After the OECD created the Better Life Index to discern which are the happiest countries in the world an organization known as 24-7 Wall St. cherry-picked the list to narrow down those countries with the highest economic stability. Most likely, says MSNBC, "the happiest people in the developed world get loads of social services without having to work too hard." Or maybe these lucky folks not only don't have to pay for these services, more of them actually have jobs.
With the exception of Canada and Israel, every country on 24-7 Wall St.'s list features a much higher top income tax rate than ours -- currently 35% -- and a value-added, or VAT, tax. What's more, despite the fact that the Tea Party regards high taxes as job killers, all these countries also feature lower unemployment rates than that of the U.S. Below are graphs of seven of the nine "happiest countries," along with their top tax rates and VAT taxes compared to the U.S.
Highly Taxed Countries Actually Employ More People
As even conservative commentator David Frum admits, Americans may hate taxes but even the right wingnuts will raise hell if someone dares mess with the benefits these taxes provide, like Medicare, as evidenced by the recent Democratic Congressional victory in upstate New York. As Frum put it, Rep. Paul Ryan's crazy plan to "privatize" Medicare would result in senior citizens "paying two-thirds of their health coverage out of pocket by 2030" according to the Congressional Budget Office.
When you think about it, when it comes to "net worth" Americans are likely the poorest in the advanced world. Why? Because many life necessities that are subsidized by rich taxpayers in other countries are mostly paid out of pocket by Americans. From college education to health care to retirement, we bankroll more of these costs than any of our peers.
American companies also get tax deductions which deprive the government of revenue. According to David Leonhardt of the New York Times, employer deductions for health care and 401(k) contributions alone cost the government more than $316 billion a year.
As for potential revenues generated by a VAT, an Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center paper released last year concluded that a VAT of only 5% on most purchased items would produce $258.6 billion in revenues in 2012, erasing a big chunk of our $1.3 trillion deficit. The question is why are we tip-toeing around a VAT of only 5%? Five of the seven "happy" countries in the graphs have VATs of 25% or more.
Instead of just whining about our federal deficits, we ought to calculate how big a VAT or higher income taxes are needed to address our personal deficits that, among other things, result in Americans footing most of the bill for a college education. My goal would be to raise enough taxes to quadruple individual Pell Grants from around $5,000 a year -- covering only about one fourth of the cost of a state college and one-eighth of the tab at a private university.
Wonder why tax increases on the top bracket aren't even on the political table? As I've pointed out before, it's Grover Norquist's hijacking of Congress. As Bloomberg BusinessWeek put it, 233 of the 240 House Republicans and 40 of the 47 Republican senators have signed Norquist's so-called Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
The good news is that progressives are finally mobilizing their base to demand higher taxes on the rich so that everybody else will prosper. As Huffington Post reporter Michael McAuliff observed last week, a poll commissioned by MoveOn.org and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee found that 80% of voters in the following swing states: Ohio, Missouri, Montana and Minnesota back raising taxes on folks making more than $1 million. Hear that, Michele Bachmann?
Majority Leader Harry Reid has called for a vote on doing so and the liberal groups sent out a blast email asking members to contact their senators to back the resolution. If you agree, I'd urge you to do the same.
Jeff Madrick: Impact of Job Numbers Goes Far Beyond the Jobless
Steven Cohen: Economic Revival Requires a Revival of Our National Community
As an international student thanks for the education America...but I don't think my future is here.
And by the way, didn't North Korea just prove that North Koreans are happier than everyone else?
In a massive study published in 2007, Harvard University researcher Robert Putnam discovered something that many people know by experience to be true but that liberals go to almost ANY length to deny, which is that diversity does not breed trust, social cooperation, and altruism - all being social qualities that are politically-necessary for welfare programs to not only exist but, more importantly, be effective - but rather mistrust, less social cooperation, and less altruism.
The fact is, people don't like helping people who aren't like them - which is a far better explanation for why people in ethnically-homogenous places are happier than people in ethnically-diverse places (this goes beyond countries) than any welfare policy-based explanation. Swedes like helping other Swedes; Norwegians like helping other Norwegians; blacks like helping blacks; whites like helping other whites; Protestants like helping other Protestants; and so on. European countries - especially Scandinavian countries - are far more ethnically-homogenous than the US. As a result, they have more-extensive social welfare programs. The people from those countries are happy to provide those programs because they know that those programs are being used to help people who are like them.
That aside, the comparisons aren't even realistic. Norway has a fraction of our population. Their "big government" program is more like a state level one here. Our federal gov. is doing too much and needs to be amputated. They are too far removed from the issues that vary by region. You want health care? Great, get the states to do it, and do it right. Not 1,500 pages of special favors and rules no one can understand.
This is why I'm in Ron Paul's camp now. Everyone wants to do what looks good on the surface without considering the side effects. We have horrendous amounts of waste, pushing for more money to fund grand schemes is not going to make it better. The loopholes and favoritism need to be gone and I think he's the only one with the spine of steel needed to get it done.
I'm not a fan of abolishing every safety net like Paul suggests, but even he acknowledges that they are a better investment than foreign occupation, and I think entitlements are better off in his hands than the criminals we have running things now.
During the recent decades, a great number of job opportunities have disappeared from the western economies due to industrial restructuring (e.g., efficiency improvements and relocations). Thus, compared with a few decades ago, higher unemployment rates will remain a permanent condition in these economies. That means that fewer wage earners pay less in taxes to governments that get less revenue by which to sustain existing institutions and programs as well as increasing numbers of welfare recipients.
Consequently, the Western countries that do not already follow the high-taxation models will, to at least some extent, be forced to move in that direction, or confront vast social problems (honestly, that's what my crystall ball told me as late as of today).
I lived under their conservative government from 1996-2008 quite easily, and respected them, though I'm left of center. They ran a surplus, and grew the economy for 12 straight years, left the nation with no debt, and a 4% unemployment rate, and spent willingly on a strong social safety net. Everything that American conservatives claim to be impossible. The Australian workers are happy and upbeat, in contrast to our demoralized low paid workforce. The government works efficiently under both the left and the right. An Aussie friend visited me in L.A., and while riding with me asked, "Why are your streets so dirty?", as she's accustomed to all the Aussie cities being spotless.
Government isn't the problem, America's anti-tax fixation is, and America's conservatives appear to be the world's meanest.
Your tax rates are not much different than ours. At 174K we go to 33% and then at 379K we go to 35%. However, most pay STATE TAX on top of that. In combination, say NY State or CA the highest rate is 45% when combined. Then you have property tax, sales tax, etc. Areas tax advocates here conveniently forget and rates that have been going up up up while fed rates go down.
We don't have VAT tax, true.
Next argument is loopholes, valid, but if we look at aggregate tax revenue as a % of GDP your combined tax revenue constitutes 27.1% according to OECD while the US is 24% of GDP
Net net were talking a 3% differential but vastly different levels of service.
There are 2 types of folks against taxes, those that ideologically oppose them (they get a lot of attention), the majority that think we don't get what we pay for, which is the case you made here.
Second, I can agree partly with you. For example right now we have 12 Aircraft Carriers. Each carrier is the core of a Carrier Strike Group (CSG). Each CSG carries more combat power than has been released in all of human history! And we need to pay for TWELVE of these??
Our military is EXTREMELY bloated and needs to be cut down by AT LEAST half!
We've had tax cuts for over 10 years now. Where are the Jobs, GOP? You're as much to blame as the POTUS. At least he's honest about it.