cuba. I have had surgeons from South America as dinner guests and was shocked by their description of the government hospital they were assigned to practice at. So, just because something is less expensive doesn't make it better, let alone how people would spend their own money.
Here is a key difference:
I once asked my medical school faculty friend about paying $100 to get arterial ultrasound screening. I thought this was a great bargain, and a kind of “reverse lottery”. I would gladly pay $100 to find out if I was building up arterial plaque. He told that according to the statistics, it was a waste of money. His explanation: it was less expensive to treat those who survived a heart attack or stoke than to spend $100 to screen everyone.
And this is the exactly calculation that the bureaucracy of any country with socialized medicine must make. It is also the calculation that an HMO must make, which is why I oppose either. And this is also why it is essential to kill ObamaCare ™.
In the US, we are presently experiencing shortages of critical medications only because the margins on those items are too low for drug companies to make unbelievable profits on.
This is alll B.S.
Every statistic has a backround and is made to show "something".
Dont trust a statistc which you havent faked by yourself.
ROFL. Nice one.
I'm surprised nobody even mentionned that in europe contrary to what some said: we don't cheat as much as is stated below and we have fiscal revenues that for France for example comes mainly from indirect taxing and represent about 50% of total tax revenues. Those indirect taxes are very high some examples: a pack of cigarettes cost >5€ a liter of fuel cost about 1€ (1 US gallon = 3.78541178 l) etc... So spin it the way you want, life's not cheap in the so called pseudo socialist states.
As someone who smoked for many years, I don't think cigarette taxes are a very good example of the horrors of taxation.
I mean, really. The shit just kills you and does nothing good for anyone except the manufacturer. If there was a company selling bags of tetanus-dipped broken glass to kids, would it really be "bad" if there was a tax levied on 'em?
As an aside: cigs in NYC run $10-11 a pack. (€7,50?)
Fuckin' wild, right?
That's fucking wild alright. But I'm sure that wouldn't stop hardcore smokers. I'm just saying: you can tell how desperate some countries are by the way they tax every day commodities, especially addictive ones: alcool, cigarettes, cofee etc..
as long as there is medicaid or medicare whre the govt even remotely supports healthcare, cigarettes should be highly taxed. or people who want to buy cigarettes without a tax should be made to sign a waiver on ever using medicaid or medicare.
That's actualy the justification for high taxes on cigarettes. The official one at least.
Nah, that's bullshit.
On average, smokers die a LOT younger than non-smokers. Smokers "cost" far less than non-smokers for all forms of socialized healthcare. What's important to remember is that everybody dies, and the majority of money spent on a person's healthcare is during the last few years of life. If those last few years occur at 60 (say for a fatty or a smoker or a smoker fatty), they cost a lot less than when those last few years occur at 85 (for one of the healthy long-lived people).
well im okay with the govt taxing it to the statstical amount it costs for healthcare costs associated with smoking a pack of cigarettes.
if he gets fired, he gets free healthcare. that is his point. it's free to HIM. which is what really, really, really matters to HIM, as an unemployed person, at that point.
you've got to be a real fucking ideologue to point out the mother fucking obvious, that it isn't free to everybody, when that is totally irrelevant, and totally fucking obvious.
right-wingers, stating the obvious, as though anyone disagreed with the obvious, since time immemoriam.
I'm not sure you're actualy responding to my comment, but if that's the case: what I'm pointing out is that what is represented here as taxation does not represent the full charge of taxtion we bear. I'm not questioning the validity of the welfare state, solidarity is and should remain an important principle of the modern state but the cost of it is not represented by what is directly taxed it is mostly indirect tax, the every day tax that even those who cheat the system can't avoid. Everything has a cost, the question is as it always has been what do we get for what we pay. My answer: we pay a lot, and a lot more than what is said. End of my point.
it's not as though we live in a vaccuum here in the u.s., is it?
do we really need to know anything more than this:
out in the real, empirical world, all other industrialized countries have socialized medicine, to one extent or another, and that, roughly speaking, they pay about 50% less for it than we do?
isn't everything else just nitpicking in the face of that overwhelming, argument-crushing piece of colossal reality?
medicine should be socialized. duh.
I don't live in a vaccum nor do I live in the US, but as one person living in a country where medical care is socialised I can tell you this: the deficit of the social security is the biggest deficit in our budget and it's growing day after day, we even have a very special name for it: "le trou de la sécu", wich could be roughly translated as: the hole in the financing of social security. Some are starting to call it "le trou noir de la sécu" wich again means the: the black hole in the financing of social security. As I stated before I'm not an advocate of social darwinism and I believe in solidarity but the cost of some policies can be monumental, and this one of these policies. So you can argue until the end of days (wich unfortunatly isn't near) that there should be this and that, but until a system is found where the cost of the policy doesn't jeopardize the economic viability of the system as a whole every one will have to deal with a shit load of problems in the end, because the economy is a bitch and material survival will always prevail on ideals.
We chose our system, you chose yours. I don't think either one is better. You can't afford to pay personnaly for healt care, we soon won't be able to finance it. In the mean time we sure are better off than you. One could even say we're enjoying the ride because this is going to be one of our downfall.
Do these stats factor in state/local tax revenue, or just at the federal (or equivalent) level?
Cuz the state and local burden in the US adds at least 5-10% more..
This story is beyond silly.
They're not including state, city, FICA and other taxes.
One of the most worthless stories in the "utterlty worthless story on ZH" category.
How silly.
Having problems posting here.
Sorry, but that just explains why those countries have sucked for such a long time and have been stagnant with endemic high unemployment and lack of any innovation. And those tax rates are still not enough to cover their lifestyles....
...The European countries are also subsidized by billions of yearly US taxpayer $$$ which pays for the defense of Europe so they can use their own money for more social welfare for themselves. Fact is, the US spends twice the % GDP on military defense than Europe does, and much of it is to support our overseas bases protecting our allies and also helps their economies.
(Military spending: 5% of GDP USA vs 2.5% average GDP Europe)
Sorry, but that just explains why those countries have sucked for such a long time and have been stagnant with endemic high unemployment and lack of any innovation. And those tax rates are still not enough to cover their lifestyles....
...The European countries are also subsidized by billions of yearly US taxpayer $$$ which pays for the defense of Europe so they can use their own money for more social welfare for themselves. Fact is, the US spends twice the % GDP on military defense than Europe does, and much of it is to support our overseas bases protecting our allies and also helps their economies.
(Military spending: 5% of GDP USA vs 2.5% average GDP Europe)
BS
U.S. Foreign Economic and Military Aid by Major Recipient Country: 2001 to 2008: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1298.pdf
You don't help anybody being safer, your military help itself by proxy. The only thing that could be indirectly considered foreign military aid to europe would be NATO, but everybody knows we don't need NATO to protect europe from Russia or whoever. Beside the only interventions of NATO are in the middle east where we help your military with it's neocolonialism. So don't give us that crap.
youre an idiot...
If the total tax rate for all of your non-inflation taxes is 50%, inflation is 3.5%, and you save 33% of your (fixed) income each year, then by year #44 your effective tax rate will be *OVER* 100%. I.e., the amount of saved wealth lost every year via inflation will be LARGER than 33% of your annual income. So, somewhat counter-intuitively, even though you continue putting 33% of your income into savings each year, your total saved wealth keeps going *DOWN* after that point. Higher inflation rates cause this to happen in a smaller number of years -- e.g., at 7% it happens at year #22. What's worse, and at least as counter-intuitive, is the more you save the worse it gets -- if with 3.5% inflation instead of saving 33% of your income you manage to somehow save 50% of your income, then instead of total wealth starting to shrink in year #44 it starts to happen in year #31. And of course, effective tax rate doesn't just become 100+% in one day, but goes up relentlessly each and every time you add to your nominal savings.
BTW, if you want someone to look at you like you are some kind of lunitic, just tell them that when you figure out your total tax rate you are including corporate taxes.
wow surprised canada didnt get a mention, got a feeling that it would be at or near the top, especially quebec...
Wrong. You're not including the inflation tax, debt tax, fascism tax, anti-liberty tax, etc.
Who is still actually dumb enough to provide labor for the beast? It's playing tunes for prisoners at this point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAXTa381bes&feature=player_embedded