"They can afford to pay more". Is based on what? I am not disputing it but I am trying to understand. They can afford it in comparison to others or they can afford it based on current economic environment and purchasing power?
In comparison to people who do make the median income - 53k a year.
This part of the article was eye opening for me:
In an era of deepening income inequality, those people in the top 5 percent who are being classified as middle class are pulling further away from the rest of us. Americans at the bottom or in the middle have experienced five years of falling or stagnating income; those in the top 5 percent have generally seen their incomes increase. Between 1967 and 2014, median household income went up by $9,400 while those 5 percenters are now making $88,800 more, all adjusted for inflation.
I think its weird to focus on this somewhat small group of taxpayers who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 when we could look to closing some of the corporate loopholes that would bring in far more revenue.
Why not do both? Why does it have to be one or the other?
Post by irishbride2 on Dec 29, 2015 9:16:00 GMT -5
It's so hard because different groups at that level pay different percents as well. For example, a self employed person making over a certain amount is paying over 50% when you include the 15% FICA. It someone making that same amount on capital gains pays much much less.
It over simplified the argument to just look at people making X. And it's why certain people get defensive when they are told they don't pay their fair share just because they are making a lot of money.
I think its weird to focus on this somewhat small group of taxpayers who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 when we could look to closing some of the corporate loopholes that would bring in far more revenue.
Why not do both? Why does it have to be one or the other?
Because the IRS has to enforce this by way of audits and they are already operating on something like 6 year low budgets.
Oh course I think that we have to amend the capital gains tax and corporate taxes. But I think this issue is emblematic of American exceptionalism, almost. Like, "Well, why should I have to pay, it's this person's fault." Or, "Why does my money have to support programs for people who aren't as successful?" And I know none of us on this board are heartless when it comes to the social welfare of our fellow human beings, but I think the attitude that we should ALL try to help out is... more prevalent elsewhere.
I mean, in countries with higher marginal tax rates or more tax brackets, how are capital gains or corporate taxes handled? What is the wealth disparity like? Surely, they have industries that haven't moved to SE Asia or the Caribbean to escape taxation. I feel like the US has to be able to look at countries who are doing this right.
Oh course I think that we have to amend the capital gains tax and corporate taxes. But I think this issue is emblematic of American exceptionalism, almost. Like, "Well, why should I have to pay, it's this person's fault." Or, "Why does my money have to support programs for people who aren't as successful?" And I know none of us on this board are heartless when it comes to the social welfare of our fellow human beings, but I think the attitude that we should ALL try to help out is... more prevalent elsewhere.
I mean, in countries with higher marginal tax rates or more tax brackets, how are capital gains or corporate taxes handled? What is the wealth disparity like? Surely, they have industries that haven't moved to SE Asia or the Caribbean to escape taxation. I feel like the US has to be able to look at countries who are doing this right.
I'd love to go for my PhD and study all of this. And it's free right now because there is a huge shortage of accounting PhD candidates.
Just in general, I think most of Europe treats capital gains like ordinary income. And sales tax is way higher but I don't think we want to go there because it disproportionately impacts low income families.
I think its weird to focus on this somewhat small group of taxpayers who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 when we could look to closing some of the corporate loopholes that would bring in far more revenue.
Why not do both? Why does it have to be one or the other?
Exactly
I mean I like money, I don't want to give away my money. But come on. We're in this 100-250k window. We aren't flush. We can't just buy what we want all the time. We live in a pretty high col area. But we aren't poor! We can afford to buy food at the grocery store any time we want. We can go to a restaurant if we feel like it. If the kids need clothes, yes I buy them at carters or old navy on sale but I can afford to clothe my children. We have two cars and a mortgage on a lovely if tiny house in a safe neighborhood. I can send my kids to a safe daycare while I work.
I think a lot of people (including me!) can forget how lucky we really are and fall into the trap of thinking we are actually struggling
So yes, increase my taxes a little. Not because I don't like keeping my money or don't need it but I know looking at the numbers that we are doing ok
Also I think we all wish we could choose where our taxes go. It bothers me greatly that a large chunk of my taxes go to defense spending. I don't want to pay for war I don't agree with. If only I could take that money and funnel it into social programs but sadly I don't have that control
"They can afford to pay more". Is based on what? I am not disputing it but I am trying to understand. They can afford it in comparison to others or they can afford it based on current economic environment and purchasing power?
In comparison to people who do make the median income - 53k a year.
This part of the article was eye opening for me:
In an era of deepening income inequality, those people in the top 5 percent who are being classified as middle class are pulling further away from the rest of us. Americans at the bottom or in the middle have experienced five years of falling or stagnating income; those in the top 5 percent have generally seen their incomes increase. Between 1967 and 2014, median household income went up by $9,400 while those 5 percenters are now making $88,800 more, all adjusted for inflation.
The top 5% includes incomes wildly higher than $250k. We don't know how much of that $88k increase is due to your $250k earners versus the out of control executive level compensation. CEO comp has supposedly increased almost 1000% versus 11% for the average worker. Average CEO pay is $16 million. So I don't think the article does a great job distinguishing the make up if what is in the 5%. To get irate at the increasing incomes of the 5% is fine but really it is not the $250kers skewing the results there.
Why not do both? Why does it have to be one or the other?
Exactly
I mean I like money, I don't want to give away my money. But come on. We're in this 100-250k window. We aren't flush. We can't just buy what we want all the time. We live in a pretty high col area. But we aren't poor! We can afford to buy food at the grocery store any time we want. We can go to a restaurant if we feel like it. If the kids need clothes, yes I buy them at carters or old navy on sale but I can afford to clothe my children. We have two cars and a mortgage on a lovely if tiny house in a safe neighborhood. I can send my kids to a safe daycare while I work.
I think a lot of people (including me!) can forget how lucky we really are and fall into the trap of thinking we are actually struggling
So yes, increase my taxes a little. Not because I don't like keeping my money or don't need it but I know looking at the numbers that we are doing ok
Also I think we all wish we could choose where our taxes go. It bothers me greatly that a large chunk of my taxes go to defense spending. I don't want to pay for war I don't agree with. If only I could take that money and funnel it into social programs but sadly I don't have that control
All the things you describe used to be affordable to the middle class.
This whole argument reminds me of this meme on FB (no I don't know how to do pics but here is text)..."An immigrant, a worker and a banker are sitting at the table with 10 cookies. The banker takes 9 and then tells the worker "watch out, the immigrant is going to steal your cookie"."
To me the middle class vs $250k feels like this for politicians in the tax debate. We will leave hedge fund managers, corporations, and the truly wealthy that have actual ways to devise tax shelters off the table and let the little wage earners parse thorough what is middle class or not as if the $250k incomes can truly change the landscape.
Seriously.
For the vast majority of people in that top 5% window, they are going to be paying a few hundred bucks more a year. There's no question that people in that bracket can "afford" that, even the ones in HCOL areas paying childcare.
But we aren't going to make a dent in this country's economic problems by telling me that I need to downgrade from a four star hotel to a three star one on my next three day weekend. I will do it, but let's not pretend like this is how we are going to make America great again.
I think its weird to focus on this somewhat small group of taxpayers who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 when we could look to closing some of the corporate loopholes that would bring in far more revenue.
Why not do both? Why does it have to be one or the other?
I am not opposed to doing both, but I think this issue is a huge distraction.
Post by gretchenindisguise on Dec 29, 2015 11:30:51 GMT -5
My salary just crept over the $100k line, and I don't feel like we're upper class. After taxes/medical deductions - take home is around $68k. After deducting just rent, daycare and student loans - there's not a lot left. We aren't poor, but we're also not upper-class. Or if we are - it's a very different upper-class than was there when we were kids. Like was stated in a previous post - the things we are doing are what middle class used to do.
I think its weird to focus on this somewhat small group of taxpayers who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 when we could look to closing some of the corporate loopholes that would bring in far more revenue.
But here's what worries me about that. If a corporation is taxed more, they will effectively lose money. If their money pool shrinks, what's going to bear the brunt of that shrinkage? Are they going to invest less in expanding the company? I doubt it. Are the executives going to take pay decreases? Highly doubtful. Are the shareholders going to tolerate reduced distributions? Also unlikely. The people at the top will cut where they will feel it least, which is at the bottom. They'll lay people off, or they'll cut hours, or they'll reduce pay for people at the lower end, or they'll quit giving raises to keep pace with inflation. My point is, if the goal is to improve the lives of the average American, can we say for sure that that's what this will do? That it won't just do the opposite?
Or, even worse, they may move the entire business to another country that's just as developed, but with a more favorable tax structure. It's my understanding that we actually already have a fairly high corporate tax rate relative to other developed nations, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
My salary just crept over the $100k line, and I don't feel like we're upper class. After taxes/medical deductions - take home is around $68k. After deducting just rent, daycare and student loans - there's not a lot left. We aren't poor, but we're also not upper-class. Or if we are - it's a very different upper-class than was there when we were kids. Like was stated in a previous post - the things we are doing are what middle class used to do.
This is why I think the main things that we need to figure out how to pay for are UHC and childcare. Those two things eat up HUGE portions of income for the middle class, and even bigger portions of income for those who are trying to break into the middle class and those living in poverty. A healthy population is good for the country. Having children well cared for and educated is good for the country. And the VAST majority of people need both healthcare and childcare! I don't understand how every time this issue is discussed on a national level, SO many people say that they don't want to pay for others to leach off of the system and the conversation is shut down. Or people call it socialism and the conversation is shut down. Or something about personal responsibility. What's irresponsible about paying your taxes and then getting something in return? Are we irresponsible for using public roadways? For drawing on Social Security when we're of age? NOBODY would ever argue that.
Also, on the subject of SS, I don't know why we pay out SS to people who have millions and millions of dollars. As if that SS paycheck is even noticeable to them. I don't think SS should turn into a welfare-style program where you have to be basically destitute to qualify for it, but I mean, come on. There's a point at which it's ridiculous and a total waste of money.
I think its weird to focus on this somewhat small group of taxpayers who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 when we could look to closing some of the corporate loopholes that would bring in far more revenue.
But here's what worries me about that. If a corporation is taxed more, they will effectively lose money. If their money pool shrinks, what's going to bear the brunt of that shrinkage? Are they going to invest less in expanding the company? I doubt it. Are the executives going to take pay decreases? Highly doubtful. Are the shareholders going to tolerate reduced distributions? Also unlikely. The people at the top will cut where they will feel it least, which is at the bottom. They'll lay people off, or they'll cut hours, or they'll reduce pay for people at the lower end, or they'll quit giving raises to keep pace with inflation. My point is, if the goal is to improve the lives of the average American, can we say for sure that that's what this will do? That it won't just do the opposite?
Or, even worse, they may move the entire business to another country that's just as developed, but with a more favorable tax structure. It's my understanding that we actually already have a fairly high corporate tax rate relative to other developed nations, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
All that you said was true, but having low tax rates has not facilitated additional investment. Instead it has gone to significant compensation packages. I think we have begun to underestimate the importance of the American worker. The executives can't do it all...where else is there to make cuts? Many companies have already stripped the workforce to low levels. I can't say for sure more cuts won't happen but I find it difficult to believe that it is sustainable. A company cannot thrive if people don't have purchasing power. The higher the unemployment, underemployment and uncertainty, the lower spending the average family is capable of.
My salary just crept over the $100k line, and I don't feel like we're upper class. After taxes/medical deductions - take home is around $68k. After deducting just rent, daycare and student loans - there's not a lot left. We aren't poor, but we're also not upper-class. Or if we are - it's a very different upper-class than was there when we were kids. Like was stated in a previous post - the things we are doing are what middle class used to do.
I think that is an interesting point. Back when my mom went to college, she paid her way through by living at home and working PT. So many of her generation do not have student loans. Plus, at least if you lived in metro Detroit, you could walk into a Ford or GM plant after high school graduation and have a steady job with full benefits. Jobs like that don't exist anymore. And going along with the changing COL, it was more possible to have a single income household. Now, not so much. Our generation has huge obstacles and expenses that our parents generation did not.
I think its weird to focus on this somewhat small group of taxpayers who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 when we could look to closing some of the corporate loopholes that would bring in far more revenue.
But here's what worries me about that. If a corporation is taxed more, they will effectively lose money. If their money pool shrinks, what's going to bear the brunt of that shrinkage? Are they going to invest less in expanding the company? I doubt it. Are the executives going to take pay decreases? Highly doubtful. Are the shareholders going to tolerate reduced distributions? Also unlikely. The people at the top will cut where they will feel it least, which is at the bottom. They'll lay people off, or they'll cut hours, or they'll reduce pay for people at the lower end, or they'll quit giving raises to keep pace with inflation. My point is, if the goal is to improve the lives of the average American, can we say for sure that that's what this will do? That it won't just do the opposite?
Or, even worse, they may move the entire business to another country that's just as developed, but with a more favorable tax structure. It's my understanding that we actually already have a fairly high corporate tax rate relative to other developed nations, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
That was my point before. America has been so beholden to not upsetting corporations that we've bent over backwards to give them benefits to keep them here, to our detriment. Exxon Mobile pays $0 in taxes, yet takes great advantage of their American operations, American workers, and the US government.
Surely, Sweden, Germany and France are not barren wastelands of no jobs and no companies. In fact, I think government-subsidized health care, child care and parental leave are probably pros for the companies as well. I've heard it's a headache for foreign companies to open American operations and have to figure out the system of providing health insurance for their employees. Companies in the US lose people (99% of the time it's women) right and left because of a lack of lengthy maternity leave and the high cost of child care, which means they lose out on investments they have made in training that employee.
We've tried essentially not taxing businesses and rich people to try to get them to stay in the US and be "job creators" and it's not working.
Post by steamboat185 on Dec 29, 2015 12:10:40 GMT -5
Executives have such a small portion of their compensation in standard salary. If you increase taxes they will just use more loopholes. Not that taxes shouldn't increase it just won't hit the c suite people as much as it will hit the two teacher home making 150k.
I think its weird to focus on this somewhat small group of taxpayers who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 when we could look to closing some of the corporate loopholes that would bring in far more revenue.
I have said this a few times in similar threads. Convincing the <$100K earners to fight about the taxes of the $200K earners is just a way for the $1.5 million earners to shove all their money into corporate tax shelters and "sophisticated investment planning" and then head off to their vacay home in Vail.
My salary just crept over the $100k line, and I don't feel like we're upper class. After taxes/medical deductions - take home is around $68k. After deducting just rent, daycare and student loans - there's not a lot left. We aren't poor, but we're also not upper-class. Or if we are - it's a very different upper-class than was there when we were kids. Like was stated in a previous post - the things we are doing are what middle class used to do.
This is because rather than looking at income, we should be looking at buying power. I know we've done this before, and someone had a great link, but the things that are used to calculate the CPI are things that don't really affect the middle class. Or, stated a different way, things like milk, rent, child care, tuition, health care etc... have risen faster than what the CPI would indicate, which means that the middle class has less buying power. It takes more of the middle class income to buy these things. At some point, that effect minimizes, but I don't know if anyone has really studied that. At what point does the fact that milk costs almost $6.00 a gallon and childcare is $550 a week (for an off-the-books, under-the-table-nanny) not affect you. I'd wager that point is right around $200K or $250K. Somewhere in that range, it doesn't "hurt" to pay that. So to me that makes the $100K-$250K still middle class. Because of the realities of buying power.
But I know this is an unpopular opinion. I just still maintain this whole conversation is a way of having the bottom 99% fight with each other rather than questioning why there's a wider gap between incomes within that top 1% than there is between the bottom 1% and the 99th%.
My salary just crept over the $100k line, and I don't feel like we're upper class. After taxes/medical deductions - take home is around $68k. After deducting just rent, daycare and student loans - there's not a lot left. We aren't poor, but we're also not upper-class. Or if we are - it's a very different upper-class than was there when we were kids. Like was stated in a previous post - the things we are doing are what middle class used to do.
This is because rather than looking at income, we should be looking at buying power. I know we've done this before, and someone had a great link, but the things that are used to calculate the CPI are things that don't really affect the middle class. Or, stated a different way, things like milk, rent, child care, tuition, health care etc... have risen faster than what the CPI would indicate, which means that the middle class has less buying power. It takes more of the middle class income to buy these things. At some point, that effect minimizes, but I don't know if anyone has really studied that. At what point does the fact that milk costs almost $6.00 a gallon and childcare is $550 a week (for an off-the-books, under-the-table-nanny) not affect you. I'd wager that point is right around $200K or $250K. Somewhere in that range, it doesn't "hurt" to pay that. So to me that makes the $100K-$250K still middle class. Because of the realities of buying power.
But I know this is an unpopular opinion. I just still maintain this whole conversation is a way of having the bottom 99% fight with each other rather than questioning why there's a wider gap between incomes within that top 1% than there is between the bottom 1% and the 99th%.
I mean I like money, I don't want to give away my money. But come on. We're in this 100-250k window. We aren't flush. We can't just buy what we want all the time. We live in a pretty high col area. But we aren't poor! We can afford to buy food at the grocery store any time we want. We can go to a restaurant if we feel like it. If the kids need clothes, yes I buy them at carters or old navy on sale but I can afford to clothe my children. We have two cars and a mortgage on a lovely if tiny house in a safe neighborhood. I can send my kids to a safe daycare while I work.
I think a lot of people (including me!) can forget how lucky we really are and fall into the trap of thinking we are actually struggling
So yes, increase my taxes a little. Not because I don't like keeping my money or don't need it but I know looking at the numbers that we are doing ok
Also I think we all wish we could choose where our taxes go. It bothers me greatly that a large chunk of my taxes go to defense spending. I don't want to pay for war I don't agree with. If only I could take that money and funnel it into social programs but sadly I don't have that control
All the things you describe used to be affordable to the middle class.
Oh definitely not debating that! If my parents made what we do now adjusted they would probably have felt quite wealthy.
The depressing thing is that we are in the top ten percent and we are getting by but we can't really save money right now because the cost of childcare and our mortgage wipes out a lot of our money. But 90 percent of the country is doing worse than us! That's what makes me feel like, I can afford the coupe hundred extra in tax a year if I make more than 90% of the country
I definitely feel like corporate tax reform and raising the taxes on the very highest earners, along with higher rates of tax on investment income will provide much more revenue and should get much more attention than this
But here's what worries me about that. If a corporation is taxed more, they will effectively lose money. If their money pool shrinks, what's going to bear the brunt of that shrinkage? Are they going to invest less in expanding the company? I doubt it. Are the executives going to take pay decreases? Highly doubtful. Are the shareholders going to tolerate reduced distributions? Also unlikely. The people at the top will cut where they will feel it least, which is at the bottom. They'll lay people off, or they'll cut hours, or they'll reduce pay for people at the lower end, or they'll quit giving raises to keep pace with inflation. My point is, if the goal is to improve the lives of the average American, can we say for sure that that's what this will do? That it won't just do the opposite?
Or, even worse, they may move the entire business to another country that's just as developed, but with a more favorable tax structure. It's my understanding that we actually already have a fairly high corporate tax rate relative to other developed nations, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
That was my point before. America has been so beholden to not upsetting corporations that we've bent over backwards to give them benefits to keep them here, to our detriment. Exxon Mobile pays $0 in taxes, yet takes great advantage of their American operations, American workers, and the US government.
Surely, Sweden, Germany and France are not barren wastelands of no jobs and no companies. In fact, I think government-subsidized health care, child care and parental leave are probably pros for the companies as well. I've heard it's a headache for foreign companies to open American operations and have to figure out the system of providing health insurance for their employees. Companies in the US lose people (99% of the time it's women) right and left because of a lack of lengthy maternity leave and the high cost of child care, which means they lose out on investments they have made in training that employee.
We've tried essentially not taxing businesses and rich people to try to get them to stay in the US and be "job creators" and it's not working.
But the United States corporate tax rate is ALREADY HIGHER than the countries you listed. It's 35% here, 22% in Sweden, 29.65% in Germany, and 33.33% in France.
But here's what worries me about that. If a corporation is taxed more, they will effectively lose money. If their money pool shrinks, what's going to bear the brunt of that shrinkage? Are they going to invest less in expanding the company? I doubt it. Are the executives going to take pay decreases? Highly doubtful. Are the shareholders going to tolerate reduced distributions? Also unlikely. The people at the top will cut where they will feel it least, which is at the bottom. They'll lay people off, or they'll cut hours, or they'll reduce pay for people at the lower end, or they'll quit giving raises to keep pace with inflation. My point is, if the goal is to improve the lives of the average American, can we say for sure that that's what this will do? That it won't just do the opposite?
Or, even worse, they may move the entire business to another country that's just as developed, but with a more favorable tax structure. It's my understanding that we actually already have a fairly high corporate tax rate relative to other developed nations, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
All that you said was true, but having low tax rates has not facilitated additional investment. Instead it has gone to significant compensation packages. I think we have begun to underestimate the importance of the American worker. The executives can't do it all...where else is there to make cuts? Many companies have already stripped the workforce to low levels. I can't say for sure more cuts won't happen but I find it difficult to believe that it is sustainable. A company cannot thrive if people don't have purchasing power. The higher the unemployment, underemployment and uncertainty, the lower spending the average family is capable of.
I'm having a hard time finding an easy listing of corporate tax rates throughout the world that is from an unbiased source.
This is from Forbes, but there isn't a date, so it might not be accurate anymore. According to it, the US is second only to Japan. US multinationals have a corporate income tax rate of 35%. But after deductions, the median US domestic company pays 23%, while the MNCs pay 28%. That makes the US No. 2 when it comes to be soaked by its own federal government. Japan Japan takes the cake. Its corporations are levied a 40% tax on income, with Japanese effective tax rates the highest in the world at 37% for domestics and 38% for the big MNCs.
Then this is from taxfoundation.org, which appears to be a very pro-business think tank, so I don't know if they can really be trusted either. "The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent, exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates. The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate is 22.6 percent (30.6 percent weighted by GDP)."
I have heard several times, from several sources in NPR that I don't have time to look for right now, that the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Maybe if we lowered it some, companies would stop trying to figure out ways to shield their income in Ireland, for example.
I think its weird to focus on this somewhat small group of taxpayers who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 when we could look to closing some of the corporate loopholes that would bring in far more revenue.
I have said this a few times in similar threads. Convincing the <$100K earners to fight about the taxes of the $200K earners is just a way for the $1.5 million earners to shove all their money into corporate tax shelters and "sophisticated investment planning" and then head off to their vacay home in Vail.
I totally agree with laurack; we're just over the $100k mark in gross income and until we moved to a much, MUCH lower COL area, we felt like we were really struggling. Paying $850/ month in daycare will do that to you. Next year we'll have two in daycare and it'll be about $1400/month. That's roughly $17,000/a year, of which only $5,000 is tax deductible. Why not make ALL daycare tax deductible?
That said, all in all we're doing just fine in the broad spectrum of our community and our peers. I'm willing to pay a bit more I taxes if it helps others.
Post by marriedfilingjoint on Dec 29, 2015 17:10:46 GMT -5
The US is also the only country that taxes worldwide income (corporate and personal). But tax rates alone don't tell us much because of credits, exemptions, and NOL carry forwards. We'd have to look at average effective tax rates across countries to really compare, and we'd have to look at other forms of local tax, value added tax, property tax, and more. It's really convoluted.
I think focusing on the corporate tax rate is a distraction as well. Many corporations receive subsidies so while their tax rate might seem high, it ignores the income in the form of subsidies they recieve.
As for cutting hours or raising prices, companies have already minimized one, while maximizing the other, so that is another distraction. There is a reason that prices increase without an increase in services, goods, or cosy of living adjustments.
The problem is no group wants to be the first step in addressing wealth inequality or government budgeting, so pointing out it will not solve all problems is a favorite pastime.
I have said this a few times in similar threads. Convincing the <$100K earners to fight about the taxes of the $200K earners is just a way for the $1.5 million earners to shove all their money into corporate tax shelters and "sophisticated investment planning" and then head off to their vacay home in Vail.
I really think the corporate tax issues are a huge distraction from how obscenely unfair the current individual tax code is.
I just read this article and was going to post it as well.
It would be wonderful if all of these loopholes were closed, and I do think it could solve some of the problems, but I doubt we will ever see this happen. The government has changed so much and is currently only for the rich.
The US is also the only country that taxes worldwide income (corporate and personal). But tax rates alone don't tell us much because of credits, exemptions, and NOL carry forwards. We'd have to look at average effective tax rates across countries to really compare, and we'd have to look at other forms of local tax, value added tax, property tax, and more. It's really convoluted.
This is why it's so hard to discuss this issue meaningfully in political campaigns.
I think I'm reasonably smart. But everything you just said up there? It makes me feel both stupid and sleepy.