Would it be possible to see a similar chart for some other OECD countries? Such as the UK, Canada, and (everyone's favorite country to compare to) France?

Recently there has been an argument from the right, and I am paraphrasing, that the American tax structure is the most, or one of the most, progressive compared to other developed countries. The counter-argument has been that the US also has large income-inequality compared to other developed countries. Thus I'd like to see this kind of information for other developed nations: share of income, share of taxes, etc.

You left out the Social Security/Medicare tax. This is 12.4% of your first $106,800 in income. When you add that in, the highest 20% earners have a lower rate than everyone in the bottom 80%.

teddy: You left out the Social Security/Medicare tax.

No, it includes that, although it's not clear if it includes both employer's and employee's share.

Good post Ezra. I've seen data like this before, but it doesn't hurt to make more people aware that overall effective tax rates are fairly flat. Talking about the federal income tax without including all the other taxes people pay is like calculating cost of living by looking at food and forgetting about housing.

I'd love to see a poll about how many people realize this. Ask people how much higher the overall tax rate is for the top 1% vs. the middle quintile (ok, do it as median or something) and give them a multiple choice. I'm sure most people would guess the difference is much higher than it is. Oh, and ask some pundits too!

Almost as galling is that the 90'th to 99'th percentile pay a higher rate than the top 1%. IIRC that band starts at around $100k, which certainly isn't poor, but would be considered poverty level by Wall Street financial genyuses.

This gets to the much larger point of tax competition that progressives like to ignore. State tax compared to Federal taxes can't be as progressive. Sure living in New York or California is great but if millions of dollars are at stake then Nevada and New Hampshire don't look so bad. It is really all about the substitutes and competition for residents tax dollars. Fairness in tax policy is pretty much arbitrary unless the taxes are effective.

But while this is intuitive and well understood by most progressives, why does everyone (except economists and europeans) ignore the idea of global tax competition? Sure federal is better than state but federal tax collection is not perfect. People today have more options than they did in the 50s (when top rates were in the 90s) and will likely have even more options going forward. Federal taxes are going to look a lot more like state taxes (see Britain) unless this is addressed.

Are regressive tax regimes more stable year to year as the economy goes up and down?
Maybe state govts are more inclined to have regressive tax regimes because they aren't able to run deficits like the federal govt?

Does that include those taxes that democrats love to put on poor people for their own good, like gasoline, cigarette and alcohol taxes?

So currently, the top 1% of earners (with an avg income of 1.4Million) are paying $11,560 more than they would if all income was taxed "fairly" (meaning at the same rate). The fact that the rich are paying so much extra tax is obviously is a very serious injustice and needs to be corrected immediately

BTW I forgot my most hated Democrat program the state lotteries. The state lotteries are often called a tax on stupidity.

Note most Americans live under Democrat dominated state and local governments.

Sin taxes are popular because everybody who doesn't smoke likes cigarette taxes, everybody who doesn't drink likes alcohol taxes, and so on. It's easy to pass a tax that a lot of people don't pay.

Are regressive tax regimes more stable year to year as the economy goes up and down?

Just the opposite, if by "regressive" you're referring to consumption taxes. People tend to cut back on their spending as the economy cools, and sales tax collections thus fall (people "give themselves a tax cut," as it were). That's actually a good thing if you're able to run a deficit, because of the automatic Keynesian (ie., deficit-growing) effect.

Federal taxes are going to look a lot more like state taxes (see Britain) unless this is addressed.

As far I know the US public sector still spends less of GDP than the OECD average -- or at least less than the EU average. Unless public sector spending in this country truly explodes, the US is unlikely to lose its edge over the Europeans any time soon, to the extent that the critical "edge" is lower taxes and smaller government. (France, Germany, the Low Countries and the Nordics all have public sectors that cost something like 50% of GDP). Of course, global investors aren't just looking at tax rates. They're also looking at things like education levels, political stability, corruption, infrastructure, regulation, quality of life, crime...

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

The information you posted about louis vuitton handbags is so useful, I am expecting for your next post.

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

ON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

Thank you for your sharing,I like this.gucci silver rings

wholesale nike shoes
wholesale shoes
wholesale nike running shoes
wholesale nike basketball shoes
wholesale shoes
wholesale jordan shoes
wholesale dunk shoes
wholesale adidas shoes
SEO
Ugg boots
UK Ugg boots
美国主机