US taxes second most progressive in the OECD (other than Ireland)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 6:16 PM GMT
    If one accepts this as fact, then one also has to accept that the reason those advocate taxing the wealthy more in the US are not seeking equity, but seeking to punish the rich for being rich.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/

    Income taxes in America are more progressive than in other rich countries--according to an authoritiative official study which, to my knowledge, has not been contradicted. The OECD's report "Growing Unequal", on poverty and inequality in industrial countries, includes a table that provides two measures of income tax progressivity in 2005. This is evidently the source of de Rugy's numbers. Here they are in an excel file. According to one measure, America's income taxes were the most progressive of the 24 countries in the sample, except for Ireland. According to the other, they were the most progressive full stop. (A more recent OECD report, "Divided We Stand", uses different data, a smaller sample of countries and a different measure of progressivity: the results are similar.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 8:34 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidIf one accepts this as fact, then one also has to accept that the reason those advocate taxing the wealthy more in the US are not seeking equity, but seeking to punish the rich for being rich.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/

    Income taxes in America are more progressive than in other rich countries--according to an authoritiative official study which, to my knowledge, has not been contradicted. The OECD's report "Growing Unequal", on poverty and inequality in industrial countries, includes a table that provides two measures of income tax progressivity in 2005. This is evidently the source of de Rugy's numbers. Here they are in an excel file. According to one measure, America's income taxes were the most progressive of the 24 countries in the sample, except for Ireland. According to the other, they were the most progressive full stop. (A more recent OECD report, "Divided We Stand", uses different data, a smaller sample of countries and a different measure of progressivity: the results are similar.)


    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/2/41528678.pdf
    That'll make your head spin! You brought it up! I just researched.. Gee and this is a "authoritiative official study" (authoritative:winkicon_smile.gif) from OECD themselves..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 8:57 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 saidIf one accepts this as fact, then one also has to accept that the reason those advocate taxing the wealthy more in the US are not seeking equity, but seeking to punish the rich for being rich.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/

    Income taxes in America are more progressive than in other rich countries--according to an authoritiative official study which, to my knowledge, has not been contradicted. The OECD's report "Growing Unequal", on poverty and inequality in industrial countries, includes a table that provides two measures of income tax progressivity in 2005. This is evidently the source of de Rugy's numbers. Here they are in an excel file. According to one measure, America's income taxes were the most progressive of the 24 countries in the sample, except for Ireland. According to the other, they were the most progressive full stop. (A more recent OECD report, "Divided We Stand", uses different data, a smaller sample of countries and a different measure of progressivity: the results are similar.)


    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/2/41528678.pdf
    That'll make your head spin! You brought it up! I just researched.. Gee and this is a "authoritiative official study" (authoritative:winkicon_smile.gif) from OECD themselves..


    Ah - as per usual, you missed the part where I pointed out the taxes were the second most progressive of the OECD - from yes, the OECD, but you never really understand the arguments or the ideas do you? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 9:05 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 saidIf one accepts this as fact, then one also has to accept that the reason those advocate taxing the wealthy more in the US are not seeking equity, but seeking to punish the rich for being rich.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/

    Income taxes in America are more progressive than in other rich countries--according to an authoritiative official study which, to my knowledge, has not been contradicted. The OECD's report "Growing Unequal", on poverty and inequality in industrial countries, includes a table that provides two measures of income tax progressivity in 2005. This is evidently the source of de Rugy's numbers. Here they are in an excel file. According to one measure, America's income taxes were the most progressive of the 24 countries in the sample, except for Ireland. According to the other, they were the most progressive full stop. (A more recent OECD report, "Divided We Stand", uses different data, a smaller sample of countries and a different measure of progressivity: the results are similar.)


    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/2/41528678.pdf
    That'll make your head spin! You brought it up! I just researched.. Gee and this is a "authoritiative official study" (authoritative:winkicon_smile.gif) from OECD themselves..


    Ah - as per usual, you missed the part where I pointed out the taxes were the second most progressive of the OECD - from yes, the OECD, but you never really understand the arguments or the ideas do you? icon_rolleyes.gif
    LMAO.. I have such a ball at repeating your behavior and motives here.. and you get tripped up every time.icon_lol.gif

    Someday you'll grow up and figure it out.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 9:29 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 saidIf one accepts this as fact, then one also has to accept that the reason those advocate taxing the wealthy more in the US are not seeking equity, but seeking to punish the rich for being rich.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/

    Income taxes in America are more progressive than in other rich countries--according to an authoritiative official study which, to my knowledge, has not been contradicted. The OECD's report "Growing Unequal", on poverty and inequality in industrial countries, includes a table that provides two measures of income tax progressivity in 2005. This is evidently the source of de Rugy's numbers. Here they are in an excel file. According to one measure, America's income taxes were the most progressive of the 24 countries in the sample, except for Ireland. According to the other, they were the most progressive full stop. (A more recent OECD report, "Divided We Stand", uses different data, a smaller sample of countries and a different measure of progressivity: the results are similar.)


    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/2/41528678.pdf
    That'll make your head spin! You brought it up! I just researched.. Gee and this is a "authoritiative official study" (authoritative:winkicon_smile.gif) from OECD themselves..


    Ah - as per usual, you missed the part where I pointed out the taxes were the second most progressive of the OECD - from yes, the OECD, but you never really understand the arguments or the ideas do you? icon_rolleyes.gif
    LMAO.. I have such a ball at repeating your behavior and motives here.. and you get tripped up every time.icon_lol.gif

    Someday you'll grow up and figure it out.icon_wink.gif


    Tripped up? Lol. Right. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 10:04 PM GMT
    TropicalMark, you'd need to open the excel file offered in the opinion piece riddler originally posted a link to.

    He's made this as difficult as possible precisely to trip you up.

    Interesting, US wealthiest decile has the third highest level of market share income, only surpassed by Italy and Poland.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 10:14 PM GMT
    meninlove said TropicalMark, you'd need to open the excel file offered in the opinion piece riddler originally posted a link to.

    He's made this as difficult as possible precisely to trip you up.

    Interesting, US wealthiest decile has the third highest level of market share income, only surpassed by Italy and Poland.
    Oh I did.. trust me.. he didnt trip me up.. He cant open the PDF I posted because it kinda says what everyone else in this country has been saying all along..

    Funny thing is how he uses these 'reports' that were developed during the BUSH years to reflect what is actual in reality today..

    Yeah those cars built in 1970 are the most technological cars ever built. Nothing surpasses that technology!icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 10:24 PM GMT
    meninlove said TropicalMark, you'd need to open the excel file offered in the opinion piece riddler originally posted a link to.

    He's made this as difficult as possible precisely to trip you up.

    Interesting, US wealthiest decile has the third highest level of market share income, only surpassed by Italy and Poland.


    Actually no - I acknowledge generally that the US has one of the greatest levels of inequality but I would also note that it is wealthier at almost all levels than its peer countries. The buying power/standard of living of the poor in the US exceeds the middle class/average in most places in Europe.

    The problem right now for policy makers is what to do if anything to correct the issue of "inequality". Those on the left claim that the way to do so is through tax policy - that the deficits and debt should be paid for through the rich because they are most able to afford it... but at what point does this level of taxation already more progressive than almost all OECD states save one, become intolerable, regressive and result in less productivity overall at all ranges of the spectrum (you will often find that the poor in the US are against the class warfare approach because they also aspire to be rich).

    There was no attempt to trip TropicalMark up - he seems to do that all on his own. I made it clear from the outset that it was taxes that were most progressive in the US and the implications of further raising taxes said more about an attempt at punishing the rich than a search for greater equality. That he has difficulty understanding the difference between the fact that despite one of the most progressive taxation systems there is still unusually high inequality is.. .well let's just say charitably, unfortunate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:02 PM GMT
    Riddler said, "I made it clear from the outset that it was taxes that were most progressive in the US and the implications of further raising taxes said more about an attempt at punishing the rich than a search for greater equality."

    This is where you go off into nut-bar land. Taxes are raised to punish the rich?!?!?!?

    Punish them for what? This is kooky tin-foil hat reasoning.

    I'm quite serious here, Riddler. That line of thinking is weird and creepy.

    The US is in deep trouble, so those with the deepest pockets are paying more in taxes to help the economy they benefited from, recover.

    How soon you forget the 80s and 90s in Canada, where taxes climbed when we were in a recession. What did taxes start doing in the 2000s? Think about one of the obvious reasons Stephen Harper got in.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:04 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    How soon you forget the 80s and 90s in Canada, where taxes climbed when we were in a recession. What did taxes start doing in the 2000s? Think about one of the obvious reasons Stephen Harper got in.



    He was playing with barney back then.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:08 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    meninlove said

    How soon you forget the 80s and 90s in Canada, where taxes climbed when we were in a recession. What did taxes start doing in the 2000s? Think about one of the obvious reasons Stephen Harper got in.



    He was playing with barney back then.icon_wink.gif



    TropicalMark, I'm being serious here. Punishing the rich caught me so off guard as the reason why rich people pay more tax that I called Bill over to take a look.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:09 PM GMT
    meninlove said Riddler said, "I made it clear from the outset that it was taxes that were most progressive in the US and the implications of further raising taxes said more about an attempt at punishing the rich than a search for greater equality."

    This is where you go off into nut-bar land. Taxes are raised to punish the rich?!?!?!?

    Punish them for what? This is kooky tin-foil hat reasoning.

    I'm quite serious here, Riddler. That line of thinking is weird and creepy.

    The US is in deep trouble, so those with the deepest pockets are paying more in taxes to help the economy they benefited from, recover.

    How soon you forget the 80s and 90s in Canada, where taxes climbed when we were in a recession. What did taxes start doing in the 2000s? Think about one of the obvious reasons Stephen Harper got in.



    Not kooky at all. Again, it's this issue of classwarfare that keeps getting raised that the rich have someone disproportionately benefited and aren't paying their "fair share". This is a theme that is consistently raised throughout the left in the US. Look at the accolades Elizabeth Warren got for her comments (who ironically is quite wealthy but she denied it - even more ironically is that she attained her wealth by preventing payouts by insurers and automakers on claims as I recall):

    "You built a factory out there? Good for you, but I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." (TropicalMark may in fact have been the one to post this - I don't recall).

    But as the data shows, the US already taxes its wealthy far disproportionate to (a) the income they make as a whole, and (b) to other OECD countries save one - Ireland. So what's the basis for arguing that they should be taxed more? It's certainly not fairness - so why is it an issue that continues to be raised? At its most simplest level, it's the politics of envy and jealousy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:14 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    TropicalMark said
    meninlove said

    How soon you forget the 80s and 90s in Canada, where taxes climbed when we were in a recession. What did taxes start doing in the 2000s? Think about one of the obvious reasons Stephen Harper got in.



    He was playing with barney back then.icon_wink.gif



    TropicalMark, I'm being serious here. Punishing the rich caught me so off guard as the reason why rich people pay more tax that I called Bill over to take a look.

    Oh I know.. I was just pointing out the fact that riddler was a toddler back then.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:17 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    meninlove said
    TropicalMark said
    meninlove said

    How soon you forget the 80s and 90s in Canada, where taxes climbed when we were in a recession. What did taxes start doing in the 2000s? Think about one of the obvious reasons Stephen Harper got in.



    He was playing with barney back then.icon_wink.gif



    TropicalMark, I'm being serious here. Punishing the rich caught me so off guard as the reason why rich people pay more tax that I called Bill over to take a look.

    Oh I know.. I was just pointing out the fact that riddler was a toddler back then.


    And you'd think you would be old enough then to know better but apparently not. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:25 PM GMT



    "You built a factory out there? Good for you, but I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

    I'm sorry, but how is that punishing someone for being wealthy?

    Bill and I have done quite well and consequently pay taxes and property taxes that are considerably more than when we were poorer. At no time have we ever felt we were being punished.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:32 PM GMT
    riddler78 said Look at the accolades Elizabeth Warren got for her comments (who ironically is quite wealthy but she denied it - even more ironically is that she attained her wealth by preventing payouts by insurers and automakers on claims as I recall):

    Incorrect..Correct yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:41 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said Look at the accolades Elizabeth Warren got for her comments (who ironically is quite wealthy but she denied it - even more ironically is that she attained her wealth by preventing payouts by insurers and automakers on claims as I recall):

    Incorrect..Correct yourself.


    That's what she said - I'm sorry if you can't read into the context of her words and the literal statement of what she said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:43 PM GMT
    meninlove said


    "You built a factory out there? Good for you, but I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

    I'm sorry, but how is that punishing someone for being wealthy?

    Bill and I have done quite well and consequently pay taxes and property taxes that are considerably more than when we were poorer. At no time have we ever felt we were being punished.


    I am not saying that you are or aren't or that you are or aren't paying your fair share or where you are in that scale. what I am saying however is:

    " the US already taxes its wealthy far disproportionate to (a) the income they make as a whole, and (b) to other OECD countries save one - Ireland. So what's the basis for arguing that they should be taxed more? It's certainly not fairness - so why is it an issue that continues to be raised? At its most simplest level, it's the politics of envy and jealousy."

    There isn't a question of "fair" but rather, arguing that society should take wealth because someone happens to have it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:44 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said Look at the accolades Elizabeth Warren got for her comments (who ironically is quite wealthy but she denied it - even more ironically is that she attained her wealth by preventing payouts by insurers and automakers on claims as I recall):

    Incorrect..Correct yourself.


    That's what she said - I'm sorry if you can't read into the context of her words and the literal statement of what she said.

    I remember that topic well. Riddler, you didn't understand the context because you didn't break the sentence down as taught in class...oh wait. You hate teachers.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:46 PM GMT
    "here isn't a question of "fair" but rather, arguing that society should take wealth because someone happens to have it."


    No, that's not why we're taxed more. If the country discovered an oil well bigger than the entire global reserves underneath it, we'd be living like nationals do in Kuwait.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:51 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said Look at the accolades Elizabeth Warren got for her comments (who ironically is quite wealthy but she denied it - even more ironically is that she attained her wealth by preventing payouts by insurers and automakers on claims as I recall):

    Incorrect..Correct yourself.


    That's what she said - I'm sorry if you can't read into the context of her words and the literal statement of what she said.

    I remember that topic well. Riddler, you didn't understand the context because you didn't break the sentence down as taught in class...oh wait. You hate teachers.



    Hardly - only their unions. I actually did break the sentence down - pointed out how she structured it in the interview and pointed out the overall context in her campaign. It was far more of a stretch to believe that she was saying that it somehow made her different from other rich people because she didn't hold multiple companies of shares versus mutual funds which her campaign later argued was the case.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2012 11:55 PM GMT
    meninlove said "here isn't a question of "fair" but rather, arguing that society should take wealth because someone happens to have it."


    No, that's not why we're taxed more. If the country discovered an oil well bigger than the entire global reserves underneath it, we'd be living like nationals do in Kuwait.



    Again - I can't speak to your level of income and whether or not you are considered to be part of the top 10% or 5% or whatever it is in Canada that pays the bulk of taxes. Taxes are part of the social contract - and I accept this. You conveniently sidestep the arguments made however of why the rich should pay more and the fact that those like Warren claim it's unfair how apparently little they pay now. And no, if we found more oil as you suggest we wouldn't be living like the nationals do in Kuwait - we do have something far more valuable though than natural resources - that's the population / innovation within our citizenry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2012 12:05 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said Look at the accolades Elizabeth Warren got for her comments (who ironically is quite wealthy but she denied it - even more ironically is that she attained her wealth by preventing payouts by insurers and automakers on claims as I recall):

    Incorrect..Correct yourself.


    That's what she said - I'm sorry if you can't read into the context of her words and the literal statement of what she said.
    Quit trying to trump/play games, its smacks of immaturity.. now correct yourself. The sentence in RED.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2012 12:18 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said Look at the accolades Elizabeth Warren got for her comments (who ironically is quite wealthy but she denied it - even more ironically is that she attained her wealth by preventing payouts by insurers and automakers on claims as I recall):

    Incorrect..Correct yourself.


    That's what she said - I'm sorry if you can't read into the context of her words and the literal statement of what she said.
    Quit trying to trump/play games, its smacks of immaturity.. now correct yourself. The sentence in RED.


    Edit: she attained at least some of her wealth in this way. I fail to see the attempted "trump" game. The only one who persistently appears immature in this discussion is you. You don't really understand the arguments you make which leads to your often embarrassing revelation that they aren't even contradicting what you've been saying.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220130insurance_past_should_sink_lizzy/srvc=news&position=also
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2012 12:28 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said Look at the accolades Elizabeth Warren got for her comments (who ironically is quite wealthy but she denied it - even more ironically is that she attained her wealth by preventing payouts by insurers and automakers on claims as I recall):

    Incorrect..Correct yourself.


    That's what she said - I'm sorry if you can't read into the context of her words and the literal statement of what she said.
    Quit trying to trump/play games, its smacks of immaturity.. now correct yourself. The sentence in RED.


    Edit: she attained at least some of her wealth in this way. I fail to see the attempted "trump" game. The only one who persistently appears immature in this discussion is you. You don't really understand the arguments you make which leads to your often embarrassing revelation that they aren't even contradicting what you've been saying.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220130insurance_past_should_sink_lizzy/srvc=news&position=also
    44 grand? Don't be so silly.........icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif