Slashdot Mirror


Sorry America, Your Taxes Aren't High (bloomberg.com)

Americans generally feel they're being over-taxed, especially around this time of the year. But is that really true? An article on Bloomberg investigates: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development analyzed how 35 countries tax wage-earners, making it possible to compare tax burdens across the world's biggest economies. Each year, the OECD measures what it calls the "tax wedge," the gap between what a worker gets paid and what they actually spend or save. Included are income taxes, payroll taxes, and any tax credits or rebates that supplement worker income. Excluded are the countless other ways that governments levy taxes, such as sales and value-added taxes, property taxes, and taxes on investment income and gains. Guess who came out at the top of the list? No. Not the U.S. At the top are Belgium and France, while workers in Chile and New Zealand are taxed the least. America is in the bottom third.

91 of 903 comments (clear)

  1. Taxes are for dummies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Smart people like Trump never pay them.

    1. Re:Taxes are for dummies by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not even that the rich have to be that smart to pay much less (if anything) in taxes. It's that they can afford to hire people to find/exploit every tax loophole they can. I feel relatively safe in assuming that Trump doesn't pour over his own tax returns every year making sure that everything is set up for him to pay as little as possible. He has people to do that for him.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Taxes are for dummies by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      It's the fact that the rich pay less (in terms of % income) than the middle class.

      I easily get 33% taxes taken between state and Federal....

      I've not looked exactly this year, but that's likely a good ballpark estimate.

      Reminds, me I got an email from my CPA the other day, I need to look at it and sign forms, etc.....see how much I owe.

      As for how much the "rich" pay. Hey, I can't blame them for taking every deduction, legal method of saving tax payments. I do the same as much as I possibly, legally can.

      If you want to bitch about it...then write your congress critters and engage them personally to re-write the laws.

      I for one would love a simpler tax code. Throw out the horrible monstrosity we have now that no one but an army of CPA's could fathom, and do a fair tax or possibly national sales tax (ONLY if by constitutional amendment any other federal taxes are banned, no income tax and nat'l sales tax)....

      Simplify for businesses too. I am a self employed S-Corp. It would be nice if I could simply say I billed X amount, I had Y expenditures, I owe 5 of X-Y, or something in that ball park.

      Sure, it might make a lot of accountants have to look for another job, but hey...we don't see a lot of buggy whip industry around these days either, do we?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Taxes are for dummies by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's the fact that the rich pay less (in terms of % income) than the middle class.

      That's because earned income (wages) get taxed at a higher rate than investment income (rental properties, capital gains and dividends). Romney paid less in taxes because the majority of his income was investment. Obama paid more in taxes because the majority of his income was earned. Don't like the taxes you're paying? Convert earned income into investment income.

    4. Re:Taxes are for dummies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You can simplify the tax code without pulling out this "fair tax" / flat tax bullshit.

      Progressive income taxes work, and they can exist simply, in a manner that doesn't require lawyers and accountants - but guess who writes the tax law?

      Get rid of deductions, stop treating different types of income differently, stop issuing financial aid through tax credits and subsidies (most of which just end up in the pocket of H&R block anyway)... Simple and still progressive to insure the people who can afford to pay more do pay more.

    5. Re:Taxes are for dummies by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes because everyone has the means to "convert earned income into investment income".

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Taxes are for dummies by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can simplify the tax code without pulling out this "fair tax" / flat tax bullshit.

      Well, given that about 40% or more of the US effectively pays "0" income tax, I"m sorry, that's just not right.

      Everyone should have skin in the game and pay in.

      I con't think of Fair Tax/Flat Tax as BS. If you make $X, you pay %X.

      That's about as fair as it gets.

      If you want to make it a national sales tax, that seems to get even more fair (no tax on food), but at that point, you start to bring in revenue from all citizens, even criminals have to buy stuff from stores.

      And the rich tend to buy more items, expensive items, so this would hit them likely even more than today's "progressive" tax system.

      But bottom line, no one should get by without some skin in the game.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Taxes are for dummies by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Informative

      What Romney and others got crucified for was confusing "no INCOME tax" with "no taxes at all whatsoever," as if income taxes were the only taxes in the USA. They are not, as there are a number of other federal and state taxes, as the poster you replied to noted.

      Moreover, they were derided because they were deliberately trying to mislead voters through implication, without technically lying. It's similar to when Apple had ads that stated "Macs are immune to Windows malware", knowing that most consumers will hear that and think "Macs are immune to malware", despite that not being what Apple's literal statement said (because "Windows malware" only affects Windows, just like "Android malware" would only affect Android devices, not Windows or iOS or OS X, etc).

    8. Re:Taxes are for dummies by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      The problem is not that the wealthy use every option to save on their taxes. The problem is that there are a great many more of these opportunities for the wealthy to save on their taxes than others. Look at all the offshore tax havens. Those happen because they save money for the wealthy, yet you need to own a lot of capital to benefit from a scheme like that in order to overcome the cost of setting it up.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:Taxes are for dummies by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Investment income taxes have to compete globally, including the double taxation applied.

      ((1 - Corporate tax rate) * (1 - Capital gains tax rate) * Average national investment return) has to be globally competitive or your nation will get _no_ investment.

      In first world nations with growing economies corporate taxes + capital gains taxes on investments are about 45%. Those who claim capital gains taxes are too low all forget to count the corporate taxes already paid on the same income (in the case of stocks).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Taxes are for dummies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They already have a skin in the game, through sales tax, gas tax, etc. These folks are spending, and a substantial amount of their income goes towards subsistence. One way or another, through the dole, incarceration or taxes, they'll be utilizing the system. This simply lightens the load on the other two. It's one of the reasons a progressive tax works, in the pragmatic sense. "Fair" should have nothing to do with it if it simply hits us for more somewhere else in the budget.

    11. Re:Taxes are for dummies by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of relevance to that matter is the fact that the median income is about HALF of the mean income. So that person at the 50th percentile, that "average American" by one measure, is only making half of the "average American" by the measure most people probably think of (add up how much we all make and divide by number of people, i.e. mean income). It's not surprising that people making not even half of average are paying a very low tax rate. What SHOULD be surprising is that most Americans are making less than half of the "average American".

      Rich people want more people to share their tax burden? See to it that more people get more income to be taxed, then. But if you want to hoard all the money, be prepared to pay for everything, because nobody else can.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    12. Re:Taxes are for dummies by jonsmirl · · Score: 2

      50th percentile people certainly pay taxes. They pay sales tax, state taxes, gas taxes, property tax, social security tax, car licensing tax, etc. They also pay a small amount of federal income tax, articles put it at 3-5% of their income. Usually the largest tax in this list is property tax. But that makes sense - you get direct benefits of police, fire, roads, schools, etc for that tax. And you have local control over property tax, if it is too high go to a town meeting and complain.

    13. Re:Taxes are for dummies by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dividends get taxed as income.

      Ordinary dividends are taxed as income. Qualified dividends are taxed at different rates.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_tax#United_States

      All my dividend income is qualified and therefore I paid zero taxes, as my actual tax rate is under 15%.

    14. Re:Taxes are for dummies by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your reasoning falls down at the "write your congress critters" part.
      You should realize that your congress critters work for rich people and corporations and are bribed by them to keep their taxes low and put special loopholes in the law so they don't have to pay taxes. Congress doesn't work for voters.
      If you're just a regular working stiff and not a corporation or rich person, you are paying too much tax.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    15. Re:Taxes are for dummies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Skin in the game" doesn't make sense in this context.

      Why not? In my own life, I see that people who pay more in taxes care more about the government not wasting money. The people who pay no federal income taxes don't care what the government does, unless they get a check. Then they act like the program that pays them is a human rights issue.

      You may argue that it is not rational that a person would care more about government efficiency just because they have to pay some small part of the bill. Sadly, the fact that a thought is not rational has no baring on many people.

    16. Re:Taxes are for dummies by magarity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They already have a skin in the game, through sales tax, gas tax, etc

      Notice that this study did not take into account all the hidden taxes. Also include the corporate income taxes that are baked into the prices of goods. Making Walmart pay corporate income tax makes a great political sound bite until you realize all the low income people shopping there paid it.

    17. Re:Taxes are for dummies by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But as a percent of income the rich buy less, thus paying less taxes. That's why sales taxes are considered regressive, hitting the poor and middle class more.

      --
      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
    18. Re:Taxes are for dummies by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every gallon of gas has federal tax on it. An insufficient amount, given the state of our infrastructure, but a federal tax none the less. Then there's also the corporate tax applied to every single thing you buy.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    19. Re:Taxes are for dummies by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      Luxury tax and estate tax use to address the issue of the rich buying less and paying less taxes.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    20. Re:Taxes are for dummies by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody with a paycheck pays 0%. Anyone that says that willfully disregards Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes which are NOT exempted under any circumstance. Anyone making a paycheck is paying at a minimum the 15% social security and Medicare taxes. The lovely dishonesty about your claim is it's kinda true if you specifically narrow the count to a specific tax, 40% pay no federal income tax in addition to the SS and Medicare/Medicaid taxes.

      You and Romney should get together and have lunch because you're being as dishonest as him in claiming 40% don't pay taxes, everyone earning a wage pays taxes including illegal imigrants who often pay social security and Medicare taxes but will never benefit from them.

    21. Re:Taxes are for dummies by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the most important bit is that the 47% paying no Federal Income taxes (a single tax) are in fact paying far higher percentages of their earnings in the remaining taxes than the richest people pay. No one is exempt from the 15% SS/Medicare/Medicaid taxes, everyone pays state income/sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, etc. The tax burden of the average person in Romney's "47%" is more than 50% of their income (the true working poor can have tax rates as high as 60-70% if they live in a state that taxes food) while people like Romney are paying 0-15% taxes if they pay any at all.

      That level of dishonesty is infuriating because it's deliberately obscuring the truth with a lie by omission. The working poor aren't lazy people not paying taxes, they pay higher percentages of taxes than just about anyone else.

    22. Re:Taxes are for dummies by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Dividends are taxed as income, always.

      You must not own any dividend-paying stocks. If you did, you would know that qualified dividends are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary dividends.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_tax#United_States

    23. Re:Taxes are for dummies by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you're living paycheck to paycheck, no, it is impractical to increase your 401k contributions.

      I swear the average Slashdotter is a son of Trump or something - or at any rate has never experienced low incomes. Back in 1995, I actually got to the point that I couldn't eat for two days because I'd literally completely run out of money and food. I wasn't living extravagantly - a tiny black and white TV getting its signal via the antenna was my major entertainment, for example. No car. Cheap junk furniture.

      I'm comfortable now, but it recently opened my eyes when I looked at the Wikipedia page of a city near where I live and found the median household income there is barely $20,000 a year. That, adjusted for inflation, is less than what I was earning in 1995 (ignoring inflation it's slightly higher.) That's household income - as in multiple people are trying to live from that money. I don't know how they do it, but I can pretty much guarantee they're not putting money into 401ks.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    24. Re:Taxes are for dummies by chipschap · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What the study REALLY missed is what you get in return for your taxes.

      For instance, Scandanavian taxes are not exactly low, but there is quite a lot of service provided.

      I'd put forth the proposition that on a value basis, U.S. taxes are high.

    25. Re:Taxes are for dummies by Quirkz · · Score: 2

      Taxation 101: the relative burden. Most people find it fairer or believe it to be logical that those who make more can accept a larger share of the burden. If you make a little, you're taxed lightly; make a little more, you're taxed moderately; those who make the most are taxed at the highest percentages. This is known as a progressive tax system.

      There are some who will argue for a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage across the board. This also has a certain logic, and many proponents.

      Very few people would endorse what you've suggested, that the rich should pay a lower share, and somehow justify it because the dollar numbers are bigger. Take your example to a greater extreme: the guy making $70k pays 50% in taxes, or $35k, and some other guy making a million pays 3.6%, or 36k. Or go more extreme: the $70k guy is taxed at 100% and has nothing, while the millionaire is taxed at 7.1%, paying $71k. It's more dollars, but it's clearly unfair.

        For most people, "fair" requires at least even percentages, rather than looking at raw dollars.

    26. Re:Taxes are for dummies by Junta · · Score: 2

      For me of 15 years ago, it would have been impractical. If 'instant gratifcation' means 'able to eat at least one meal a day', I was guilty. Sometimes there just isn't fat to trim.

      If I bitched about needing all my money that I earn *today* then I would be a totally impatient and self-absorbed guy. Then again if I can afford to engage in shenanigans to have money later than now, then I can also afford to have a bit more tax burden to pay for the sort of programs I needed 15 years ago to get by, and that many of my extended family need today.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    27. Re:Taxes are for dummies by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It also ignores that most of that 47% is military personnel, retirees, and people on disability. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/...

      What they also don't seem to remember is, the majority of that 47% vote republican.... they're just too stupid to know Romney was talking about them.

      A map put out by the Tax Foundation of the 10 states with the highest and lowest percentage of filers with no federal tax liability shows that the states with the highest percentage of non-filers are, by-and-large, states that typically vote Republican, while the 10 states with the lowest percentage of non-filers tend to be Democratic-leaning.

      So it's the same old story... democrats pay taxes, and republicans leach off democrats.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    28. Re:Taxes are for dummies by mcmonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      But I don't consider myself racist, and I'm not quite sure the major racist things Trump has said or promotes.

      That you don't consider it racist when Trump questions a judge's qualifications and ability based on that judge's ancestry says a lot about you.

    29. Re:Taxes are for dummies by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fun fact: if you add a universal basic income to a flat income tax, the net result is a progressive tax that automatically sets its brackets based on the level of income disparity.

      Get rid of deductions, stop treating different types of income differently, tax everyone's everything the same percent, then give everyone the same lump sum as a tax credit, and pay anything they end up getting back in monthly installments (likewise allowing people to pay anything they owe monthly), and you've got a clean, simple system that puts a gentle pressure toward the mean income on everyone's incomes... or less gentle as the greater income disparity becomes.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    30. Re:Taxes are for dummies by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      We have dealt with cancer twice in our family and even though we were covered, time off work still created a big hit to our bank account. Does taking time off for cancer treatment count as instant gratification?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    31. Re:Taxes are for dummies by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For instance, Scandanavian taxes are not exactly low, but there is quite a lot of service provided.

      I'd put forth the proposition that on a value basis, U.S. taxes are high.

      That depends on what you value. If you value having 19 nuclear aircraft carrier groups which enable the ability to interfere in anybody's business anywhere in the world pretty much at a moment's notice, US taxes are quite reasonable. Up until the election of Donald Trump, Americans hadn't paid any attention to anyone promoting isolationist polices since World War II, and as it turns out, Donald Trump isn't isolationist either, to the tune of 59 cruise missiles. Americans seem to like paying for the American Empire.

    32. Re:Taxes are for dummies by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Funny

      That depends on what you value. If you value having 19 nuclear aircraft carrier groups which enable the ability to interfere in anybody's business anywhere in the world pretty much at a moment's notice, US taxes are quite reasonable.

      It's still pretty unreasonable. Scandinavians have lutfisk and surstromming and rakfisk and other unspeakable weapons, which scare me a lot more than some floating airstrip does, and are much better value for money. So it's not how much money you have, it's how you spend it.

  2. So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by clifwlkr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think anyone thinks that America's income taxes straight out are that high. But now add in property taxes, which are very significant, social security, etc. That really starts to cover the effective tax rate that you really pay. Then also all the government 'fees' and requirements you pay (required backflow valve inspections at your cost, etc.). Finally, consider what you actually get for it, as we don't get government pensions or healthcare or any kinds of real social service for this money.

    So basically they really aren't counting the total real taxes paid, and aren't considering the value of those taxes. Not sure how really useful this comparison is at the end of the day.....

    1. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think anyone thinks that America's income taxes straight out are that high.

      You need to spend more time on conservative websites.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By the time you take all that stuff into account the US is likely to be *way* further down the list. Property tax isn't high in the US (typically around 1.5% of the value of the property, which is similar to, or lower than council tax rates in the UK). Sales tax is typically extremely low (typically less than 6%), compared to the UK's 20% VAT. Taxes on fuel are typically extremely low 18.4/gal, compared to the UK's £2.19/gal (273/gal).

    3. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by Ded+Bob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they did not take into account state taxes, they also skipped city, township and county taxes. Sales tax can come from state, city and county, I think.

      Gas taxis 18.4/gallon at the federal level, so it should be already in there, right? I am not sure. Anyway, state and city can add their own gas taxes.

      Does the UK's VAT replace the income tax there or do both exist?

      A more thorough report would be nice regardless of whether the U.S. is higher or lower on the chart.

      A report for value obtained by those taxes would also be nice. However, that can be highly subjective.

    4. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by ctilsie242 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I will assert that the taxes to the -government- are not high in the US. However, there are "taxes", that one has fork over to businesses or else:

      1: Health insurance.
      2: Toll roads/commuting. There is no government interest in public transportation, so one has to have a vehicle and drive. This means forking over cash for car insurance, vehicle upkeep, parking, traffic costs, etc.
      3: Pollution.
      4: Potential losses due to sickness/injury. Those costs going to inscos don't mean that they might bother paying a hospital bill bursting with zeros. It is pretty common for someone to lose their entire fortune with one serious illness.
      5: Unemployment. Not everyone has a 2 year "fuck you" fund. Benefits can be quite limited, if one can get them at all, since ex-employers fight unemployment claims tooth-and-nail as a matter of routine.
      6: Training and education. When I was in college, my German classmate had his tuition paid for by the state. Same with my Russian, Chinese, French, English, and Indian classmates. I was the only one there forking out fees out of my pocket or getting student loans for it.

      I would be more than happy to pay more in taxes, provided it gave single-payer health coverage, a usable public transportation system, some type of income if jobless for the short and long term, and education so I can keep relevant when job skills shift. In fact, if those things were covered by taxes, I'd be far better off financially, and I'm sure most people would be as well.

    5. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by SlithyMagister · · Score: 2

      Ahem
      It ain't what you got, it's what you do with it that counts.
      I was surprised to find that Canada pays less than the US overall.
      And for that Canada has a rudimentary universal health care system, and the US has what?
      Crumbling infrastructure and an overpriced military that funnels money into the military's suppliers and from there to the executives of those suppliers.

      It's no wonder the US citizenry are so angry.

      Peace

    6. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we are grossly overtaxed... for what we get in return

      for what we pay, with all taxes combined (income, property, sales, registration fees for cars and what not, etc).. we *should* have single payer non-discriminatory universal health care, free 4 year public university, and a lot of other things.

    7. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was filling my return in yesterday. I was owing the feds $200 until I put in my mortgage interest deduction. Suddenly Uncle Sam owed me $2000. Property taxes are negligible given the system that's skewed in favor of home owners who take a massive benefit from the general population's tax contributions. It's a huge driver of income inequality.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    8. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sales tax is often above 6%, even here in Utah. There are state, county and city components to it. The federal gas tax is the low part. State more than doubles that. We pay an additional 29 cents a gallon on that. Given the cost of gas that is an effective 25%ish tax rate. Social security tax is very significant amount, varying by income. Then again remember the second half of the equation. We are required to by health insurance and nothing is covered. We have to pay out of pocket on top of that to use the health insurance. We have to save for our own retirement as we do not get government pensions back out of our money, and in fact can't even really start collecting social security (our own money) until later and later years. Now approaching the average age that a male dies. We basically get very little for our tax money, and have to make up that difference ourselves, costing us more. This means that the real effective tax rate is higher, and actual cost of living can be quite high do to the lack of services provided for your taxes. The corporations get cheap tax rates, the extremely rich pay very little, and the middle class carries a significant portion of the tax burden. Look at the effective rate the middle class pays and what they get.

      I live in a European country. I pay 25% sales tax, a 40% income tax and a monthly charge for my pension plan but that's not a tax to my mind, it's an investment. Additionally I pay tons of all kinds of fees every time I want to use a public service, my car is subject to fuel taxes and road taxes but I expect this 'taxing by a thousand tiny cuts' phenomenon also exists in the states so let's stick with the big taxes. If I was an American I'd be paying 25% income tax and 0-10% sales tax depending on where I lived. On the face of it I'd say the American has it significantly better than I do especially because the average pay in my industry is about 30% higher in the US. However, I do get universal healthcare and free university education for my 40% income tax and 25% sales tax and the crime rate is ridiculously low here compared to the US so it's not all bad.

    9. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      I live in a European country. I pay 25% sales tax, a 40% income tax and a monthly charge for my pension plan but that's not a tax to my mind, it's an investment. Additionally I pay tons of all kinds of fees every time I want to use a public service, my car is subject to fuel taxes and road taxes but I expect this 'taxing by a thousand tiny cuts' phenomenon also exists in the states so let's stick with the big taxes.

      If you think about it, you'll realize how stupid this whole thing is. Regardless of the form of taxation, the net result is the same - money diverted from the productivity generator (employee, company) to the government. So why do we need so many taxes?

      This would all be a whole lot simpler for everyone if we abolished all taxes except one, and diverted the same amount of money to the government via that single tax (if you want a progressive tax system, the income tax is the obvious one to keep). You could shrink the entire tax code down to a small booklet you could actually read and understand in a single evening. The tax collecting agency could be reduced to about 1/20th its size. You wouldn't need as many accountants to keep track of sales taxes or VATs throughout the manufacturing and retail chain. And we wouldn't be sitting here wondering exactly how much we pay in taxes because of having to add up all the nickle and diming (thousand cuts in places which don't have nickles and dimes).

      The only additional taxes outside the main One Tax should be behavior-modifying taxes. e.g. Fuel taxes to encourage fuel conservation, property taxes to encourage effective use of land, sin taxes to discourage smoking, etc.

    10. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      free university education for my 40% income tax and 25% sales tax

      TBH that's probably not worth it. Hard to be sure because obviously the 40% + 25% goes to other things as well. You've probably spent a lot extra in taxes than you would have if you'd just paid for college.

      Probably true if those were the only two perks but I notice you did not include universal healthcare in your quote which means I don't pay a dime even for extremely expensive treatments that often ruin US households. You also cut out the low crime rate which I consider to be a major plus of life in this country. There are also many other things like free daycare for everybody, no toll roads, a well maintained infrastructure, 100% internet coverage at speeds that most Americans can only dream of, ... the list goes on. I can see how some people might be interested in a minimal state with low taxes where most of the things that are public services or utilities in my country are privatised and where you are shit out of luck if you are too poor to afford health insurance but I still do not feel like I'm being shortchanged or robbed and I'm not so annoyed by the universal health insurance also covering very poor people that I'd abolish the system. Funnily enough I know a number of people who were pretty annoyed with things like mandatory health insurance and mandatory pensions that they fled the 'socialism' over here and moved to the US so they could skip that stuff and have a bigger disposable income. Interestingly a number of them came back here years later to make use of the 'socialism' over here that so disgusted them to get expensive operations and cancer treatments because they had not bothered to save for such eventualities. That ended when the parliament passed a law stating you have to have lived in country for over a year before you are eligible for treatment through national universal health insurance system.

    11. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      ..but I'm not surprised CA has some law that lets them keep that money.

      I said LA, not CA....wrong state.

      ;)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      The argument that we should be happy because our taxes are lower than other countries is a bit like telling Mary that she should be happy that her husband only beats her twice a week, because Jane's husband beats her three times a week.

      And what do we get for those taxes? Soaring education & medical costs with reduced quality, dilapidated bridges & roads, wars against countries that pose no threat to our national security, agricorps that get subsidies to not grow food, etc.

      Now I'm just waiting for some wise-cracker to say "If you hate government so much, you should move to Somalia." I don't hate government, but I do hate corruption, waste and bureaucratic red tape. Apparently, being against those things makes you some sort of anarchist with Somalia being your only option, instead of returning your federal government back to a limited, constitutionally defined role.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    13. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      .....so its a tax..... glad we cleared that up

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    14. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For every problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong. Taxes are complicated for a lot of good reasons. There are some bad reasons, too, but not all the reasons are bad.

      You already opened the door to many of the reasons with behavior modifying taxes. Many annoying details in the tax codes are there because of this.

      Another big problem is locality. There are countless tiny library districts, transit districts, school districts, etc. that all have wildly varying needs and draw on different groups of people. If you attempt to simplify things and then flow cash back to these districts things can get ugly fast.

      Maybe try to attend a few local town hall meetings and see how complicated it gets when some bright fucker tries to nix a bag fee or something.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    15. Re:So you exclude half the taxes and what you get? by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you think about it, you'll realize how stupid this whole thing is. Regardless of the form of taxation, the net result is the same - money diverted from the productivity generator (employee, company) to the government. So why do we need so many taxes?

      This makes a base assumption that services provided by the government are not productivity generators.

      According to you:

      *Roads are not productivity generators

      * People who are not sick don't generate productivity

      * Educated people don't generate productivity

      * People who don't live in fear of crime don't generate productivity ...

  3. Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sorry, but you've only been stabbed in an artery, so it's not actually bad compared to this guy was was shot in the face.

  4. It's relative by Haxzaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just because others are taxed higher doesn't mean we aren't over taxed. I'm not saying we are overtaxed, but I think taxes could be lower, or spent more wisely.

  5. The nice kind of rape by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Yes, you're getting forcibly fucked in the ass, but the dick's on the small side, so it's okay."

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:The nice kind of rape by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm loving all you whiners comparing paying for civilization to all kinds of gruesome murder and rape. No hyperbole here, no sir.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:The nice kind of rape by nightfire-unique · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm loving all you whiners comparing paying for civilization to all kinds of gruesome murder and rape.

      Not entirely sure I'd call dropping tens of thousands of bombs per year, bailing out megacorporations, and imprisoning non-violent drug offenders "civilization."

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    3. Re:The nice kind of rape by Jhon · · Score: 2

      "and imprisoning non-violent drug offenders "civilization.""

      Posting non-anonymously because I need to point out your naivety.

      I take issue with this. My daughter (10 years old at the time) was kidnapped and brutally raped by someone who was considered a "low risk" drug offender.

      The problem with your thinking is that the vast majority "non-violent" drug offenders can't work. They need to feed their habit so they need money. They'll lie, rob, steal friends, family or strangers to get what they need. By the time they are at the point of treats of violence for money there usually has been several opportunities for the "offender" to receive help. Some just wont accept the help or it doesn't stick. At this point it doesn't matter -- now we're at the point where we *NEED* to take this "non-violent" offender off the streets as easily and as often as we can.

      Our monster had a long history (including violent felonies) yet he was considered "low risk" because is LAST felony wasn't "violent" or "serious" or "sexual". Well meaning idiots cast a wide "help drug addicts" net with laws like AB109 (assembly bill in CA) which doesn't allow a felon to be supervised by state parole (with higher chances of real revocation time) but forces them on county probation with the equivalence of placing someone who violates the terms of probation in the "time out chair" (no more than about 10 days).

      Our monster was on "ab109 probation" and had violated the terms of his probation. Had he been under state supervision, he likly would have been put back in prison for 90-180 days if not longer (considering his history). Instead, he received a 6-day "time out" in county jail, dropped in a drug rehab program, stayed clean JUST long enough to pee in a cup and the very same day went out to rob houses for drug money after getting high with some friends. He just also happened to kidnap my daughter, too.

      *MOST* drug offenders who make it to prison are repeat felons already. Yes, there are exceptions but they are EXCEPTIONS. If threat of prison didn't get them clean -- if rehab didn't work for them, if they just cant stop -- I'm sorry, drop them in prison as often and for as long as it takes.

      Note: Our monster got life w/o parole + 200+ years to life on top of that. That should give you an idea the horrors my daughter had to endure by a "low risk" and "non-violent" drug offender.

    4. Re:The nice kind of rape by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't mind paying for civilization. I wish we had some.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    5. Re:The nice kind of rape by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The majority of recreational drug users are not, in fact, addicts.

  6. Yes they are too by Bobb+Sledd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes they are, for a non-socialized country they sure are. I pay over 50% in combined taxes, regulatory fees and permits, and still have to shell out more for things like healthcare and get no government benefit because I "make too much." So bite me.

    --
    "They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
  7. Health Care by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since health insurance is required by the government it is a tax, even if you don't want to call it that.

    Why is that figure omitted from the comparison?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Health Care by erikmartino477 · · Score: 2

      In fact a lot more is missing. In some countries, education, health care, day care, unemployment ensurance is fully or partly covered. You need a complete picture to compare socialized countries with non socialized. It is interesting as well to compare different levels of incomes in different countries. What are good countries to be rich and poor, and how much is needed to "feel" secure.

    2. Re:Health Care by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Why is that figure omitted from the comparison?

      Pretty much the same reason that the Iraq War is 'off the books'. You gotta make the sale.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Health Care by johannesg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What does it matter if it's your employer paying it directly, or paying the money to you and you paying it? The route the money takes shouldn't make a difference.

      I live in the Netherlands. The lowest tax bracket here is 36%, which seems surprisingly close to the 37% we ended up with in the table. The highest bracket is 52%, and it kicks in at around 67000 euro (i.e. it's not just for the extremely rich).

      But then there is another sum which must be payed by the employer. This is income-dependent, but it's not counted as income tax. Why? This money is directly related to my income, so what could it be, other than an income tax?

      "Ah, but this second sum is paid by the employer, so it isn't income tax!" Well, I've got news for you: the first sum is also directly paid by my employer to the government. I never get to see or touch that money. I just hear about it in reports, stating that I sponsored the government for an appallingly large figure.

      So yeah, all in all I'm going to go with "we pay a lot more than 37%", and that makes me suspect the other figures in the report as well.

    4. Re:Health Care by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      Because the vast majority of people get healthcare through their employer or provided by the government and don't have to explicitly purchase it?

      I don't see how that's relevant, unless I'm misunderstanding your point. I'm included in the vast majority and have employer provided health coverage. It cost me $500/month, and my company is chipping in at least that much per month. My employer certainly doesn't require me to participate, but if I don't I pay the "no-insurance-tax". How is that not the same thing as a tax? Just because I'm able to purchase it through my employer instead of an exchange doesn't diminish the requirement of having health insurance.

      Even if my employer payed 100% of the cost, that's still money out of my pocket. That is, of course, assuming if my employer didn't have to expend the $1000 (or whatever) a month for health insurance I would see a portion of that money added to my salary/ESOP/bonus.

  8. Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I may be forced in to bankruptcy by medical bills but at least I'm FREE!

  9. Let's have an apples to aplpes comparison by Blue23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For example, if a country's taxes include universal health care, then the equivalent cost to Americans would be taxes + healthcare costs, not just taxes. Same in regards to things like universal access to education (including college), or a better social support net for elders past working age.

    Comparing buckets that are supposed to cover differing things and noticing they are differing sizes really doesn't show anything at all. It's a false equivalency that's misleading at best.

    --
    LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
    1. Re:Let's have an apples to aplpes comparison by Altus · · Score: 2

      You are right, but thats not really the way most americans think of their taxes. Raising taxes is a hard line for a ton of americans and it doesn't matter what we get in return for it, so we will never have universal healthcare if the idea of raising taxes is so vilified. Even if the tax increase was far less than what we pay now for insurance (which it likely would)

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  10. Because they cherry pick the numbers... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Forgot to ad the forced insurance payments that are in fact taxes. $900 a month for both my wife and I. I pay more in taxes+the forced insurance payment than the canadians do and they dont have to pay co-pays and their pharmaceuticals are not allowed to be price gouged.

    So add that in and now you have the REAL number to compare, because those countries all have universal healthcare for their citizens.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  11. Payment vs Service by EndlessNameless · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Americans may pay less taxes, but we also get far fewer services.

    The closest we have to retirement pensions is Social Security, which is a laughable amount of money. In other countries, you can retire without dedicating a chunk of salary to a gambling scheme---the ubiquitous 401K.

    We have no public health care, so we pay higher costs out of our own salaries.

    Our public education system is woefully underfunded, and higher education is very costly. It would be nice if everyone smart enough to be a doctor or an engineer could just decide to go to school. Who knows?---it might even help with the health care costs and H1B issues if students didn't have to mortgage their futures just for a chance at those professions.

    Let's not forget the embarrassing state of our infrastructure. If a bridge collapses, maybe the media frenzy will force the politicians to do something. Until then, they can rust, rot, or erode away.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    1. Re:Payment vs Service by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Americans may pay less taxes, but we also get far fewer services.

      We get plenty of services. We have more aircraft carriers at our disposal than the rest of the world combined. A fleet of nuclear weapons waiting to be launched. Probably more tanks and aircraft than any two other nations. We have a wealth of services we pay for.

    2. Re:Payment vs Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Our public education system is woefully underfunded, and higher education is very costly

      You can't be serious. We are in the top 5 per-student expenditures for the entire western world. What we do NOT get is any sort of good ROI on that pile of cash. We have teacher's unions that protect the imbecilic assclowns who can't teach but have "seniority", we have "programs" to make sure every little retard has an iPad when all we need to focus on is a PENCIL AND PAPER.

      You can blame the government GUARANTEEING student loans for the wonderful cost of higher ed. Why not charge through the nose, you're guaranteed your money by the same government that is ass-raping K-12 education.

      Obama put hundreds of millions of dollars into "shovel ready" infrastructure repair. Guess what? It's not the money... it's the corruption that is the problem. We HAVE enough money to fix the problems. We NEED more assholes going to JAIL for fucking their communities. I can't believe I have to explain this...

      And I'd much rather have a 401K than any state-sponsored pension. Why? The government keeps their fucking nose out of it. That's why.

  12. Re:Populist Call by Altus · · Score: 2

    It might help if we actually saw more benefit from our taxes. Improved services and infrastructure, universal healthcare, improvements to education... but instead most of the money I pay in taxes goes to buying more military hardware and endless wars.

    But probably not, people are shockingly blind to the benefits of living in a society, believing instead that their rugged individualism would serve them better.

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  13. Re:Yeah, well... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You get the biggest, best-equipped military in the world. One (admittedly large by area and population) nation, effectively dominating a large portion of the planet and strongly influencing the rest. If you take off the gloves, you could take on the entire world and win.

    You've done that at the expense of healthcare, education, and social programs. It's a choice you make every election cycle.

  14. Deception - just one kind of tax. by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem isn't that just one tax - the payroll/income tax being high.

    It's that after you pay that you still have to pay social-security (which isn't operating in the way it commissioned to operate), the medicare, state income tax (in most states), health insurance - which in now a tax per the supreme court, car inspection, vehicle registration, property tax, sales tax at the register, "universal service fee", among other things that creep in we are much more highly taxed than we get credit for when you're only looking at payroll/income.

    For a couple of years I was at 53% removed from my paycheck before I got paid, THEN the sales tax etc.... happened.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Deception - just one kind of tax. by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      The problem isn't that just one tax - the payroll/income tax being high.

      TFA doesn't just cover cover federal income tax. It tries to quantify every tax that is based on an individual's income. Therefore social security, medicare, and state income tax are counted.

      Included are income taxes, payroll taxes, and any tax credits or rebates that supplement worker income. Excluded are the countless other ways that governments levy taxes, such as sales and value-added taxes, property taxes, and taxes on investment income and gains.

      Keep in mind, you are supposed to get your social security and medicare payments back when you are retired.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:Deception - just one kind of tax. by pecosdave · · Score: 2

      My sister used to work for a downstream petroleum company, she told me that a the taxes on a gallon of gas - more than ten years ago when she worked there - was about 70% of the at the pump cost.

      If this went 100% to roads I wouldn't be as annoyed, but we can tell by the conditions of our roadways this absolutely is not the case.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  15. Fucked survey, is fucked. by geekmux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "...Excluded are the countless other ways that governments levy taxes, such as sales and value-added taxes, property taxes, and taxes on investment income and gains. Guess who came out at the top of the list? No. Not the U.S.

    Guess who made an accurate tax survey? No. Not the OECD.

    What the fuck is the point of a survey on tax burden when you're going to exclude a lot of it? My property taxes aren't some meaningless number, paid for by scrounging loose change from underneath my car seat.

    This survey is as pointless as asking what megacorps pay in taxes every year...you know, excluding tax loopholes of course...

  16. Not relative by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having taxes that are too high is not a relative observation. It's a benefit vs cost issue. Are the taxes we pay being used effectively? Do we pay more into the system than we need to? Is there a lot of graft in the system? Are taxes creating new government organizations that reduce individual freedom without providing something of equivalent value to society in exchange? Are the services we're paying for something that we democratically agree is necessary and useful or are the services the remnants of failed policy? Do our taxes get funneled into bailing out rich banks instead of helping the middle class or helping the poor move up into the middle class?

    Just because the US pays less taxes than Sweden does not mean we are denied the right to point out that taxes are too high. It's relative to what we as a society want and what we actually get from those taxes, and not relative to what a person in another countries pays.

    Also remember your intro to macroeconomics course. Saving money versus spending money has serious economic repercussions. And it is going to be difficult to compare different cultures and economies based on those metrics. Americans are not savers, and we tend to run our economy with the heat turned up higher than some other countries would find comfortable. (for better or for worse)

    If the entire Earth had the same tax rate, we wouldn't say that taxes were average. What if the tax was 95% of your income above $10k? That would be high, but it wouldn't be higher relative to any other country if they were all the same. The argument is ridiculous.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  17. Re:The question IS... by dskoll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would absolutely willingly pay more tax if I received services I need for that additional tax, at a price lower than I could otherwise obtain those services. That's pretty much the philosophy that has made the tax rates in the Nordic countries so high.

  18. Sit down and shut up by DogDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You get the largest military in the history of the planet. That's what stupid Americans want, so that's what stupid Americans get.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  19. Re:I find myself getting angry at tax time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Old lizards who vote already have single payer healthcare, and they won't vote to share their Medicare with young lizards.

  20. Re:I demand More Tax by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

    Tax the rich. Give me Basic Income.

    Get a fucking job, and quit trying to be a sponge off society.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  21. Re:I demand More Tax by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

    Tax the rich.

    The rich can leave, or at least move their wealth to somewhere the government can't reach. Wealth/capital is fluid and goes where it's value is highest. Who will you tax when you run out of rich people? As Margaret Thatcher famously quipped;"Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money."

    Give me Basic Income.

    Why should others be obligated to simply *give* you that which they worked hard and sacrificed to obtain? What right do you have to essentially make people who create wealth slaves simply to support you? Go make your own damned money and stop trying to get the government to do your thieving from others for you!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  22. Canada vs US by sjbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was surprised to find that Canada pays less than the US overall.

    You shouldn't be. Canada is rather more sanely managed than much of the US.

    And for that Canada has a rudimentary universal health care system, and the US has what?

    The US has a schizophrenic public/private system where nobody is in a position to control costs. We have universal health care but only for retired and some (but not all) poor people. We have great hospitals but nobody to keep costs in check. We refuse to insure millions of people thereby costing ourselves far more money when they inevitably show up in the emergency department of a hospital to get treated at far higher cost. We allow drug companies to charge whatever they want because... reasons. If you wanted to design a financially irresponsible health care system you'd have a hard time developing one more irresponsible than the one the US has.

    Crumbling infrastructure and an overpriced military that funnels money into the military's suppliers and from there to the executives of those suppliers.

    Our military isn't so much over priced as over funded. We have WAY more military than we could possibly justify or need. We spend more on our military than then next 8 largest military budgets combined, most of whom are allies. We have an annual federal deficit of $600 billion and guess how much we spent on our military last year? Yep, $600 billion. We basically borrow every penny we spend on the military, thereby screwing future generations because baby boomers are paranoid idiots.

  23. I never expected the U.S. would on top, but ... by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That really ignores a few basic points.

    First, the U.S. is a Democratic Republic, NOT a nation with a monarchy, a dictatorship, Communist rule, or Socialism. That puts it in a rather unique position as far as having a government structure that encourages less taxation and more self-reliance. (Not interested in trying to start the whole "which is better?" debate here... but just stating facts. I'd expect these other types of governance to impose higher taxes because they focus on the people working for the greater good of the whole, with government at the center, orchestrating things. In America, government is, at least in theory, "by the people, for the people" and exists to only do the basic tasks outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.)

    Second, taxation in America is all spread out. The list of taxes is huge, and comes at the local and state level as much as at the Federal level. I'm no expert on the subject,but I'm confident that in many nations on their survey, taxation is much more centralized. In America, I can't even pay a cellphone or land line phone bill without getting hit with a list of various "nickle and dime" taxes for my municipality, city and state, followed by the Federally imposed ones like the FUSF (money they force you to pay to subsidize cheaper telecommunications offerings for the poor).

  24. Re:The question IS... by omnichad · · Score: 2

    It's a group-buy. Theoretically cheaper to administer than each person building a road in front of their own house. A collective system of roads is a government "service." This is what government service is and should be.

  25. Re:I demand More Tax by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The rich can leave, or at least move their wealth to somewhere the government can't reach.

    Some do, most don't because they value a safe western society where property rights are respected and the second there is conflict or a threat the ones that did leave come running right back to the US. Personally I'd like to see stricter rules on this, you take your money and leave to avoid taxes and the government isn't responsible to repatriot you when the inevitable conflict brings them running back.

    You want the benefits of living in a protected western economy you should have to pay the taxes to support that.

  26. Re:We Don't Care by ledow · · Score: 2

    UK pays less tax.

    Get free healthcare. Giving better life expectancy (and lower teenage pregnacy rates):
    http://www.nationmaster.com/co...

    Lower crime rates:
    http://www.nationmaster.com/co...

    Comparable educational levels in less time:
    http://www.nationmaster.com/co...

    Whatever you think of "other countries" that were "stupid enough to allow taxes to get so high" applies to the US, not to the UK.

    You pay more. Get less back.

  27. Taxation is theft by EricMann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Taxation is Theft, if you like socialism so much, I'll pay for your plane ticket to N. Korea.

  28. Sorry, don't buy this argument by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can't excuse something bad by pointing out it's worse elsewhere. Tell me, would you buy excusing Jim Crow by saying it was better than slavery? Not to say that taxation is as bad as those things, but it's the same argument.

  29. More New York communist crap by computational+super · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because taxes could be higher, and just because they are even higher for somebody else, doesn't mean they aren't high.

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  30. Re:I demand More Tax by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 2

    Tax the rich.

    The rich can leave, or at least move their wealth to somewhere the government can't reach. Wealth/capital is fluid and goes where it's value is highest. Who will you tax when you run out of rich people? As Margaret Thatcher famously quipped;"Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money."

    Give me Basic Income.

    Why should others be obligated to simply *give* you that which they worked hard and sacrificed to obtain? What right do you have to essentially make people who create wealth slaves simply to support you? Go make your own damned money and stop trying to get the government to do your thieving from others for you!

    Strat

    And when he can't get a job to "work hard and sacrifice" due to outsourcing and automation, he will have have two choices:

    1. He can starve to death.
    2. He can get money to live on via an alternate method.

    I am willing to bet that he will pick "2". Since someone else has the money, he will need to get it from them. Which way would you prefer?

    1. Give it to him via a basic income paid for by taxes
    2. Have him take it from them via criminal activity

    Get enough guys like the above guy and you "work hard and sacrifice" guys will be in a real pickle.

    PS: A large number of those who "worked hard and sacrificed" people who have the lion's share of the money did anything but to acquire it.

    --
    THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!