Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Hard to say, and depends on cultural values. Should we extend equity to encompass the world? If so, any household making more than ~$35k is in the top 1%, and should have their privileged wealth redistributed to "the oppressed".
My values tend to be rooted in ancient philosophy, and are along the lines of developing personal relationships and care for those in the community. This is practiced voluntarily, not compelled by threat of violence. Politically, authority is distributed as locally as feasible, with little authority or money residing with the federal government. Nobody cares who is POTUS because they don't really affect anything locally because they are focused on diplomatic relations and national border security, and not gender pronouns and wealth transfers to those who made poor decisions to "invest" in their "education".
|
I didn't mean that as a matter of judgement, but rather as a practical consideration. More specifically - if you pay X taxes in the US and Y taxes somewhere else, the crossover point at which you're giving more than you're getting will be at A income (or position in the socioeconomic ladder) in the US and B income or point at the other location.
In more specific terms, is the $75,000(US) income earner a net contributor or burden to the system? $40,000? $200,000? What is the crossoverpoint, above which you're better off providing things for yourself than relying on pooled and redistributed communal resources?
This of course leaves out entirely the economies of scale or efficiency of said systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Wealth is generated from a system that encourages liberal mindsets to take risks that usually result in failure, but sometimes result in success. The system encourages risk-taking by protecting individuals from permanent catastrophe when their bad ideas fail (bankruptcy). The business can fail, but the individual doesn't have to become an indentured servant to pay back the loss. The investors take the loss or the gain.
The workers maintain the good ideas (conservative by nature), producing goods and services of value. They practice and perfect the good ideas, adhering to the specifications and best practices.
|
Granted.
This is rather multifaceted, however. New Zealand has 3x as many business owners per capita, because it's easier to start a business, and there are more robust legal protections in place to prevent large businesses from drowning small businesses through means outside of pure competitive advantrage. The US however has far greater ability to scale up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Your assertion is a contradiction. You state everyone pays, and the top earners primarily benefit from that payment. Then you suggest that at some higher income threshold, one pays more than they benefit.
The latter is correct, and the former incorrect. Over half of US households pay ZERO federal tax. Who isn't paying their fare share again? Could it be the majority of people? Who relies on the services rendered by taxes? Is it wealthy people going to the ER when they get the sniffles and then don't pay the bill? Are they the ones mugging people in the streets? Are they the ones cutting catalytic converters off cars?
The top 1% of US taxpayers pay 42% of taxes.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/f...a-2023-update/
The confusion comes from the fact that folks don't know that the uber-wealthy have almost all their wealth invested in their portion of the companies they own. Elon is fantastically wealthy because Tesla stock is so high. If Tesla stock plummets, there goes the wealth. The wealthy continuously gamble their wealth back into ideas, which either succeed or fail. They expand the pie that everyone eats from (or more often, fail). You don't tax unrealized gains, because they could be gone tomorrow.
The US system is far from perfect, but it is among the best system for innovation. Tax code and healthcare are at the top of the list of systems needing major simplification, primarily to cut overhead costs and reduce the footprint for corruption. |
I'm asking these questions not in a pointed way, but in a way to hopefully educate
me in particular.
Being pedantic, but a quick search suggests the ratio is just under 40% of households which paid no federal individual income tax - which is still a disturbingly high number. I'd guess a portion of these are students, and a portion are welfare and/or disabled.
Perhaps the question I ought to be asking is, why is the laborforce participation so much lower in the US (approximately 15% lower)? Why is the unemployment rate (of those seeking to join) higher? You and I both know it isn't because the bottom half of Americans are more lazy and/or stupid than their peers overseas.
I risk derailing the topic here, but you also have the incontrovertible fact that national spending is broken down quite differently. NZ and the US spend similar portions of their GDP, but where it goes is quite different. As a portion of spending, New Zealand puts around 4x as much into education, while healthcare spending is actually
lower as a percent despite the system covering everyone.
~
All said, while I appreciate that the US is an engine of innovation and production, on an individual level, my life is considerably better here, and the system is both apparently more stable and sustainable.