On the Logic of Egalitarianism, OR, Fuck Pareto Up the Ass
I read this diatribe just now, which suggests that the US is more "socialist" than Sweden for the following reason:
"The Tax Foundation recently noted that in 2009 the U.S. collected a higher share of income and payroll taxes (45%) from the richest 10% of tax filers than any other nation, including such socialist welfare states as Sweden (27%), France (28%) and Germany (31%)."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343611464445594.html
Surely in a truly "socialist welfare state", the share of income tax collected from the richest 10% of tax filers would be ... 10%. If there's a very small gap between rich and poor, then the tax share of the top 10% will fall towards 10%, and in any tax regime that is at least as "fair" as a poll tax (i.e., not the theoretical insanity of taxing the richest less per head than the poor), will never fall below it. America's ludicrously high share of tax from the richest 10% is not a sign that America is a "socialist welfare state" (as if that would be a bad thing), but a sign that America has vast inequalities of wealth.
Is it too much to expect basic numeracy from people who write in places like the WSJ? Thought so.
"The Tax Foundation recently noted that in 2009 the U.S. collected a higher share of income and payroll taxes (45%) from the richest 10% of tax filers than any other nation, including such socialist welfare states as Sweden (27%), France (28%) and Germany (31%)."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343611464445594.html
Surely in a truly "socialist welfare state", the share of income tax collected from the richest 10% of tax filers would be ... 10%. If there's a very small gap between rich and poor, then the tax share of the top 10% will fall towards 10%, and in any tax regime that is at least as "fair" as a poll tax (i.e., not the theoretical insanity of taxing the richest less per head than the poor), will never fall below it. America's ludicrously high share of tax from the richest 10% is not a sign that America is a "socialist welfare state" (as if that would be a bad thing), but a sign that America has vast inequalities of wealth.
Is it too much to expect basic numeracy from people who write in places like the WSJ? Thought so.