September 29, 2011
The Economist: Global Tax Rates on a $100,000 SalaryThe Economist, Which Governments Take the Biggest Chunk From a $100,000 Salary?:
(Hat Tip: Walter Schwidetzky.)
September 29, 2011 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Economist: Global Tax Rates on a $100,000 Salary:
So what? When you consider factors such as taxes omitted and government dependence vs. self-reliance, this graph means nothing. Why not have a chart of useless charts?
Posted by: Woody | Sep 29, 2011 8:12:01 PM
I assume the EU countries don't have state income taxes.
So, let us add another ~10% on to that and it puts us up there around Sweden.
Posted by: lobo | Sep 29, 2011 9:57:31 PM
"on to that" being "on to what the chart already has in US Federal taxes"
Posted by: lobo | Sep 29, 2011 9:59:01 PM
For a bit more meaningful info, see the OECD's Taxing Wages series (http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34533_44993442_1_1_1_1,00.html)
Posted by: dare | Sep 30, 2011 2:25:12 AM
I guess all the whiners are moving to Russia....
Posted by: GaryD | Sep 30, 2011 7:31:19 AM
If the objective of this chart is to reflect on relative burdens of progressive taxation (and to show the US ain't so bad), it should: include all other income taxes (state and local, as mentioned before) we have and others do not; adjust for redistribution and means testing of benefits funded by social taxes (other countries do not tend to do that); focus not on $100K, but on where the battle line of progressive class warfare is, $250K (or $125 per spouse), and where the progressive bite is greatest. Of course, I would also include a simulation for these taxes as they will be (in current law) in 2013 (essentially, now). I would also note how it is only for the US that such a salary would be taxed regardless of where is is being earned.
Posted by: MG | Sep 30, 2011 9:15:02 AM
Lets see... The US currently has an employer-provided private health insurance system. Most of the countries above pay for a single payer government health care system through income or social security taxes. If the US wage earner adds health insurance premiums paid as a reduction in salary paid (employers in the US pass the cost along in the form of reduced wages), then the US rate is probably above Sweden's rate.
Assume the US moves to a single payer health care system (the intended effect of Obamacare). Without "death panels, the US health care costs would soar and would lead to significant rate increases.
Posted by: DLN | Sep 30, 2011 9:31:19 AM
Lobo, I assume that the U.S. doesn’t have VAT. So let’s add 5% to 30% to all other countries. This put us outside the chart (we’re being moved to the tax havens chart).
And this is regardless of the fact you assume wrong. Germany, for example, has local trade tax ranging from 8% to 15%. Oh yes, and unlike state taxes, trade tax is not deductible for purposes of calculating the income tax liability… so let’s add that as well.
Did I mention the GB council tax (applicable in England, Scotland and Wales I believe)? Should I go on?
Posted by: One Guy | Sep 30, 2011 10:44:58 AM
@GaryD: I guess all the whiners are moving to Russia....
No, many of us are "whining" because Obama is turning us into Russia, but with even higher tax rates.
"Taxes are the source of life for the bureaucracy," [Karl] Marx explained, "[and] for the whole apparatus of executive power. Strong government and heavy taxes are identical." These taxes, he added, "rob [the peasant's] industry of its last resources and aid and complete his powerlessness to resist pauperism." For the taxpaying class, he added, "strong and unlimited government ... has become a vampire that sucks out its blood and marrow."
Posted by: Woody | Sep 30, 2011 10:46:40 AM
it should: include all other income taxes state and local, as mentioned before we have and others do not; adjust for redistribution and means testing of benefits funded by social taxes other countries do not tend to do that; focus not on $100K, but on where the battle line of progressive class warfare is, $250K or $125 per spouse, and where the progressive bite is greatest.
Posted by: web design Landon | Oct 1, 2011 2:57:34 AM