Originally posted by KazetNagorra Out of the top 20 countries in GDP per capita (the US itself is 9th, IMF 2009), 16 levy higher taxes than the US (the remaining three are two oil states and Singapore). Of these 16 at least 14 have a higher tax rate for the rich than the US (I'm not sure about Switzerland or Luxembourg). So if the argument in the OP is valid, it's arguing for increased taxes for the rich.
But the data quoted here seem a more pertinent observation from a US perspective since they are talking about individual US states and a measured change over time.
Both data series could just be correlations, of course, without any causality behind them. But it is interesting that the "high taxes lead to prosperity" observation seems to be contradicted.
Originally posted by spruce112358 Absolutely. That'll teach them. And no1m will be there telling us how, since the vote to decapitate was democratic, it is all perfectly OK and legal under precedents dating from 13th century Dutch law as any of you pathetic imbeciles should know.
Here we have a fine example of the anti-democratic tendencies of the arrogant middle-class. Your desire is not to execute justice but to perpetuate the system of exploitation and economic slavery of the poor, there will never be peace on this earth as long as redistribution is halted or watered down by politicians shackled to special interests.
Originally posted by generalissimo Here we have a fine example of the anti-democratic tendencies of the arrogant middle-class. Your desire is not to execute justice but to perpetuate the system of exploitation and economic slavery of the poor, there will never be peace on this earth as long as redistribution is halted or watered down by politicians shackled to special interests.
Originally posted by zeeblebot http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&biw=1920&bih=1001&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=favela+brazil&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
''The United States health care system relies heavily on private health insurance, which is the primary source of coverage for most Americans. According to the CDC, approximately 58% of Americans have private health insurance''
From the health insurance wiki.
In the Netherlands, it is about 99%, which means that 1,5 times my city don't have one. 170.000 people!
It seems to me that the rich are far better able to take advantage of the benefits of the society in which they reside, so does it not then follow that they are morally obliged to contribute a greater proportion than their less well-heeled compatriots?
Originally posted by Thomaster ''The United States health care system relies heavily on private health insurance, which is the primary source of coverage for most Americans. According to the CDC, approximately 58% of Americans have private health insurance''
From the health insurance wiki.
In the Netherlands, it is about 99%, which means that 1,5 times my city don't have one. 170.000 people!
yeah, but you said "in some states", can you correlate it with states' method and level of taxation?
Originally posted by zeeblebot yeah, but you said "in some states", can you correlate it with states' method and level of taxation?
No, I can't. I don't see why I need to either. Apparantly, a lot of people can't afford a health insurance, so the US don't do fine enough. Or can you show me a link that excludes states without taxes for very rich people?
Besides, if they raise taxes for ultra rich people, they can either do more things, or lower taxes for poorer people. How can you call that ''punishing''? Like if the rich will actually be less rich than the poor. I think they don't.
you said "I heard that, in some states, a lot of people don't even have a health insurance." lots of people in lots of states don't have health insurance. what has it to do with method of taxation? the article says non-income-tax states are doing better! not that they have less money to pay health insurance with. it's apples and oranges until better data is forthcoming.
Originally posted by zeeblebot you said "I heard that, in some states, a lot of people don't even have a health insurance." lots of people in lots of states don't have health insurance. what has it to do with method of taxation? the article says non-income-tax states are doing better! not that they have less money to pay health insurance with. it's apples and oranges until better data is forthcoming.
Your article only mentioned averages.
It is very possible that the effect was only reached because of rich
people moving to these stated to avoid having to pay taxes.
If a state needs more money to make sure the people are healthy,
or something totally different, than increasing taxes for a group of
rich people who don't pay much, is a good idea.
Originally posted by spruce112358 But the data quoted here seem a more pertinent observation from a US perspective since they are talking about individual US states and a measured change over time.
Both data series could just be correlations, of course, without any causality behind them. But it is interesting that the "high taxes lead to prosperity" observation seems to be contradicted.
They could both just be correlations. However, you can easily see that the author of the OP is either ignorant or dishonest by not correcting for population size when talking about economic growth. Population growth correlates with poverty, not wealth, not it's more likely that the no-income-tax states simply have more population growth (and the resulting economic growth) because they are poorer and/or contain more ethnic groups who have more children (e.g. Hispanics). A more sensible comparison would be between GDP per capita growth, but even then you would only be able to establish correlations, not causes.
punishing the rich
05 Oct '10 18:00
Back to Top