If you believe the likes of Barack Obama and his of his socialist, fascist friends, you will believe that the American system of economics benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
The rich get the breaks and the poor are exploited.
Did you know that in Denmark, the poorest 30 percent pay 14.1 percent of all taxes and the richest pay 48.7 percent, while in the United States, the poorest 30 percent pay just 6.1 percent of all taxes and the richest 30 percent pay a whopping 65.3 percent? The surprising thing is not that the richest pay most of the taxes but that the U.S. has nearly the most progressive tax system in the world, while the Scandinavian countries have about the least progressive tax systems, contrary to commonly held belief.
Obama and his team are radical extreme thinkers when it comes to organizing our economy. The only thing saving us is the fact that he and his team don’t have any experience in running an organization. He simply couldn’t manage his way out of a wet paper sack.
Thank God!
I think you have a typo where you say “benefits the wealthy at the expense of the rich”
Anyway, Denmark has much great income equality than the United States. The poorest in Denmark are richer than their counterparts here, and the richest in Denmark are poorer than the richest here, especially when we’re talking about share of income. For example, in the US the top 10% receives 45% of all income in the nation, while the top 10% in Denmark receive 20% of the total income. In 2005, the lowest 20% of Americans brought in 4% of all income earned in the country, while in Denmark the share is 9.6%.
I know it’s fun to say “radical extreme thinkers” over and over, but I think you need to flesh these analyses out a lot more for them to make sense.
I think you have a typo where you say “benefits the wealthy at the expense of the rich”
Fixed. Thanks.
The poorest in Denmark are richer than their counterparts here
I don’t think so. Denmark as a WHOLE is only a bit ahead of Kentucky. And behind Idaho.
http://tarheelred.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/the-world-compared-to-the-states/
The poor in America. the POOR, have it better than the median of European citizens. Our poor have more access to more quality of life measures than the median of virtually ANY nation.
The poor get much more in transfers than the Americans meaning that taking into account taxes and transfers the Danish system is the most progressive.
No. The article said that the poor pay such and such amount in taxes. It made no mention of transfers. It didn’t mention WIC for example. Or social security. It didn’t mention unemployment benefits or food stamps. It mentioned taxes.
Fellas, I get it. You think the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor. And that as long as the law allows people who have stuff to keep stuff, you aren’t fully satisfied that the law is serving the people. But the fact is that living in America, at virtually ANY income level, is akin to winning the global lottery. There is a category of “Hot Tubs” in the stuff owned by quitiles survey. And some % of the poor own one.
I resonate with the fact that we have to do more. That there are people who have less than I do. And that I am obligated to provide.
But that thinking is WAY separate from the thinking of Obama. You can call him moderate. A Nixon Republican. Or anything else. But the man, in his own words, is an example of a far far Left thinker. His visions of America are at the extreme. The fact that he can’t implement them doesn’t change that fact.
I’ll ask again, with the acknowledgement that I haven’t, have you read his books? What does his own words tell you?
A strong society does not have large disparities in wealth. It is a sign of a shrinking middle class and lack of opportunity. What I dislike about the piece you cite is that it is dishonest. It makes it sound like our poor are better off than the poor in Denmark, which is clearly not the case. It makes it sound like our rich pay more of a burden than the rich in Denmark, which is clearly not the case. It ignores the real measure of tax progressivity by focusing on an irrelevant statistic — one that comes from Reagan’s tax reforms! I am on record supporting social welfare programs NOT as a means to redistribute wealth directly, but as a means to provide real opportunity. The rich have to pay more taxes for another reason: they have benefited the most from the debt-driven boom, and now we have massive debt. Yes, we have to cut spending, but that will hit mostly the poor and middle class. To solve this problem we need everyone involved, and for the wealthy that means marginally higher tax rates — rates that still leave them paying far less than people in every other industrialized country. There is no way that can be seen as socialism, it’s just common sense.
The article your post cites is dead wrong. You can’t measure progressiveness by how much tax is paid. Ronald Reagan’s reforms are what caused the poor to stop paying taxes — he said better to have them not pay taxes than to do like the Scandinavians and have taxes collected and then essentially reimbursed. However, to measure progressivity the only way is to look at the GINI index and see the before tax and transfer and after tax and transfer rate. The GINI index measures income distribution. 0 would be everyone earning the same, 100 would be one person with everything and another with nothing.
The US pre-tax and transfer GINI index is at .46, while Sweden is at .43, and Denmark and Norway are at .42. That means pre-tax they are slightly more even in income distribution, but not much. German has a bigger pre-tax gap between the rich and the poor than the US at .51.
After tax the US GINI index moves to .38 — a modest improvement. But it is the most income disparity of the entire industrialized world. Taxes and transfers move the wealth distribution from .46 to .38.
After taxes and transfers Denmark is at .23. That’s right, taxes and transfers equalize wealth dramatically, the gap between the rich and the poor is least in all the industrialized world. This means Denmark has the most progressive tax system in the industrialized world. This means the poor are much more even with the rich in Denmark. Sweden is also at .23, Norway is at .28, while Germany’s disparity narrows from .51 to .30. All of those systems are much more progressive than the US system. The US system is the least progressive. The GINI index is higher in the US than ALL other OECD states, except Portugal with which we’re tied. Poland is slightly better at .37 after taxes and transfers.
The article you read is an example of misguided biased writing, and it apparently fooled you. It took one claim (that the poorest in Denmark pay more taxes) and jumped to a conclusion (that the US system is more progressive) that isn’t warranted. The poor get much more in transfers than the Americans meaning that taking into account taxes and transfers the Danish system is the most progressive.
Scott,
” The rich have to pay more taxes for another reason: they have benefited the most from the debt-driven boom, and now we have massive debt ”
If the rich and the poor were taxed at the same rate, the rich will pay more taxes .
Given how the wealthy can get loopholes created that limit their taxes, some kind of fair or flat tax may indeed be a better alternative.
Scott,
I agree with closing loopholes, but loopholes are the natural consequence of high taxes . It happens like clockwork . If you guys insist on raising taxes, loopholes ‘will’ appear. You can say they shouldn’t , but should and will never get together . Without high taxes, capital naturally flows to the greatest profit opportunities . With high taxes capital will create loopholes and still flow around the rocks of tax .
Pingback: Income Disparity « Tarheel Red
I wouldnt be thanking the non entity too soon. Until there is a viable alternative on the right you will have 4 more years of Obama. The only one that should have a chance has no chance. Poor old Ron Paul.