Myth of the US being overtaxed.

[caseymoz]

The US is the 29th most taxed country of the 31 in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). That includes ALL TAXES. By any sane, truthful standard you want to take, Americans are not overtaxed.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/international.cfm

How can this myth persist? Our country is practically a tax haven. The "biggest tax hike in history probably brought America up from 30 to 29. The next one will surge us to up to a shameful number 28. Look out Switzerland! (That's right, we have a tax rate lower than that banking haven.)

It's not the rate of our taxes that are bad, it's who is taxed, and how they're taxed, and most importantly, who they are taxed to support. Since Reagan, the suburbs of Washington DC have grown to be the wealthiest in the whole nation. Those are lobbyist, corporate lawyers, Congressional staff/lobbyists. Tax fixing, tax breaks, privatization, regulation relief, government contracts with no-bids, no oversight have become a the richest industry in the country. "Investing" in a lobbyist can now bring a company a SIX DIGIT PROFIT, all provided directly by changing laws or opening the sluices from the tax-payer to businesses.

For bringing us this, Republicans worship Ronald Reagan. Being against this shouldn't be a partisan issue. Everyone should be outraged by this. This is what we have to stop. But likely this is also the area where the majority of Conservative propaganda is created. Republicans are working right into their hands. The Democrats are resisting somewhat, but a wholesale change in the party must take place before this is remedied.

Who should be taxed is another thing entirely. We would have to resolve, or improve, who gets the money first. This would be difficult, since the government has been so weakened. Definitely the middle class, upper or lower, can't handle it. And they have to be mobilized to oppose the ruination of our government taking place now.

In a more to the partisan issue, broad opposition to taxes is UNPATRIOTIC in the literal sense. The issue in the Revolutionary War was taxation without Representation. Implied by this: opposition to taxes being used to support a country far away from the Colonies-- for protecting them, when they could protect themselves just fine, and for less. Europeans were used to much higher taxes, and were stunned Americans rebelled over what they were paying. Later rebellions over taxes, like Shay's Rebellion, were put down. Taxation wasn't the principle fought for. No taxation still equals no government.

Opposition to government is also UNPATRIOTIC bordering on TREASON. We had the best government on earth after 1945. Its dismantling for sheer greed is a calamity. The ideologies supporting it are pure delusions and sophisms. Conservatives in office have striven traitorously to destroy government agencies, heading them with people who opposed the agencies mission, and packing them with cronies. This is a betrayal of the public trust, but for conservatives, at once it destroys the government and makes it look incompetent.

No government, no country. Weak government, poor country. Our government can't hold together right now.. We needed a bigger, efficient, competent government to service a larger, urbanized population, for which there was little frontier left. That's really why government continued to grow. And it worked.

Conservatives are complainers-- and whiners if you listen to any Limbaugh broadcast you know that. The taxes are never low enough, lobbyists and big business are never rich enough, government never helps, those who don't oppress are bullied, people are either rich or useless, those who aren't rich haven't tried, those who have tried and failed are damned on earth and in heaven.


*Most of the information here is based on Tom Frank's book: "The Wrecking Crew," which I recommend highly.

[underpants]

1. Bookmarknig for later read

[Festivito]

2. Bull. Only if you do not include HEALTH, RETIREMENT,....

"but those countries generally provide much more extensive government services"

EXTENSIVE GOV SERVICES:
Try Health Care benefits at 12000$/yr, and that's 6$/hr to a person making about 6$/hr.

If you include health care AS OTHER COUNTRIES DO then a minimum wage earner ends up paying OVER 100% IN TAXES.

But, of course, they are lucky to get health care at that level. Their work goes unrewarded, and we as a nation go unrewarded for that same work. Instead some RepubliCON owner dufuss takes the extra money for himself and leaves the taxpayer on the hook for the tremendous costs that will arise because some working stiff couldn't afford preventive care.

THE NOTION IS A LIE.

If you take Sweden's benefits and cost them out here with a middle class salary, you'll find something more along the lines of US paying 80% while they pay 55% and get better service. Plus they get tax breaks for buying a house and investing in things that help their country, while we give tax breaks for supporting lobbyists for companies that hurt Americans.

[caseymoz]

3. You seem to be saying something important . . .

. . . but it needs clarification. I can't follow what you've written, nor why what I wrote was "bull."

[Festivito]

4. I'm no expert, but I don't like this article for a couple of reasons.

And, the reasons are simple ones. First, on its face, it sends the usual message to headline readers, all to oft our swing voters, that a Dem site is trying to excuse raising taxes. It's shallow of them that people wouldn't read on, but they don't and then they vote. For the passer-through the OP title is enough to reinforce their worst fears about Dems must be true.

Second, it seems incorrect. It glosses over the reason to tax, i.e. benefits. It then practically ignores the biggest costliest benefits in an encrypted sentence that I put in quotes at the very front.

Then I give example, conclusion and epilogue with another example.

If it's your article, written by you and I am being unapologetically frank, please excuse me, I did not know. There is not much time for couching responses in kinder terms for as much as I try to read and accomplish. Sorry. But, you've left your relation to authorship unclear.

Look, you wait two days and only respond in one sentence referring to my response with two examples and several statements referring to it all as "it." Can you do better than that?

[caseymoz]

5. Yes, it was my article.

I wasn't going to plagiarize anything.

About waiting for two days, I didn't have time but for every two days lately.

As for being bad for the cause, it was a polemic. The cause is lost, totally, if this rage against government and taxes continues. It's destructive insanity. That's pretty hefty news to conceal from Conservatives and Indys anyway. And believe me, if you don't mention taxes and positive government to them, they'll read tea leaves anyway, and tell people that's what Democrats are for. That's exactly what they've been doing no matter what Democrats say. I don't suggest candidates say this, but it needs to be at least at a lower level in the debate. About at my level really.

I didn't mention benefits, no. It isn't effective to bring up benefits at all when liberals accept tax-for-benefits already and Conservatives sneer at the idea, probably with the argument that tax is the government saying it knows how to spend your money better than you do. I wasn't trying to persuade Conservatives or Independents of anything. I was trying to give information to our base, people who are already in our camp, who have accepted that taxes can be used to gain benefits, but who don't have a means of edifying themselves about the necessity of taxes when exposed to all the propaganda against it, or even to give each other some support on the subject of a beneficial government-- a concept conservatives also deride.

In other words, Liberal-Progressive Democrats have already accepted the concept of beneficial of government, so there was no need to mention it to them. Conservatives and fellow-travelers have already snidely the concept. No need to mention it either way.

Really, I can't care what the Wingers think of taxation when their efforts and governance have so recklessly ruined us. To me, I just hope that the people we count on know why low taxes and feeble government are terrible, and are equipped to say it when the time comes. IMO, besides Republicans, only Wingers who think they're Independents will reject this. They won't be voting for dems due their red-baited fear of government and taxes anyway.

I realize we have an election to win, but if we are to defeat conservatives, it has to be a defeat of their philosophy as well, ultimately.

[hay rick]

6. Overtaxation meme

Totally agree. This high-fructose idea is destroying our country. The truth, as you point out, is that we are undertaxed in comparison to our peers.

A couple of points:

1. The level of taxation (as a percentage of personal or family income) is essentially unchanged over the last few decades. Nevertheless, many people, perhaps most, are convinced that tax burdens have increased. Why? Several reasons. Tax revenues as % of GDP is essentially unchanged, but redistribution of income to the rich makes that fact deceiving. The median income has not kept up with the cost of living during the Bush years, so an unchanged tax rate becomes more regressive. At the same time, the median family has been increasing the use of debt to maintain their standard of living. The average age of the population is also increasing. This is important because people approaching retirement should be increasing savings, not debt. In fact, in recent years our aging populace has embraced (unwillingly, perhaps) a negative savings rate. Bottom line: increased anxiety and vulnerability to promises of "no new taxes."

2. While incomes for most people stagnate and taxes remain the same, the nondiscretionary costs of medical care increase, adding to the pinch. We now spend twice as much, per capita, as our OECD peers. Never underestimate the power of socialized medicine bumper stickers.

3. The military expenditures of our nation of 300,000,000 equals the military expenditures of the combined rest of humanity (6,000,000,000 or 20x our population). For that sum, we are able to keep 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, earning a protracted stalemate in one and a looming loss or escalation in the other. The Russians were able to saunter into Georgia and thumb their nose at us recently and we were powerless to do anything. The only thing that slowed down their eventual withdrawal (on their own timetable) was the constant breakdowns of their outdated and poorly maintained equipment. Our military expenditures are waste, waste, waste- in the service of defense contractors, private commercial interests, and paranoia masquerading as patriotism.

If lower taxes is a good idea, then no taxes is the logical extension and clearly the best idea. The level and distribution of the tax burden should be viewed as matter of trial and error. The "correct" answer will change with time and circumstance. Lower taxes going into WW2 would have meant defeat. Lower taxes as the baby boomers retire will mean a rapid expansion of senior citizen poverty. Our choice.

Um, don't get me started.