No need for snark, it's an interesting point. So the US with lower tax rates and fewer government benefits actually imposes more on the wealthy than other so-called 'socialist' countries. If that's the case, it suggests to me that the wealthy should be trying to copy the European model, not fighting it, since according to your argument they would be paying less under such a system, not more as they typically argue. It's interesting to me that you don't see the plain implication of your own argument.
> If that's the case, it suggests to me that the wealthy should be trying to copy the European model, not fighting it, since according to your argument they would be paying less under such a system
No, it doesn't imply that.
And, the relevant question is not "how little taxes do I pay" but "how much money do I keep", which has two components.
Sure it does. Your first comment flatly stated that the wealthy in the US pay more of the overall tax burden than in other countries. Then to support your argument you cited a source that says it's actually the most progressive of the OECD countries.
I happen to think the source is wrong, but if it's not and you're right, the unmistakable conclusion is that European policies result in less progressive taxation. So if the conservative objective is a 'fair' tax rate in which everyone pays in direct proportion to what they earn, then Europe is (according to your argument) closer to this ideal than the US is. It follows then that their policies, according to you, are more favorable to the wealthy than the US and that we would be better off pursuing those policies. How can you on one hand argue that Europe is fairer and on the other hand argue that we shouldn't follow their example?
