[bpt3]

> Math and history. One example explainer: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/80552/total-tax...

I honestly have no idea why you think information about aggregate tax revenue over time is relevant to your original claim. If you want to see the tax rate increased on the upper extremes (like the top 400 mentioned at that link), I would too but it's a drop in the bucket.

> Citation urgently needed. That doesn't jibe with literally any report I've read about such things, except from anti-tax extremist organizations.

From https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/top-personal-income-ta...

The average statutory top personal income tax rate in the EU is 42.8%.

"For comparison, the average combined state and federal top income tax rate for the 50 US states and the District of Columbia lies at 42.14 percent as of January 2025, with rates ranging from 37 percent in states without a state income tax to 50.3 percent in California."

Feel free to call the Tax Foundation an "anti-tax extremist organization" if you'd like, but I wouldn't agree and they are just reporting facts here.

[seanmcdirmid]

Could we stop talking about top marginal income tax rates as if graduated income taxation wasn't a thing? You will pay less taxes in California than Mississippi or Alabama if you are poor.

Even if you are a single person in California making $400k/year (which I would call pretty rich!), you are only paying 8.38% of your income in state tax (you don't even hit the 13.3% bracket until a million dollars or so?). In total, you are paying 39.22% of your income in taxes (including federal and payroll). As a baseline, if you are in Texas which doesn't have state income tax, you are paying around 31% for the same income.

[bpt3]

The OP of this thread wants to keep spending the same and says that taxing the rich is the solution to our budget woes, so that's why the top marginal rates are relevant, and most state income taxes aren't as progressive as the ones in CA.

Your example of a CA resident who is making $400k is paying a marginal rate of 35% at the federal level and 10.30% at the state level (not 8.38%), which is above the EU average.

[seanmcdirmid]

> and most state income taxes aren't as progressive as the ones in CA.

That's why poor wind up paying more in flat tax states, it is simply WAI.

Marginal rates don't matter as much as how much you actually pay. On paper, CA has a top rate of 12.3%...on income over 720k dollars. It exists, but it doesn't seem like a thing we should ponder too much.

States only have so much power in setting tax rates, given that people are somewhat mobile. California being overpopulated for so long gave them some latitude here, but honestly income inequality isn't going to be handled at any level below federal.

But the point about Europe is right, but only in the sense that Europeans don't pay nearly as much in income taxes as most Americans think they do.

[bpt3]

> But the point about Europe is right, but only in the sense that Europeans don't pay nearly as much in income taxes as most Americans think they do.

Why do you say this? Middle class Europeans pay significantly higher taxes than middle class Americans.

[seanmcdirmid]

If we go by total tax burden (including VAT, sales tax, property tax, income tax):

https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-co...

Denmark is the highest at 45%, compared to America's 27%. Switzerland, the only European country I've lived in, is just a hair above the USA at 28/29%. UK is only a few points above that, while France is just below Denmark. So I guess it really depends?

[bpt3]

Yes, it depends on the country. but the European average is well above the US.

Also, the US has a more progressive federal income tax code than Europe (or every other developed country), so the tax burden in the US is carried more by the upper class than it is in those other countries, resulting in the average middle class American paying significantly lower taxes than a peer in Europe.