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
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.