[sykic]

Making matters worse, America’s low tax-to-GDP ratio – just 27.1% even before the Trump tax cut – means a dearth of money for investment in the infrastructure, education, health care, and basic research needed to ensure future growth.

In comparison to our peers the U.S. is under taxed. The OECD average is 34.2%. What makes the average person feel overtaxed is the combination of federal income tax, state income tax (where it occurs), along with stagnant wages and high medical care costs. The U.S. spends far more per capita on healthcare than any other OECD nation.

It is easy to convince a significant portion of average Americans that taxes are too high. So they vote for politicians that promise to lower taxes. Except they don’t lower taxes for average people. In a properly functioning political system this disconnect between promise and actuality would be taken care of at election time. In my lifetime I’ve not seen this happen and my political memory starts with the Reagan administration.

Due to globalization and the ability of the top 0.1% to easily move money from country to country and to easily move citizenship from country to country one can no longer reasonably make the case that what is good for the top 0.1% is necessarily good for the country. The intersts of the nation as a whole and the interests of the top 0.1% are badly misaligned.

The U.S. is politically unhealthy and until this changes I see no hope for improvement. I think only a shock to the system will really change things.

[rb808]

> In comparison to our peers the U.S. is under taxed. The OECD average is 34.2%. What makes the average person feel overtaxed is the combination of federal income tax, state income tax (where it occurs), along with stagnant wages and high medical care costs. The U.S. spends far more per capita on healthcare than any other OECD nation.

Its really difficult to compare. Healthcare is a big difference, if we relabeled health insurance as a tax, US tax rates would be very high.

[sykic]

The problem I have with this relabelling is that decent health care is largely dependent upon how rich/nice your employer is and it costs lots of money at the point of contact. Healthcare in the U.S. is not provided to citizens in a way that resembles a government program.

[dragonwriter]

> Healthcare in the U.S. is not provided to citizens in a way that resembles a government program.

Except for the ~1/3 of Americans who get healthcare through one or more of the government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Tricare, etc.)

[sykic]

I fail to see what your point is. You believe the totality of all U.S. healthcare spending ought to be viewed as a tax because - using your statement - 1/3 of the people receive healthcare via a department of the federal government?

[dragonwriter]

> I fail to see what your point is.

The point is exactly and only what the text of the comment said.

> You believe the totality of all U.S. healthcare spending ought to be viewed as a tax

No, I never said that. Nor, AFAICT, did anyone upthread. The claim rb808 made seems to be more "comparing tax rates between countries where there is a substantial difference in the extent to which essential services are provided through tax funded programs is of limited utility".

[sykic]

I think I may have upset you. I don't understand your original comment in the context it was made. From my perspective rb808 thinks that health care expenditures ought to be added to the U.S. tax computation to make comparisons to other OECD nations' tax rates. I don't agree with this for the reasons I stated.

As an aside I think if one doesn't view something as a tax then it shouldn't be added to the tax calculation. If one wants to say we are both taxed low and in return don't receive as much government services and so it balances out then have at it. I don't agree with that perspective either but it's a logical one to make.

If you agree with rb808 I wish you well in convincing others with your point of view.

[sykic]

I know that you didn't say that. Hence the question. I didn't claim you said it. But rb808 sort of did claim this:

...if we relabeled health insurance as a tax, US tax rates would be very high...

Your original comment doesn't appear to be relevant or to add to the conversation to me because VA, DOD, Medicare, and Medicaid spending are already taken into account when computing tax rates. I really don't understand what you are getting at with your original comment. The healthcare expenditures you mentioned are already part of the calculation for the tax rate in the U.S. So there is nothing to add with regard to the programs you mentioned when making the comparison to OECD average tax rates.

[WillPostForFood]

It is easy to convince a significant portion of average Americans that taxes are too high. So they vote for politicians that promise to lower taxes. Except they don’t lower taxes for average people.

Let’s be honest, tax cuts may be bad policy, but it is not true that they haven’t been lowered for the average person. Rates are down, standard deduction is up.

[SeanAppleby]

SALT caps really screw a lot of people though. My effective federal tax rate is higher after the tax "cut" than it would have been under the previous tax laws.

It really depends on where you live. Some blue areas have had effective tax increases for a sizable chunk of the population.

[sykic]

I misspoke. The cuts have been mostly but not exclusively for the very rich. For instance, Reagan thought the tax on capital ought to be higher than the tax on labor. Now if a politician suggested this they'd be labeled a socialist by the Republican party.

[refurb]

United states is 26% tax to GDP. Australia is 27.8%. Switzerland is 27.8%[1]

Are those countries broken too?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven...

[sykic]

The political system in the U.S. is broken from my perspective. It is not broken because tax rates are too low. That tax rates are low for the very wealthy is a symptom of the brokenness of the system. It is not the cause and I did not claim the U.S. has a broken system due to low taxation.

[sacheendra]

Yes?

[pitaj]

So what do you think a better tax system would look like?

Here's what I think:

- No corporate taxes - No income tax deductions - No income tax exemptions - Lower income tax rates across the board - Income tax rate is calculated by a continuous function based on your income - Such a function would be based on existing effective tax rates

Done correctly, such a reform would be much simpler, easier to deal with, and revenue neutral.

[moate]

>>and revenue neutral.

Why is this a good thing? It seems that most people feel that the problem is twofold. 1- Middle and Lower class families feel like too much of their money is forced to pay for taxes or services that taxes could be used to provide and thus they're not getting a fair shake. 2- Rich people are able to navigate the complex legal codes relating to tax in such a way that they benefit by "not paying their fair share". This seems to be a growing sentiment in both wings (although conservatives tend to believe that everyone is taxed too heavily and have all sorts of varied solutions about how best to deal with wealth inequity)

If you created a revenue neutral system it doesn't seem like it really addresses the issue of wealth inequality. If someone believes the wealthy aren't paying their fair share, it would make sense that in a reformed system that's "better" you would increase revenue because you'd be gaining more from those at the top.

[pitaj]

If revenue should increase, it's much easier to increase it by changing some constants in the function. Same applies if you think revenue should decrease, or if you think the taxes should be more progressive.

A simpler system benefits everyone: it's easier to comply with, it's easier to enforce, it's easier to change.

For instance, adding a negative income tax would be as easy as adding a negative offset to the function.