Comments on: We Just Don’t Have Enough Taxes

By: Curtis

Curtis — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:17:57 +0000

There is a problem with the graph you show. I have seen it many places and the same rebuttle is often used: the graph does not take into account all of the services (health care, child care, higher education, pension and retirement fund) which are provided to all citizens of countries like Sweden, Finland or Norway. The lowest ten percent of income earners in those countries therefore have much lower expenses and therefore considerably higher disposible income.

The conclusion is that those in the lowest income brackets are better off in a system with a large social net, whereas the highest earners in those systems have less disposible income than there American counterparts. Two different systems for two different sets of priorities. Quite simple to see, and it is just up to the society to decide where its priorities are.

By: bob

bob — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:18:14 +0000

No wonder that your tax is lower than New Zealand. Our tax-and-spend left leaning government over taxed us so much that even they could not spend all the loot. Over the last four years it has taxed each household in NZ about nz$25,000 too much (based on the surplus they had left over) – that’s about us$18,750

By: John Dewey

John Dewey — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:15:24 +0000

Both Switzerland and Norway have older populations than the U.S.:

median age

Switzerland.....40.4
Norway..........38.7
U.S. ...........36.6

Source: CIA World Factbook

Where a larger share of the population is younger, we should expect greater inequality of household incomes, all else being equal. As Warren pointed out, though, all things are not equal. A significant portion of the younger U.S. population consists of low-skilled immigrants. Estimates for median age of illegal immigrants in the U.S. I've seen have ranged from 25 to 28.

It is not surprising to me if the poor of Switzerland and Norway earn a higher percentage of median income.

By: tim

tim — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:40:51 +0000

Did you ever notice that whenever people talk about income disparity they always use the words ” Income received” Like in the title of your graphic “the share of US median income received by low and high income households”. That makes me want to scream! Why can’t they just use the word EARNED. Because “Received” has overtones that someone out there is dealing out dollars and “Earned” has overtones that someone out there isn’t working hard enough. I prefer “earned” because I have never “received” a dollar in my life.