And when you look at it as taxation on the highest earners in society, it's even lower.
It's interesting, the book I'm reading at the moment about the Reagan Revolution. Their big economic plan was to cut taxes and slash state expenditure. They felt this two-prong attack on the countries deficit spending (And this was when America had just started down the road of big deficit spending) would stimulate the economy and fill the black hole.
Only when it came time to cut spending, the Senators and Congressmen screamed no, and all of the billions of dollars that got spent on expensive boondoggles were protected. So the only part of the regan revolution that went through was the tax cuts part.
Which is when the American deficit suddenly started spiralling out of control. And ever since then, they just kept borrowing more and more.
However, when you add back in the price they pay for healthcare, education and so on that many countries pay for from the general taxation pool, it turns out they pay pretty much the same on average for life's basics.
I recall chatting to an acquantance in New York City about income tax rates an discovered his were not that different from mine and then he had to pay for health insurance and college fees for his kids.
Of course income tax is not the only tax but it made me think about the US as a low tax regime.
Though there's some doubling up. IIRC, the American government spends more per capita on healthcare than many countries with free at the point of use healthcare systems, then the people pay insurance etc atop that.
Sure -- there's an inefficiency (from the user point of view) in layering your healthcare system over an insurance system which takes out a modest cut to maintain a profit for their administration. It's modest compared with the cost of a healthcare system itself but not insignificant.
When I was looking at the economics of state run things (to slightly over-simplify) for a course, I remember the stats on the US being that it was more expensive, gave worse overall healthcare, but was more responsive to what people wanted/said they wanted out of it (despite the fact it did worse at actually keeping them well)
It's saying that the government collects less taxes (as a percentage) than most governments do. Where the shortfall comes from would be a different graph :->
Not in and of itself... but it does say that, relative to other OECD countries, the US has much more latitude for paying off its debts and balancing its budget without gutting itself if it can somehow muster the political will to do so.
You need other information, such as the Gini Index and a table of marginal tax rates, to draw (correctly) the conclusion you did.
-- Steve's been trying to marshall a blog post for some time on how the US debate on taxation is fundamentally broken because it focuses on costs instead of return on investment... but it ain't easy.
Oops, forgot to include; the taxation figures only include health care for some Americans, those drawing on Medicare, Medicaid(sp?), and the military's TriCare system. Private insurers are (erroniously, IMO) included in the GDP as generators rather than costs.
-- Steve, once again, posts in haste and regrets in leisure.
It's worth remembering that the US % spend on healthcare from taxation i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, VA, covering emergency room treatment they can't get from people (dunno if this gets accounted in the others) is almost exactly the same amount that the UK spends on universal healthcare as a percentage of GDP. The problem isn't the spend, its the way it gets spent.
the US has much more latitude for paying off its debts and balancing its budget without gutting itself if it can somehow muster the political will to do so.
Not quite I think because of the points made on adding back in health care and education costs. The US government could put up taxes and remain below OECD averages but many more US citizens would either go without health care or education or suffer a reduced standard of living in other areas to pay for them.
I should be very interested in a post on US taxation from you.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Most taxes in the larger countries like the US and Canada go to States and Cities and districts and counties and whatever else they have.
I did read an article showing that a typical American pays as much in tax as a typical Brit, but has to do so in a far more complicated way.
no subject
It's interesting, the book I'm reading at the moment about the Reagan Revolution. Their big economic plan was to cut taxes and slash state expenditure. They felt this two-prong attack on the countries deficit spending (And this was when America had just started down the road of big deficit spending) would stimulate the economy and fill the black hole.
Only when it came time to cut spending, the Senators and Congressmen screamed no, and all of the billions of dollars that got spent on expensive boondoggles were protected. So the only part of the regan revolution that went through was the tax cuts part.
Which is when the American deficit suddenly started spiralling out of control. And ever since then, they just kept borrowing more and more.
no subject
no subject
I recall chatting to an acquantance in New York City about income tax rates an discovered his were not that different from mine and then he had to pay for health insurance and college fees for his kids.
Of course income tax is not the only tax but it made me think about the US as a low tax regime.
no subject
no subject
It's a very good deal if you're a healthy rich person with no dependents and rich parents.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Also I note this is as a percentage of GDP, so really it is just telling that the rich in America don't pay enough taxes, yes?
no subject
no subject
You need other information, such as the Gini Index and a table of marginal tax rates, to draw (correctly) the conclusion you did.
-- Steve's been trying to marshall a blog post for some time on how the US debate on taxation is fundamentally broken because it focuses on costs instead of return on investment... but it ain't easy.
no subject
-- Steve, once again, posts in haste and regrets in leisure.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Not quite I think because of the points made on adding back in health care and education costs. The US government could put up taxes and remain below OECD averages but many more US citizens would either go without health care or education or suffer a reduced standard of living in other areas to pay for them.
I should be very interested in a post on US taxation from you.
As Anyone Can Clearly See
Re: As Anyone Can Clearly See
As Anyone Can Clearly See
no subject