Relative Taxation of Married People in Major Economies
Here’s the source (Click on the link to Table 2, which is a PDF).
Here’s the Table:
Points:
- The table picks up federal income taxes and government retirement programs, and shows the average tax burden on a family of four. For the US, the table shows the impact of income taxes plus both the employee and employer payments to Social Security and Medicare.
- To emphasize that these are averages, a very high income-earner in the US will normally pay at least 38% of all of his or her earned income to Uncle Sam (federal tax at 35% and Medicare tax of 2.90% [1.45% employer, 1.45% employee]), with no exemptions or deductions, all of which phase out at the highest income levels. On top of that, add the roughly $11,700 combined employer and employee payments into Social Security (12.4% of the first $94,200 earned).
- The family-friendly US is pleasantly near the bottom of this taxation scale, with the third-lowest tax burden on the list.
- Also note how the tax burden on families in the US has declined significantly in the past 5 years. That must be because conservatives don’t care about working families (/sarcasm).
- Look at all of the Old European countries that are over 40%. Is it any wonder, considering the costs of raising children, that Europeans aren’t having as many?
An interesting chart indeed.
Just one note: I can understand your excitement about the fact that the tax burden has fallen over the last five years - We’re all in favor of paying less taxes. But its a bit more difficult for me to get all enthusiastic about the tax cuts, when I remember the fact that they are being paid for by borrowing money. Sure, its fun to get a new credit card, but it doesn’t really make me any wealthier. In fact, in the long run it will make me more poor.
Bottom Line: A tax cut that is paid for by borrowing money is nothing more than a deferred tax increase. We will have to pay for it some day. Count on it.
Comment by LaurenceB — May 10, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
See the most recent post. Tax cuts are generating MORE revenue as predicted by supply-side econ.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=2089
The bipartisan problem is on the spending side.
Comment by TBlumer — May 10, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
Yes, the problem is on the spending side. But there’s nothing “bipartisan” about it. Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Remember?
Comment by LaurenceB — May 10, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
It’s bipartisan in the sense that the Democrats want to spend even more than the Republicans. Just think “full fund Head Start,” “fully fund No Child Left Behind,” etc.
If you look at the Dems’ agenda, it almost inevitable involves spending more than is currently being spent. I’m not happy to say that. If they had brains, they’d turn it around and move to the right of the GOP. There’s actually room to do that now. But they’re too dumb to seize the opportunity.
Comment by TBlumer — May 10, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
Hmmm…
So, you are arguing that the fault for this fiscal insanity is “bipartisan” in the sense that if the Democrats were in power you’re pretty sure they would be even worse. This, despite the fact that the last time the Democrats had any real power the budget was balanced. No deficit. None.
Hmmm…
Color me unconvinced.
President Clinton and the Republican Congress did well. But President Bush and the Republican Congress have architected a looming economic disaster. I don’t think there’s really any escaping this fact.
Comment by LaurenceB — May 10, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
#5, the reason the budget got balanced was that the GOP after the 1994 elections succeeded somewhat in reigning in the growth of spending. Even thought they “lost” the government shutdown battle politically, the relatively modest growth in spending that resulted from it enabled the economy to boom (along with the serendipitous arrival of the Internet) and get the budget closer to balance.
One myth that persists is that the budget was ever balanced. This page dispels that notion:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#years
The national debt has gone up every year presented. It came close to not going up during the year ended 2000, but not quite.
I agree with you that Bush & Congress, with both parties culpable, is endangering the country fiscally. But I never hear Democrats say we should spend less overall (oh how I long for it, because as soon as they do, the GOP will run to the right so fast your head will spin). The closest we get is that we should spend less on Iraq or the military and spend even more to make up for it elsewhere.
There’s a bipartisan leadership vacuum that is frightening. It’s one reason I backed insurgent Senate candidate Bill Pierce in last week’s OH primary. But I insist that the problem is spending, not taxes.
Comment by TBlumer — May 10, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
So, if I understand correctly your position:
1. When the Democrats and Republicans shared power and balanced the budget, you believe the Republicans should get the credit. Yeah Republicans!
2. But when only the Republicans are in power, you and I agree that they spend like drunken sailors on leave - and you believe that that’s both the Democrats’ and the Republcans’ fault. Boo Democrats!
Trivia Question: Before Clinton, who was the last Administration to balance the budget?
Answer: Lyndon B. Johnson
I guess this calls for a #3, where we jump through hoops to explain why Republicans should have gotten credit, even though Democrats were in control of both branches. ;)
Comment by LaurenceB — May 10, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
#7, great comment, except Boo Dems and Reps.
On your point 2, Seriously, the best example I can think of is that last year there was a feeble attempt at spending control, like reducing $30 billion in projected spending growth in the next 5 years. In the Senate, EVERY Dem was against it, because they didn’t want to “cut” anything. Only 50 GOP Senators were for it. “My” Senator DeWine was one of the GOP Senators against it, and he made the standard whines about hurting children, blah-blah. Cheney had to fly in to break the tie. All over a puny $30 billion over 5 years.
I think that shows that there is reason to believe that your Point 2 is fine, except it should be Boo both parties.
On your Point 1, Clinton shut down the government rather than see Medicare reformed. It wasn’t, so in that sense he “won,” but other spending that he would have preferred not to have been cut did get cut, which did set the stage for something resembling short-term fiscal sanity.
If Option 3 happens, it will be because the GOP cravenly abandoned core principles.
I’m actually thinking of an option 4, which is throw all the bums out except a very vew, regardless of party.
Comment by TBlumer — May 10, 2006 @ 9:38 pm