[pc86]

You've also got a top marginal personal income tax rate approaching 60% which is nearly twice that of the US and political suicide.

I'm not making a judgment for or against high marginal taxes, I'm just saying "the US could do it too" ignores, well... the very core of economic and tax policy in the US.

[zond]

So now you leave the realm of economical possibilities and start pointing at political problems.

Isn't that a little too simple?

"No, we can't do that because we don't want to."

[jimbokun]

Well, it's important to engage the political realities. Doesn't make it impossible, but a hybrid proposal or smaller first step might be more practical, given the politics.

[flavmartins]

Hybrid proposal is the real solution.

Yes, in the US, the taxation of the Nordic countries won't work and the socialist approach to services is also not accepted by half of the country.

Two key ideas, however, could be implemented:

--- IDEA 1 - REALLY EDUCATE people on WHY they need to get new vocational training.

Currently too many people are being given false promises of the return of working class jobs that are not coming back. It's not just globalization that has caused the loss of these jobs, but also technology advances that have made many of these jobs obsolete.

Your blue collar worker today isn't going to get a job moving metal equipment from one place to another because a machine can do it much more efficiently 24/7. Our capitalistic society means that a corporation will seek to create maximum efficiency to generate maximum profit. Corporations aren't in the business of maximizing the number of employees, but rather maximizing the return per resources invested in the organization. And that means, excuse my somewhat callous statement, that people are viewed as resources to the organizations, a means to generating profit. If a machine is able to perform a function faster, longer, for less overall money than an employee, a corporation will seek for that alternative.

So when many politicians make promises of bringing back good jobs. They AREN'T telling people WHAT JOBS are coming back. In fact, when you look at manufacturing jobs in the US, we currently CAN'T FILL THEM.

The problem is that your blue collar worker still expects a manual, low skill manufacturing job. But the job the US corporation wants is a manufacturing person who has a math or CS degree who can program or operate a high-end automation machine. Who can manage the CNC process or who can input the specifications for highly detailed technical operations. This requires specific training, math, engineering, or certifications.

This is the truth that more politicians need to hammer home to the people, then government follows up making sure that there is an incentive for educational institutions to allocate resources to teach these people.

But today, we're still stuck in: politicians claim that it's federal government's fault that they don't have a job, and that electing them instead will magically bring these low skill jobs back.

--- IDEA 2 - DECENTRALIZE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (Move them out of Washington D.C.

A CNN op-ed suggested this as a way to bring the Federal government closer to the people in the country. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/opinions/government-department...)

The capital, Whitehouse, and some executive services would remain in D.C., but many of the key departments would be moved to different regions of the country.

For example:

-The Veterans Administration in Phoenix -The IRS in Dallas -Treasury Department in NYC -FBI in SLC -The EPA in Portland or Seattle -Department of Agriculture in Iowa

and so forth. Federal government jobs move to other places around the country bringing it closer to the people so they get a more personal connection with the government since it actually supplies jobs to the people they know. It also moves these departments into locations that cost less than the high prices of the D.C. beltway.

Is there some loss of more interpersonal meetings between departments and cabinets? Sure, but high speed Internet access is readily available in ALL metropolitan areas around the country. We have video conferencing technology which eliminates the need for us to have the requirement of so many in-person meetings. It's a trade-off, but one that is greatly benefiting the people of the country.

And as the Federal government this is a big win because today, much of the sentiment is that the Federal government DOESN'T DO anything for me. It's a bunch of "elites" who waste time and money and the people don't see anything direct benefit.

Decentralizing the location of government agencies begins to eliminate this. Just like the US National Guard has a training camp just north of the city where I live, I can't say that the national guard doesn't do anything and isn't needed. They offer a great service and employ a lot of the people in my community, the surrounding communities. The national guard members, employees, and their families all buy homes in our communities raising home values (since these are stable jobs, homes aren't sold left and right, people stay, pay taxes, leading to general growth for our communities). These people also buy goods in our stores, contributing to the local economy. All because the Army put one of their national guard training camps here instead of concentrating them at West Point in New York.

[woodpanel]

Idea Number 2 is actually what Germany does (other countries as well). Here's a list of German Federal agencies (in German, location is in the last column): https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_deutschen_Bundesbe...

I can't say those agencies are specifically "in touch" with citizens. I'd rather say, they might be more hellish if they were all centralized in Berlin.

[yellowapple]

The second idea is also a great idea from a strategic perspective. At the risk of sounding doomsdayish, by spreading the federal government's agency headquarters around the country, it minimizes the risk of a single city-wide or even state-wide catastrophe (sea level rise, nuclear carbomb, Giant Meteor delivering on its one campaign promise, etc.) eradicating the leadership of most/all federal agencies.

[ep103]

I've never heard that second idea before. That's a really good idea.

[lb1lf]

We (Norway) did just that a few years ago; mostly, it was a success once the dust settled.

For instance, the coastal administration moved from the capital Oslo to Ålesund which is smack in the middle of a world-renowned maritime cluster; fisheries agency. moved to our #2 city (or #1 if you ask the locals) Bergen, historically the major export hub for the coastal fisheries, etc.

The key benefit is that it ensures there is a need for highly skilled labour also outside the capital; also, as you mention, it provides for more closeness to government - the sectors affected by the whims of a government agency has said agency within spitting distance, which helps.

[gshulegaard]

I like your ideas...a lot actually.

The only thing I would point out (see my comment a little further down about US budget) is that our current level of taxation supports comparable levels of spending to Nordic countries. I would guess, not doing an in depth analysis, that this is partly or even mostly due to the much larger relative size of the US GDP.

And in the case of healthcare, we are flat out spending more, both in real dollars and per capita measurements, and getting less. So I view tax arguments as more or less red herrings: We already spend as much or more, instead we should ask what is wrong with our system? Changes to our systems should not require increases in our taxation (necessarily).

But it's also why I really like your ideas since they are systemic in nature.

[weberc2]

What's simple about making 300 million people want the same thing?

[Nition]

In New Zealand we have free public healthcare, education subsidies (though tertiary education is not free), and a top tax rate of 33%, while we still make most of our money from primary industries like beef, dairy and wood[1].

Public healthcare allows us to have a huge single buyer for our pharmaceuticals - Pharmac[2] - which brings a lot of power to negotiate good deals.

It might not be reasonable for the US to become like the Nordic countries, but things could certainly be better.

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/2014_New...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmac

[cookiecaper]

Things can be made better in a way that's consistent with American principles of merit and competition. That's what Trump represents -- a return to the pre-Bush style of government that put reasonable economic restrictions in place and tried to provide an even playing field for everyone without introducing artificial government dependence.

GHWB and Bill Clinton sold this country into servitude for the elite by allowing them to freely export their labor overseas where it costs less than a dollar per hour. GWB and Obama continued that. That's 28 years of policy that have seriously exacerbated the economic condition of the average American while the fat cats at the top have gotten ever-richer.

Trump wants to make sure American money is used to help and employ Americans. That's good! There's no reason that all the money has to go overseas.

[prasadjoglekar]

"You've also got a top marginal personal income tax rate approaching 60% which is nearly twice that of the US and political suicide."

That's only true if you count Federal Income Taxes alone. By the time you're done with Social Security, Medicare, state and city taxes (esp in NY, CA), the top marginal tax rate here approaches 50%.

[phil21]

Everyone ignores this when talking about taxes. I had an accountant do the math for me out of curiosity if I were to move to the Netherlands - and my marginal tax rate would have increased a whopping 7%.

I would have saved more than that in health care related expenses, so it was more or less a wash with that included.

People that say the US is low taxed are simply not paying attention. I pay comparable "all in" taxes as my Canadian co-workers.

[ckinnan]

The top US marginal tax rate is 40% and the burden quickly exceeds 50% depending on the state you live in and factoring payroll taxes.

[thebspatrol]

Marginal tax rates mean literally nothing.

Nordic countries pay significantly more in taxes any way you look at it. You'd get laughed out of the room if you talked to someone like Donald Trump about paying a 40% marginal tax rate.

[garyrule]

and most folks in that tax bracket are doing things, other than paying short-term gains or regular income tax, to reduce their burden significantly.

[0xfeba]

And then add on Healthcare, child-rearing, and education costs and guess what...

USA Citizens pay more overall. Just not through "taxes." per -say.

[kbenson]

> I'm just saying "the US could do it too" ignores, well... the very core of economic and tax policy in the US.

Hardly. It was the core of the tax policy for a very long time.[1]

1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_...

[ryanwaggoner]

This talking point of once-sky-high marginal tax rates gets a lot of airplay, but it's very misleading. Almost no one paid those rates. Tax receipts as percentage of GDP have been remarkably stable over time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_law#/media/File:U.S...

Total tax revenue in the US is 27% of GDP. In Sweden, it's 46%:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven...

[kbenson]

> Tax receipts as percentage of GDP have been remarkably stable over time

That may be true, but since the sources you listed contradict each other, I'm left confused. I can find supporting evidence of the graph[1], but not of the wikipedia entry. The world bank apparently thinks they are all wrong[2]. Then there's a report that Norway is actually doing it with much less taxes than Denmark and Sweden[3], but that might be likely due to oil revenue. I'm left to conlcude that without a lot of research to look into the specifics, there's quite a few ways to measure this, and I'm not sure which are most relevant to the discussion at hand.

1: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/source-revenue-sha...

2: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS

3: http://www.thelocal.no/20151204/norway-leading-the-field-for...

[pc86]

And isn't anymore. If you want to argue that it should be, I'll listen to that, but you can't just throw out a link to graph about tax rates 50+ years ago and think that settles it and the US can be just like Norway.

[kbenson]

> And isn't anymore.

But it was, not not too long ago. 35 years ago it was 50%. 40 years ago it was 70%. Just saying it ignores the core of economic and tax policy in the US ignores, well... the the recent history of the economic and tax policy of the US. Rather than a rank dismissal of the idea, why not explain what's so different than now from then that makes it impossible?

> you can't just throw out a link to graph about tax rates 50+ years ago and think that settles it and the US can be just like Norway.

I didn't. I just meant to show that your reason for dismissing it seems poorly founded, or at least poorly explained.

[PopsiclePete]

70 decades ago, if I were a billionaire, I'd have no choice but to stay in the US and pay that tax rate. Europe is rebuilding from a war, Asia is an agrarian back-water and South America is about to start experimenting with Communism. Yeah, where am I going to run to, Mars?

Now it's different. I'll be laughing with my other billionaire buddies about your tax rate plans while snorting coke of a hooker's tits on my private yacht and watching the Monaco F1 GP from the harbor. I've got all the luxuries I need over there, and in fact, everywhere, that I previously could only enjoy in the US. I can talk with who I need to talk to over Skype, I can do my business, banking, everything, remotely.

It's not like other countries don't have equal or better infrastructure. It's not like I can get clean water and food only in the US that would somehow make this a magical place I'd never leave.

So why would I just sit quietly and let you tax me at 90%, exactly?

[kbenson]

Except, jokes on you, you may still owe the US taxes even if you don't live there but you get income from there, and they expect you to fill out your worldwide income and file taxes if you're a US citizen.

> So why would I just sit quietly and let you tax me at 90%, exactly?

Extradition treaties and/or freezing of your bank accounts, businesses and resources within the US.

Nobody expects the Spa.. I mean IRS.

[cplanas]

> if you're a US citizen

That's something you can opt out of. In fact, some do: http://fortune.com/2016/08/11/us-citizens-renounce/

[gshulegaard]

That's a red herring, just take a look at some budget breakdowns:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...

The largest portion of our budget is mandatory spending (~65%). Of our mandatory spending, the largest portion of that is spent on Social Services (Social security, medicare and health, etc) and yet we still have worse services than almost any other western country (IMO).

You start looking at percentages and an even more sinister picture starts to take shape:

https://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/how-countries-spend-t...

> "Canada spends 6.3 percent of its total yearly budget on military spending. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on military expenses. Mexico uses 3.3 percent of its budget for military spending."

> "Canada spends 17.9 percent of its total yearly budget on health care. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on health care expenses. Mexico uses 11.8 percent of its budget for health care."

> "Norway spends 17.9 percent of its budget on health care spending, while its neighbor Sweden spends 13.8 percent of its budget on health care."

> "In France, health care spending is 16.7 percent of France’s yearly budget."

This article needs citation, but see this report that seems to at least tangentially support some of the trends voiced:

http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Briefing-Note-NORWAY-...

> "The United States is, by far, the country that spends the most on health as a share of its economy (with 16.9% of its GDP allocated to health in 2012)"

So at this point we can conclude that the US spends roughly the same share, or more, of it's GDP on Health care as other countries...even those "socialist" ones...yet we have a much worse standard/level/cost of care.

Even at our "lower" tax rates our GDP is by far and away the largest:

https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+countries+by+GDP&oq=...

But moreover, our PER CAPITA GDP is one of the highest in the world (higher than Norway and Sweden).

So at the end of the day, America:

* Spends more on healthcare in flat dollar terms than almost any other nation

* Spends more on healthcare PER CAPITA than almost any other nation

and yet we still have far worse levels of care.

So this problem has nothing to do with economic or tax policy in the US. The question is: Where is the enormous sums of money we are ALREADY pouring into the system going?

[monodeldiablo]

Most Western health systems are universal and more or less exclusively government-funded. This means that the entire population is in the same risk pool, reducing costs for the more vulnerable users and increasing the incentives to implement more preventative medical practices. As de facto monopolies, these systems can do a much better job of controlling the costs of salaries, equipment, and drugs. And, because the systems don't need to turn a profit, they can operate at cost.

Our private health care system, however, has a cycle of perverse incentives -- employers, insurers, patients, and doctors -- that leads to spiraling costs with no increased benefits. The populations with the highest health risks (i.e. costs) are shoved onto the public rolls, in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. Meanwhile, the lowest-risk populations are forced to pay into private, for-profit insurance schemes. Specialists have outsized bargaining power, which leads to grossly outsized salaries. Equipment and drug manufacturers can play hospitals and systems off of each other to bid up prices. And, of course, shareholders want a return on their investment.

This problem has everything to do with economic and tax policy in the US.

[gshulegaard]

I think the point I was trying to address was the implied claim that we "can't afford" health care systems akin to other western examples. Arguments like:

> "Your tax rate is so high America would never vote for a similar tax."

> "Percentage wise those countries spend a lot more on health care than the US."

I would agree that our private health care system has perverse incentives. Combined with the degree of separation between cost and consumer due to our insurance system, this has resulted in general market failure.

Neither of these are directly economic or tax policy related (IMO). We already are being taxed and paying for health care...the issue is where is our health system failing to deliver value-per-dollar spent. Which generally might involve some economic policy overlap as far as market regulation, but I don't think it is the whole (or even the majority) of the story.

[jpgvm]

Corruption, lack of a single payer system that dramatically increases efficiency in the "socialist" countries. Insane health insurance system (ties into corruption).

It's doubtful they can/will fix any of this. America is a country controlled by lobbyists.

The politicians don't matter at the end of the day, look at Obama, had the right idea, could only implement a relatively mediocre system because anything good was politically untenable. The fact that politics can trump (lol) the health of the nation is enough for me to never want to live there.

[joshuaduffy]

American healthcare is run by the private sector with pretty much zero accountability compared to say, the UK, where the NHS is for the most part, a public organisation with open books.

[thebspatrol]

You're fronting the overhead of medical R&D, which the US is doing the bulk of.

Still kind of ridiculous that the amount we spend still amounts to most of the population getting shafted.

[gshulegaard]

Are we?

> ...industry supplies the bulk of the funds devoted to research and development, the public sector—primarily the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—supports most of the nation’s basic biomedical research.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/2/332.full

This quote seems to indicate the majority of R&D is coming out of the private sector.

Moreover, this overhead of medical R&D from the public sector doesn't explain price differences in drugs between US and other developed nations:

http://usuncut.com/news/us-drug-prices-in-the-us-are-literal...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-u-s-pays-more-than-other...

There are deeper, systemic issues IMO.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

I wonder what would happen if the U.S. passed a law requiring that drug prices in the U.S. be no higher than anywhere else in the world. That is the drug company is free to set any price, but they cannot sell at a lower price outside the U.S.

[bmelton]

Wouldn't it be dramatically easier to just allow Americans to buy their drugs from other first world countries at the prices they pay? If American drug companies have to compete with extra-national pricing, I'm guessing they'll figure out a way to.

On top of that, you're not forcing anybody to do anything.

[thebspatrol]

No I mean specifically from the private sector. You have to front that cost somehow. Whether you're seeing the cost as more expensive drugs or whatever, you're still paying it. R&D is factored into the cost.

The negotiation process is just different than when other countries are negotiating with US pharmaceutical companies.

[WalterSear]

>So this problem has nothing to do with economic or tax policy in the US. The question is: Where is the enormous sums of money we are ALREADY pouring into the system going?

The pockets of the oligarchy represented by Clinton and Trump.

[CorvusCrypto]

We could anyway imo. Our "very core" of economic and tax policy is actually pretty flexible. Just look at how the markets have developed over the last several decades. Yes there will be pain, but I'd trade a little short-term pain with long-term benefit over short-term relief with long-term decline anyday.

Not to say Scandinavia has the best of everything, but regardless... Jag skulle vilja bo i skandinavien istället USA

[fapjacks]

Marrying a Swede is unquestionably the best thing I ever did.

[Florin_Andrei]

Yes, that's the price you pay for civilization.

[gutnor]

That's the price you pay maybe for civilisation.

Take the other example of Belgium whose tax level is more or less equivalent but is scaling down on basically everything. People there complain that they pay a lot now, but are almost certain that when their turn come, they will not get anything.

We are in a context where you can't predict the outcome of the next election a single day before, who will trust to current generation of politician with policies in 30 years ?

Also, that's not just a question of egoism. I don't mind paying today so that people get unemployment benefit and a good pension. The problem is that if it goes the other way when I reach retirement age, I will neither receive the pension nor the year of tax cut to make up for it.

[nugator]

It will be interesting to see how the US solves this problem without raising taxes. If it solves the problem (which i hope).

[serge2k]

And responses like this are why he US has these problems.

Dismissing solutions as too hard or those won't for us.