Ok, now we've gotten to the point where we at least agree on the relevant numbers. And now I see what you're saying regarding inequality: that prior to redistribution, inequality is more or less universal. To use your phrase, well, duh. Remember that the point of my original comment was that Europe's more progressive tax structure addresses the problem of income inequality, where the less progressive tax structure of the US does not. You responded by saying the US tax structure is more progressive. Then you cited an article which explicitly argues my point, that other nations more effectively address income inequality with progressive taxation than does the US.
And, I've never said that Europe has a fairer tax policy.
You said (and repeated again here) that the US has a more progressive tax system, that the wealthy pay a greater share of taxes here than almost anywhere else in the world. I took that to be a criticism, that you believe progressive taxation is unfair. If so, then a country like Germany (which according to you puts less of a tax burden on the wealthy) is fairer overall than the US. I understand that you're trying to avoid saying they're fairer, but that's the inescapable conclusion of your argument that US taxes are more progressive.
[Y]ou didn't bother to look for the second number, the tax revenue share.
I didn't bother to look for it because it was already there in your source and I assumed it was a pretty solid number, since it's based on tax records. Judging the share of income seems a much more likely source of error since it requires more estimation.
Now you've got me wondering how accurate that tax number is, too. Your source put the share of taxes at 45.1% in the mid-2000s. Yet the same source puts the 2009 number at 70%. Do you really believe that the share almost doubled in four years? It's a lot more likely that you're misinterpreting the numbers, or the source is simply wrong. This chart from the conservative Heritage Foundation is more consistent: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income... .
I found a reference for German taxes that puts their top 10%'s share at 60% in 2005 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=germany+top+1...). The same source indicates that the top 10% in Germany earned 33% of the gross income, 29% net.
So taking 60%/33% you get a ratio of 1.82, significantly higher than your US value of 1.63. Oops indeed.
> I now I see what you're saying regarding inequality: that prior to redistribution, inequality is more or less universal.
Actually, no. I was saying what I actually said, that US pre-tax inequality wasn't exceptional.
And, you still seem to have problems with the fact that the EU addresses inequality through spending, not taxation.
I note that you ducked the discussion of revenue and spending per GDP, not to mention GDP per person.
So, I'll ask again. Is the EU's abysmal GDP per person due to tax or spending policy? (Or are Americans just inherently more productive?) I ask because you seem to be a fan of EU policy. Is the abysmal GDP a bug or a feature?
> I understand that you're trying to avoid saying they're fairer, but that's the inescapable conclusion of your argument that US taxes are more progressive.
No, it isn't "inescapable". You're leaving a lot of steps out of your "proof", many of which are arguable. One could reasonably arrive at precisely the opposite conclusion.
I note that you also ducked the envy issue and "why should I care about what someone else has", so I'll ask a variation.
Is a society where everyone is starving more fair than a society where almost no one is starving and 1% have Ferraris? The former is equal, the latter isn't.
The observant reader might notice a connection between the two questions posed. (I expect you to duck.)
>> You didn't bother to look for the second number, the tax revenue share.
> I didn't bother to look for it because it was already there in your source
Not for the years that you were arguing about it wasn't.
> Your source put the share of taxes at 45.1% in the mid-2000s. Yet the same source puts the 2009 number at 70%. Do you really believe that the share almost doubled in four years?
> I now I see what you're saying regarding inequality: that prior to redistribution, inequality is more or less universal.
Actually, no. I was saying what I actually said, that US pre-tax inequality wasn't exceptional.
Sorry I mis-paraphrased you.
I note that you ducked the discussion of revenue and spending per GDP, not to mention GDP per person.
I ignored them because they aren't relevant to the questions we're discussing, which are: 1) Is the US tax structure more progressive than other industrialized nations? 2) If so, then why do conservatives criticize the tax policy in places like Western Europe if they are in fact less progressive? These are questions about taxes. Not spending, not per-capita GDP. We're talking taxes. You can have a progressive tax structure and spend all the money on free limos for the rich, the tax rates are still progressive. The term has a specific meaning, which is that the tax rate increases as income increases.
You answered question #1 in the affirmative, but you've never directly answered question #2. Your response seems to be that conservatives think the higher European taxes are ok, but they don't approve of what the money is spent on. (If I'm mis-paraphrasing again, feel free to correct me with a more explicit answer.)
In conclusion, after looking over the sources and arguments you've offered, I'm satisfied that the US tax system is actually not more progressive than most industrialized nations, and that conservatives criticize European tax systems precisely because they are more progressive, in the belief that disproportionately taxing the rich disincentivizes productivity (which is the traditional conservative explanation for the lower per capita GDP).
> I ignored them because they aren't relevant to the questions we're discussing
They're certainly relevant to your assumption that progressive is better and that the EU's ways are better.
They're also extremely relevant to inequality, an issue that you keep bringing up.
> If so, then why do conservatives criticize the tax policy in places like Western Europe if they are in fact less progressive?
Do you really think that progressivity is the only issue in tax policy?
> In conclusion, after looking over the sources and arguments you've offered
I'd like to say the same, but your sole source hung my adobe so I have no idea as to the provenance of the data. (I can find sources for yogic flying so ....) I'm satisfied that the OCED reports Euro taxes reasonably well.
And, I note that you didn't even claim to address consumption taxes, which are both much large source of EU income and far less progressive than income tax. Even if we go with "the US income tax is about as progressive", that swings the balance quite a bit.
And, I've never said that Europe has a fairer tax policy.
You said (and repeated again here) that the US has a more progressive tax system, that the wealthy pay a greater share of taxes here than almost anywhere else in the world. I took that to be a criticism, that you believe progressive taxation is unfair. If so, then a country like Germany (which according to you puts less of a tax burden on the wealthy) is fairer overall than the US. I understand that you're trying to avoid saying they're fairer, but that's the inescapable conclusion of your argument that US taxes are more progressive.
[Y]ou didn't bother to look for the second number, the tax revenue share.
I didn't bother to look for it because it was already there in your source and I assumed it was a pretty solid number, since it's based on tax records. Judging the share of income seems a much more likely source of error since it requires more estimation.
Now you've got me wondering how accurate that tax number is, too. Your source put the share of taxes at 45.1% in the mid-2000s. Yet the same source puts the 2009 number at 70%. Do you really believe that the share almost doubled in four years? It's a lot more likely that you're misinterpreting the numbers, or the source is simply wrong. This chart from the conservative Heritage Foundation is more consistent: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income... .
I found a reference for German taxes that puts their top 10%'s share at 60% in 2005 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=germany+top+1...). The same source indicates that the top 10% in Germany earned 33% of the gross income, 29% net.
So taking 60%/33% you get a ratio of 1.82, significantly higher than your US value of 1.63. Oops indeed.