What is the average overall tax rate?

Again, it doesn't matter if you do consider social security and medicare to be taxes, instead of payments for a pension and medical insurance. If you consider them to be a tax, we still have a highly progressive tax system, not regressive taxation. The wealthy in the USA pay more in % terms, more than any other country in the developed world, counting social security and medicare as taxes.
. Originally Posted by Tiny

Your index was from mid 2000's.

We have gotten less progressive since.

Not only that we were comparative to Canada, Australia and a few other progressive nations.

But the real jest was in my prior post. And from the link you provided.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-nation-has-most-progressive-tax.html

., the USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. In percentage terms, the rich pay a lot more. Originally Posted by Tiny

That is not what you linked article states. It does not say the rich pay a lot more. But it does express why we are having a continued rise in inequity. To counter that, it suggest the opposite of what many of you want....which is to cut benefits.

So while the US tax system is progressive and reduces inequality, the US welfare state is much less effective at reducing inequality. And because the US has a very unequal distribution of income from capital and a much wider wage distribution than many other OECD countries, it ends up as a relatively unequal country after taxes and benefits.

If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality.

So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively.

That is not what you linked article states. It does not say the rich pay a lot more. But it does express why we are having a continued rise in inequity. To counter that, it suggest the opposite of what many of you want....which is to cut benefits.

So while the US tax system is progressive and reduces inequality, the US welfare state is much less effective at reducing inequality. And because the US has a very unequal distribution of income from capital and a much wider wage distribution than many other OECD countries, it ends up as a relatively unequal country after taxes and benefits.

If you look at Nordic countries, they all have much less progressive tax systems than the USA, but they collect a lot more in taxes (including in VAT). They then spend this much higher tax revenue on social security and services, and it is this side of the equation that is most important in reducing inequality.

So the implication is not that the USA either needs to increase or reduce the progressivity of the tax system. If you want to reduce inequality, you need to increase the level of taxes collected and spend it more effectively.

Originally Posted by WTF

I read that before. He's saying that, for example, you need to spend more on the social safety net relative to defense, which you and I agree on. And if you want to reduce inequality and pay for a European welfare state, you're not going to do it by making the system more progressive. We already have the most progressive system in the developed world. Instead you have to raise taxes on the middle class, with a value added tax (sales tax) or other regressive tax, and then spend the money on social welfare, instead of defense, corporate welfare, etc.

The idea common among Democrats and some Republicans that you're going to solve all the country's social ills by taxing the rich more is a pipe dream. This is something Bernie Sanders admits, you have to raise taxes on the middle class to do what he wants. The rest are either liars or living in la la land.

Your index was from mid 2000's.

We have gotten less progressive since.

Not only that we were comparative to Canada, Australia and a few other progressive nations.

But the real jest was in my prior post. And from the link you provided. Originally Posted by WTF

Not true. The system actually became more progresive, when Obama got rid of the Bush tax cuts and when, contrary to popular opinion, Trump's tax cuts took effect. That's not to say that some didn't benefit. Like I said in a response to your earlier post, beneficiaries included people who own rental real estate through passive entities, like Donald Trump.

In percentage terms, Trump and the Republicans cut taxes more for the middle class more than they did for the wealthy. Trump in fact wanted to increase tax rates on the wealthy but his economic advisor, Gary Cohn, a Democrat, talked him out of it.

I read that before. He's saying that, for example, you need to spend more on the social safety net relative to defense, which you and I agree on. And if you want to reduce inequality and pay for a European welfare state, you're not going to do it by making the system more progressive. We already have the most progressive system in the developed world. Instead you have to raise taxes on the middle class, with a value added tax (sales tax) or other regressive tax. You raise taxes on the poor and middle class by raisins the rate and taking the cap off SS and Medicare.

The idea common among Democrats and some Republicans that you're going to solve all the country's social ills by taxing the rich more is a pipe dream. This is something Bernie Sanders admits, you have to raise taxes on the middle class to do what he wants. The rest are either liars or living in la la land. Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes I agree. You actually need a bigger middle class from which to tax.

We will never agree that the inheritance tax should be repealed.

If you want to give your heir money , give it to them while you are alive and let it be taxed at the gift tax rate.

You do think their should be a gift tax , right?

In percentage terms, Trump and the Republicans cut taxes more for the middle class more than they did for the wealthy. Trump in fact wanted to increase tax rates on the wealthy but his economic advisor, Gary Cohn, a Democrat, talked him out of it. Originally Posted by Tiny

Trump should have followed his heart. Me and you know that these so called tax cuts for the middle class hurt the GOP in 2018 because we know who they really helped.

https://prospect.org/article/paying-...devastate-poor

But when you factor in the cost of pay-fors (which the report assumes would come through both tax increases and spending cuts), the share of poor people who would get a tax cuts is wiped away to a flat zero percent. In the middle class, the share of beneficiaries falls to just 6 percent.
Meanwhile, 88.6 percent of the top 1 percent would still get tax cuts.
The depths of these disparities are further clarified when examining after-tax income. While in the lowest-income households—in which 44 percent of children live—after-tax income would tick up by 0.3 percent without considering the cost of the cuts, they would fall by 16 percent when you factor in the costs. For the middle class: up 1.3 percent before; down by nearly 3 percent after.
And for the 1 percent, you ask? Their after-tax incomes would rise 11.5 percent without considering the costs of financing the cuts. With the pay-fors, their income would still rise by 11.3 percent.

I guess I know a better class of rich people. I've never seen any wealthy people try to make less money because of the taxes. I see most try to pay less taxes. Isn't 30% of another million still another $ 300k

Trump should have followed his heart. Me and you know that these so called tax cuts for the middle class hurt the GOP in 2018 because we know who they really helped.

https://prospect.org/article/paying-...devastate-poor

But when you factor in the cost of pay-fors (which the report assumes would come through both tax increases and spending cuts), the share of poor people who would get a tax cuts is wiped away to a flat zero percent. In the middle class, the share of beneficiaries falls to just 6 percent.
Meanwhile, 88.6 percent of the top 1 percent would still get tax cuts.
The depths of these disparities are further clarified when examining after-tax income. While in the lowest-income households—in which 44 percent of children live—after-tax income would tick up by 0.3 percent without considering the cost of the cuts, they would fall by 16 percent when you factor in the costs. For the middle class: up 1.3 percent before; down by nearly 3 percent after.
And for the 1 percent, you ask? Their after-tax incomes would rise 11.5 percent without considering the costs of financing the cuts. With the pay-fors, their income would still rise by 11.3 percent. Originally Posted by WTF

You feeling ok? Take a deep breath.

You feeling ok? Take a deep breath. Originally Posted by bambino

LOL...I would ask you wtf you been smoking but I would not want that to be misconstrued!

LOL...I would ask you wtf you been smoking but I would not want that to be misconstrued! Originally Posted by WTF

I mean, you were talking to yourself.

You do think their should be a gift tax , right? Originally Posted by WTF

No, I don't. Some rich person might pay up to 43.4% tax when he receives the income (up to 56.7% in California) and then another 40% when he gives it away. That's not fair.

Nevermind

No, I don't. Some rich person might pay up to 43.4% tax when he receives the income (up to 56.7% in California) and then another 40% when he gives it away. That's not fair. Originally Posted by Tiny

It also is not fair that one generation has not paid for their national toys that one generation runs up in the form of national debt and passes that onto the next generation. For example some may get rich selling say tanks to the government but pay low taxes and not have his generation pay for the tabks they wanted. That does not seem fair if that debt is passed to the next generation but the tank builder wealth is passed on tax free. That seems an unfair transfer of wealth.

I would have no problem eliminating both the gift tax and in the inheritance tax if there was little to no national debt.

It also is not fair that one generation has not paid for their national toys that one generation runs up in the form of national debt and passes that onto the next generation. For example some may get rich selling say tanks to the government but pay low taxes and not have his generation pay for the tabks they wanted. That does not seem fair if that debt is passed to the next generation but his next generation gets the tank builder wealth is oassed on tax free.

I would have no problem eliminating whatboth the gift tax and in the inheritance tax if there was little to no national debt. Originally Posted by WTF

Take the rich guy selling tanks out of the argument and we're in agreement.

The gift and estate tax raise a pittance. Again, you should look more at the spending side of the equation. What happened to the trillions we spent on Iraq? How about subsidies to agriculture? Pork barrel spending? You could go on and on.

Take the rich guy selling tanks out of the argument and we're in agreement.

The gift and estate tax raise a pittance. Again, you should look more at the spending side of the equation. What happened to the trillions we spent on Iraq? How about subsidies to agriculture? Pork barrel spending? You could go on and on. Originally Posted by Tiny

Tiny there have been 3 major tax cuts for the rich. Reagan, Bush 43 & now Trump. The jury is still out on Trump but the other two led to giant deficits and failure

From reading reports on various News Sites, the average American Tax Payer is an imbecile.

Due to the way the IRS is collecting taxes each week, people will actually get less of a "refund", or in better terms, they will get back less money that they overplayed through the year.

https://www.kansas.com/news/nation-w...226062400.html

These people don't realize that they actually paid less in taxes. All they see is a smaller "refund", which for many has become a "forced savings" through the year.

So, due to the tax payers ignorance, many liberal News Outlets are reporting that people are actually paying more in taxes, the proof being that they are not getting a "refund".