We Already Have The Most Redistributionary Tax Code In The World

• October 31, 2008

Or, at least, in the free world anyway according to The Tax Foundation:

Barack Obama’s admission that his policies would “spread the wealth around” has ignited a nationwide discussion of how progressive the tax system should be and how it should be used to redistribute income among Americans. Obama has been very successful in bolstering the conventional wisdom that the U.S. tax system does not place a significant enough burden on wealthier households and places too much of a burden on the “middle class.”
But a new study on inequality by researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris reveals that when it comes to household taxes (income taxes and employee social security contributions) the U.S. “has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population.” [... T]he U.S. tax system is far more progressive-meaning pro-poor-than similar systems in countries most Americans identify with high taxes, such as France and Sweden.
Even after accounting for the fact that the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. have one of the highest shares of market income among OECD nations, our tax system is second only to Ireland in terms of its progressivity for households.
[... T]he U.S. [also] collects more household tax revenue from the top 10 percent of households than any other country and extracts the most from that income group relative to their share of the nation’s income.

The tax code is already unfair. And yes, heaping all of the tax burden on the richest minority of Americans is unfair.
Why should we want it to be more unfair? Shouldn’t we want a broader tax base so that everyone in this country has a stake in our government being run efficiently? And without excessive spending?

Tags: Politics

http://www.rabidamerican.net/ Rabid American
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/some_hints/ AKAJOEL

Those who don’t learn from history…are doomed to repeat it!

In an interview with a Chicago public radio station, Obama complained that

“the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

Recently, Obama surrogate and U.S. Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), warmed up a crowd for Obama by telling them that America needed a “second Bill of Rights” that gives all Americans guaranteed welfare from the state.

It is clear that Obama will not seek to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Instead, he will change the Constitution to suit his ideology — an ideology that is far different from the one held by our Founding Fathers.

Listen to this..
tohtestars2

2. Assigning a higher tax bracket to someone because they make more money is no fairer than assigning a higher tax bracket to someone because they’re white, or black, or Hispanic. It’s a form of descrimination, pure and simple.

Bear, the correct term I believe would be differentiating-discriminating between people based on the grounds of merit. And it is usually lawful.

Double grrrrrrr
Hungry Bear

Bear, the correct term I believe would be differentiating-discriminating between people based on the grounds of merit. And it is usually lawful.

I believe that at this point it’s legal, as you say.

I still believe that it’s wrong.

I know some rich people, and by and large they got that way by working their asses off continuously over a prolonged period of time. A relative of mine is well into the six figure income bracket. He usually works about 60 to 80 hours a week writing computer code. He doens’t love his work, but he works long hours at a fairly boring task so that he can afford to retire well in a few years.

He makes more money than me (and I do pretty well during grub and berry season) and shouldn’t be punished with ahigher tax bracket.
tothestars2

For someone who claims to be some sort of non-partisan libertarian, you sure sound like a run-of-the-mill partisan liberal.

Rob,the immature, photoshopped picture of Sarah Palin it has posted should give one a clue. I wonder if their mommy and daddy know about this. But then, they probably encourage such behaviour.
bustoff

Rich Conservatives = Greed + Need to share their wealth
Rich Liberals = Noblesse oblige + Obama contribution targets
Hungry Bear

We really should have some kind of flat tax.

Assigning a higher tax bracket to someone because they make more money is no fairer than assigning a higher tax bracket to someone because they’re Catholic, nonwhite, or were born in a different country.
Hungry Bear

All these personal insults are drawing us far away from the very important topic of this post.

Yes countries like Sweden and France are too socialistic, even if their tax systems are less progressive than ours.

We should go to a flat tax for a number of reasons.

1. All the lower income individuals who pay no income tax should make some “contribution” to paying for the federal government. I don’t just mean social security, I mean national defense, education, Justice Department, etc.

When you have so many people who don’t pay any taxes at all, they have no stake in making sure that the government doesn’t waste money.

2. Assigning a higher tax bracket to someone because they make more money is no fairer than assigning a higher tax bracket to someone because they’re white, or black, or Hispanic. It’s a form of descrimination, pure and simple.
JPGR

How “conservative” can the Supreme Court be, they enforced the second amendment by one vote? They also gave US court access to terrorists at Gitmo. It sounds pretty even to me, so Obama appointing “one to three” (as I have heard) would make it the biggest joke court ever assembled.

It’s not conservative enough for me, because the second amendment rights in DC should have been a 9-0 vote, it’s part of our constitution (hard fact). As for the terrorists so called rights, I wish it had not passed but at least it was seen as bipartisan (more than I am evidently
di butler

Bear,

I make in the high six figures, close to 7, but I am definately not rich. I pay the top amt. of taxes and have tremendous business expenses. If it is not descrimination, it sure feels that way. It also makes you feel like, why the heck bother, sometimes. I am not bitching, I know I am lucky. I got the money to start my business from my husband, he is the one who worked his butt off for many years. I don’t have to work very hard now, I have my business set up, it is run by a manager. I just have all the stress and mental headaches when things aren’t copacetic. I am also the one who will have to let some great guys go if my taxes keep going up, and the economy doesn’t get better.
http://bullwinkleblog.com/ Bullwinkle

Make no mistake about it, Sparkie is and has always been a dedicated Marxist. From Day One.
robert108

Because of a generous $3,000 exemption, plus an additional $1,000 exemption for married couples, the tax applied to fewer than four percent of the population.

Woof: That was before FDR got the feds into runaway, wasteful social spending.
robert108

(construing activism as a disrespect for precedent, which its usually taken to denote.).

Wrong! Judicial activism is legislating from the bench, thereby bypassing the voters to implement policy from the bench. It is the duty of the judiciary to vacate precedent, when it’s wrong.

In fact, our progressive tax system has been hijacked by the Dem social engineers since FDR, but it was not originally designed for income redistribution. It was to apportion the expense of govt among citizens of all income levels. Since poorer people spend a greater percentage of their income on basic survival needs, they pay a lower rate. This has been made into redistribution by excusing some people from paying income tax at all, which was never the original intent. Obama’s frank redistribution for social engineering purposes breaks new ground for a free country.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/some_hints/ AKAJOEL

Holy Shit ! Listen to this.

Un-fucking-believable…. go to 13:26 on the audio and listen to this crazed bitch…Michelle Obama.
Hoth

Sparkie:

(construing activism as a disrespect for precedent, which its usually taken to denote.)

Wrong again as usual Sparkie. Activism is a disrespect for the plain language of the Constituion. eg. Finding imaginary rights within “emanations of penumbras” of enumerated rights. And of course, doing away with clearly stated rights such as the Second Amendment.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Huh?
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

Does this mean you guys are going to start lauding Sweden and Canada instead of bitching a/o them?

Thanks to Bush, no doubt.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Turning everything into a Democrat vs. Republican debate isn’t very helpful, Sparkie.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I’m pretty consistently against big government, etc. no matter who proposes it.

For someone who claims to be some sort of non-partisan libertarian, you sure sound like a run-of-the-mill partisan liberal.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

akajoel
one might note that the current conservative justices are by far the biggest ‘activist’ judges (construing activism as a disrespect for precedent, which its usually taken to denote.). in fact, judging from Justice Thomas’s promises at his confirmation hearing to the effect of ‘i respect precedent’, its not a stretch at all to call him a F*CKING LIAR (under oath mind you).
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

Huh?

We’ve had 8 years of GOP execs. 6 of those years were w/ GOP congress. the last two years, we have heard nothing but how ineffectual the dems have been.

put your whining in context.
WOOFX

I make in the high six figures, close to 7, but I am definately not rich.

Don’t have a helicopter and jet, you must be a pauper.
You’re confused as to your financial status.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

For someone who claims to be some sort of non-partisan libertarian, you sure sound like a run-of-the-mill partisan liberal.

For someone who claims to be some sort of non-partisan libertarian, you sure sound like a run-of-the-mill partisan conservative.
WOOFX

Original intent ?
1913, Most people paid no income tax.

Because of a generous $3,000 exemption, plus an additional $1,000 exemption for married couples, the tax applied to fewer than four percent of the population.

1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.[/quote

]
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

Rob
When I voiced my opinions, the response I got was, “You sound like a Ron Paul kook.”

Alas, I remember when McCain got the nod and you guys loved Ron Paul, all of the sudden.

SayAnythingBlog.com

We Already Have The Most Redistributionary Tax Code In The World

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments