(10-28-2011, 02:04 AM)FireIceTalon Wrote: Jester, may I ask what your major was in university and what you do for a living? It's not really my business, but you seem quite well versed in comparative politics and international relations, so I'm curious.
I'm a PhD student in Economic History, with a focus on 19th century Latin America.
-Jester
(10-28-2011, 12:19 AM)kandrathe Wrote: Well, but if we drop the "western" and look at all industrialized nations...
Taiwan, Tax/GDP = 12.4 , GDP per capita = $35,604
The Bahamas, Tax/GDP = 18.7, GDP per capita = $30,049
Quatar Tax/GDP = 2.2 , GDP per capita = $88,222
Qatar and the Bahamas are not appropriate comparisons. Both are microstates and tax havens. Qatar is also swimming in oil money.
Taiwan, fine. Congratulations, you've found *a* country with GDP somewhere close to US levels, and lower taxes. The US doesn't have to be the absolute lowest in order to be very low.
Quote:Your Tax to GDP ratio data would be more revealing if it broke it down by tax type. Even this is somewhat misleading since about 50% of Americans don't pay Federal Income tax. Which means that not only do some individuals pay more than many OECD countries, it is the 4 and 5th quintile that pay the lions share. And, it makes sense that the Tea party tends to be more that 4th quintile group, the one that FIT remarked was taxed at effectively the same rate as the 5th quintile.
Jimminy Christmas. Half of Americans pay no income tax. Sales taxes are low to nonexistent. Corporate taxes are a joke, riddled with holes, that collect very little (2-3% of GDP). That's the *point*. That's what low taxes *are*.
And yet, because the remaining, relatively high income group is taxed at something resembling OECD average rates (still low, but closer), the Tea Party therefore has a point that taxes are too high?
No pleasing some countries, I guess.
-Jester