Countries with high taxes are richer!

[Joanne98]

But they don't have Republicans, so that's not fair


For the record, however, the most-taxed countries on Earth (i.e., the countries where revenue is the highest percent of GDP) are in order:

1. Denmark
2. Sweden
3. Belgium
4. France
5. Norway



In terms of per capita GDP these are, respectively, the 4th, 9th, 14th, 15th, and 3rd richest countries on earth while the United States is 17th.



http://76003dot1414.blogspot.com/2009/02/but-they-don-have-republicans-so-that.html

[snappyturtle]

1. I think Americans need to get over the "we're the greatest nation on Earth"

syndrome. We may have been the greatest, at one time, and may have the potential to be that again but over-all I'd say we have a long way to go. Of course, we do have the capability to blow up the rest of the planet so I guess that's something to be proud of. :sarcasm:

[SmileyRose]

8. youesssaaaa !! youeessssaaaa!! youessssaaa!!!

I have nothing against nationalism, or even being slightly protectionist, but our confidence and pride in who we are should at least be based in reality.

[Kansas Wyatt]

27. Thanks to REPUBLICANS reversing the New Deal and imposing a Regressive Tax...

They have effectively REMOVED the United States from the "#1" ranking at anything, except selfish Wealthy Elitists.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

31. I'm pretty sure we're the most illiterate industrial nation. nt

[mainer]

2. But even the highest taxed don't go much above 50%

So a country can have wealth and be supportive of its citizens without having overly onerous taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. This article tells a slightly different story. It can be as much as 60%.

But perhaps even more importantly, it is the way in which the tax revenues are spent, i.e. not according to the wish-list of the richest few percent of the population and a military-industrial behemoth, but on the nation's social and material infrastructure.

Now that, Neocons, IS nation-building. Savvy?

[scrinmaster]

21. Looks like the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates.

[Joe Chi Minh]

33. Also crucially significant is the distribution of the tax bands. In the UK and US,

everyone is hammered with "stealth", flat taxes - shifting an enormous burden from income tax onto the poorer majority, on a sliding scale, obviously according to their income.

As regards the income tax itself, at what point does the higher tax bands kick in? And how much of your taxes are spent on the military-industrial complex, in comparison with the other countries? A grotesquely improbable amount. More than the aggregate of all of them.

[mainer]

3. for the record, Cuba and Senegal have among the highest tax rates.

at 50%. So it's not exactly a correlation between tax rates and national wealth.

[treestar]

5. Do they collect the taxes efficiently?

Cuba is outright socialist, too.

[mainer]

7. Who knows? Just going by Wikipedia.

I would suspect that Cuba collects them very efficiently.

[nichomachus]

11. I believe Cuba is Communist, not Socialist -- there is a difference, despite what

the wingers would have you believe.

[nichomachus]

12. Yeah, it's amazing how a 50-year embargo against you by a superpower can screw up your economy.

Still they have universal literacy and more doctors than they need. They regularly export them to other nations that need them.

[ogneopasno]

4. And life is so awful in those countries, isn't it?

[nichomachus]

13. Have you seen the heart rending photos of the

hordes of starving children in Oslo and the bodies lining the streets in Copenhagen.

[SoCalDem]

15. Knee-deep in dead Norwegians, too

:rofl:

[Peace Patriot]

6. Ah, the dark secret that the rich and the corporate don't want you to know!

When wealth is spread around, everyone benefits. When no one "falls through the cracks," when everyone has a decent life, when all have food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education and opportunity, the entire society is lifted up, life is better for all, life is good, life is a pleasure, and everyone is safer and more content with what they have.

I've visited four of the top five high tax countries*, and I can tell you from first hand observation, they are better countries than ours.

Thanks for posting!

----------

*(All but Belgium, which--ironically--is where one set of my ancestors originated.)

[Luna_C_06]

30. So what's up with Belgium? nt

[Lagomorph]

9. I think it would be relatively easy...

...to make a small country nicer than a big one, if the small country has the right climate and resources.

The U.S. will always have disparity in living conditions and economic well-being simply because of the vast distances and various climate conditions we must contend with.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. Riiight! That's why balmy Denmark is so wealthy.

Sure, it's small, but it has lousy weather and very few of its own natural resources.

[tanngrisnir3]

14. Mr. Causation? Mr. Corellation called. Didn't leave a message.

[SoCalDem]

16. One ring-eee ding-eee

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

17. European taxes are structurally smarter

Europeans have smarter taxes, in terms of economic loss, than Americans. So they have higher, more economically efficient taxes, and we have lower less efficient taxes, which somewhat evens it out. (Norway is an outlier in that they have vast tax revenue from crude oil production.)

We simply obsess about different things. Europeans have high income taxes (and sales/VAT taxes) and often low capital gains taxes. From an economics standpoint, the adverse impact of capital gains taxes is somewhere around three times the adverse impact of income taxes, so given a choice between the two we should always choose the latter.

However, I would observe that while Europe has a larger population and GDP than the US, they have pretty much stagnated by many other metrics. In R&D investment for example, they are not only far behind the US on both an absolute and relative basis, they are behind Asia as well. There are third world countries that spend more per capita on R&D than some of the largest economies in Europe, which is pretty embarrassing. They have stopped investing in the future, and there is something vaguely unsettling about the fact that the vast majority of e.g. medical R&D in the world is done in the US (and most of that is privately funded). If we stopped investing in it, who is left to pick up the slack?


If the US kept its current tax levels and simply made the tax structure more efficient, comparable to Europe, it would probably do wonders for the economy while being revenue neutral.

[marshall]

19. What are the demographics of those countries?

They seem pretty homogenous to me.

[RufusTFirefly]

20. So? Just what are you suggesting?

Please spell it out for the obtuse among us. Thanks in advance.

[marshall]

28. Apples and oranges, there are other factors at play

While there are some general parallels that can be mined for information, I think all the factors need to be taken into account. I would be interested in seeing the US also compared to countries that have the same richly divergent population, such as Canada or Brazil.

[leftstreet]

22. What's that got to do with anything?

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Nationmaster indicates that the US is #8 with $44k gdp per capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita

[eridani]

24. Some whys and wherefores

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/119048/?page=entire

You have certainly heard, several thousand times, that tax cuts lead to economic growth.
That's not true.

Moderate tax cuts lead to a flat economy. (The Johnson tax cuts, usually misnamed the Kennedy tax cuts, lead to 16 years of virtually no growth.)

Large tax cuts are followed by a boom in the financial sector, a bubble, and a crash. Then a recession or depression with massive bank failures. This has happened three times, in the 1920s, under Reagan, and under George W. Bush.
During a depression or recession, the point where taxes are increased marks the point when the economy begins its recovery: 1932 under Hoover, Roosevelt's second round of tax hikes in 1940, the first president Bush's tax hike, followed by the Clinton tax hike. (There's one exception. Roosevelt's tax hike of 1936, which was accompanied by cuts in government spending.)

US economic growth has been strongest when our taxes have been high. During World War II, then under Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, our upper marginal tax rates were between 88-92%. Read those numbers again. They are astonishingly high. Those were our strongest growth years.

The next time we experienced strong growth -- not just in the fiscal sector, across the entire economy -- was after the Clinton tax hikes.

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. Interesting.

:kick:

[pinqy]

26. Lies, damned lies, and statistics...or why the claim is dubious

I don't know where the tax rate info comes from, but the rankings of "wealthiest countries" comes from http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2008&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=69&pr1.y=13&c=512%2C446%2C914%2C666%2C612%2C668%2C614%2C672%2C311%2C946%2C213%2C137%2C911%2C962%2C193%2C674%2C122%2C676%2C912%2C548%2C313%2C556%2C419%2C678%2C513%2C181%2C316%2C682%2C913%2C684%2C124%2C273%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698%2C941&s=NGDPDPC&grp=0&a=">The IMF but are based on NOMINAL GDP. This means the GDP figures are converted into USD based on the exchange rate of the currencies. There's a reason that's not preferred: the exchange rate is based on a market exchange of currency and certainly does not reflect cost of living. While more subjective because it's based on estimates, a Purchasing Power Parity conversion is preferred.

Using the IMF's http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2008&ey=2008&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=29&pr1.y=12&c=512%2C446%2C914%2C666%2C612%2C668%2C614%2C672%2C311%2C946%2C213%2C137%2C911%2C962%2C193%2C674%2C122%2C676%2C912%2C548%2C313%2C556%2C419%2C678%2C513%2C181%2C316%2C682%2C913%2C684%2C124%2C273%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C228%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636%2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C456%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724%2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C646%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652%2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C537%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744%2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698%2C941&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=">per capita GDP PPP, we find that Denmark is 15th (4th Nominal), Sweden is 16th (9th Nominal), Belgium is 20th (14th Nominal), France is 23rd (15th Nominal), Norway is still 3rd, and USA is 6th(17th Nominal). Norway is a special case because it is an oil exporter, and that's where a lot of the money comes from.

So by adjusting for cost of living, which is very important if we're comparing the effects of taxes, then the US has greater GDP per capita than the others. I do note that the link in the OP is honest and admits that using PPP would give very different results.

[pinqy]

32. Looking further....

The top 20 countries by Nominal per capita GDP are:
1 Luxembourg $118,045.18
2 Qatar $106,459.62
3 Norway $102,524.55
4 Denmark $67,386.89
5 Switzerland $67,378.87
6 Ireland $64,659.90
7 Iceland $60,121.73
8 United Arab Emirates $56,666.70
9 Sweden $55,623.77
10 Finland $54,577.85
11 Netherlands $54,445.06
12 Austria $52,159.18
13 Australia $50,150.35
14 Belgium $49,430.28
15 France $48,012.01
16 Canada $47,072.90
17 United States $47,025.30
18 Germany $46,498.66
19 Kuwait $46,396.74
20 United Kingdom $45,681.00

Every country in that list has a higher cost of living than the US (by Purchasing Power Parity).

Using PPP ranks, the top ten are:
1 Qatar $86,669.62
2 Luxembourg $81,730.29
3 Norway $55,198.98
4 Singapore $51,649.25
5 Brunei Darussalam $50,595.72
6 United States $47,025.30
7 Hong Kong SAR $44,412.97
8 Switzerland $42,840.58
9 Ireland $42,779.92
10 Kuwait $40,943.25

Of those 5 countries with higher per capita GDP (PPP) than the US, Qatar, Luxembourg, and Norway have higher costs of living, while Singapore and Brunei have lower. All are special cases with either oil or special econmic circumstances (small size, small population, profitable output).

[ThomWV]

29. I think it might be a little more accurate to say that Rich countries tax themselves more

I don't think that it is a chicken and egg sort of thing. I think first you have to be rich then you can tax yourself. You can not start with high taxes and no wealth.