Lets make fun of Obama while he is still relevant.

[David Horn]

(11-29-2016, 07:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-29-2016, 06:20 PM)David Horn Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:Not at all true.  U.S. tax burdens are comparable to western European tax burdens, and tend to be much more progressive.  Marginal rates for even a moderately affluent couple in some states can exceed 60%.  Perhaps you are forgetting that in the U.S., we have state taxes as well as federal taxes.

People in the affected categories tend to have deductions that lower their rates, so even a Manhattanite with a large amount of earned income will not be burdened as much as someone living an equivalent life in London.  Of course, most high earners tend to have unearned income, and that's a sweetheart tax deal that needs to end yesterday.

As to European rates, look here for a reality check.

Did you read your link before you posted it?  It shows that the U.S. has a higher top income tax rate, even excluding self employment tax, than any of Germany, the UK, or France, the big three in western Europe, which are all at 45%.

If you select for individual maximum, the first five countries are Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Aruba and Canada. All have VAT or sales taxed higher than ours. For the three you cited, all have very high Payroll taxes and VATs as well. Try this link instead, and sort by revenue high to low. Note the US at 26.9% in comparison to France (47.9%), Germany (40.6), and the UK (34.4). The EU as a whole is 35.7% and OECD is 34.8%.

Warren Wrote:

David Wrote:

Warren Wrote:From the standpoint of Picketty's theories, taxation of income is misdirected as it does not prevent concentration of wealth.  You might make some sense if you proposed eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a wealth tax.  Somehow the left never actually proposes things like that, though,  as they're in bed with the financial billionaires of the world.

Until Reagan cut top rates to the bone, this problem was nonexistent.  Very high rates tend to suppress outrageous pay packages in favor of other considerations.  Kennedy cut top marginal rates to 70%.  Prior to that, they were 90%.  No one gives a thought to going back to either, but current rates are too low ... especially for unearned income.

So when it's pointed out that your own preferred economist disagrees with you, you discard his position and make a different one up instead?  Good job of ignoring economic facts in favor of political prejudices.

Did you actually read his book? I did. His point, that you paraphrase imperfectly, discusses the futility of lowing current inequality through income taxation, since the problem is now baked-in. He does favor confiscatory inheritance taxes, which will resolve the issue in time. Short of a second Bolshevik Revolution, nothing fixes the problem immediately. Can I assume that none of us thinks that's a good answer?

So we have a choice: continue letting things get worse until violence erupts, or starting to let the air out of the balloon and hoping for patience while the normal balance in restored. If the latter, then all the GOP tax policies need to be trashed. Every oone of them favors worsening the problem.