Posted by Jay Livingston
Denmark is adding a tax on fatty foods to the already hefty tax burden on their citizens.
In the US, nobody in public life can get away with saying a good word about taxes. Maybe Warren Buffet, but he’s not running for office. The Republican mantra “It’s your money, it’s not the government’s money” has great appeal, and the Republicans and Tea Partistas have clearly stated their preference that government shut down rather than raise taxes to pay for what the government does.
After all, less government equals more freedom. Or does it?
Bruce Bartlett at the Times Economix blog,checked out some of those low-tax countries, nations that are well below the 27% tax-to-GDP ratio of the US. Then he went to the Heritage Foundation site to see how these nations ranked on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. Here are the results. (On the Freedom Index, a high score is good. A score above 80 (only six countries) is “free”; a score below 50 is “repressed.”)
(The tax-to-GDP ratio is very slightly different from what you find here, and obviously the score on Libya is from before the fall of Gaddafi.)
Where to go if I couldn’t stay in the US – Chad or Denmark? The freedom of low taxes or the high-tax nanny state? It’s a tough choice, but I think I’d go with Denmark even though language might be a problem. The only Danish I know is prune.
5 comments:
Jay,
I don't understand your methods -- unless you are deliberately trying to malign the country.
You act as if Taxes were the only factor involved in freedom.
Or that economic laws were the only factor.
Then it appears that you flat out lie.
the Republicans and Tea Partistas have clearly stated their preference that government shut down rather than raise taxes to pay for what the government does.
Can you provide a citation, preferably more than one -- from the TEA Party - that says they would rather shut down the government instead of raising taxes to pay for what the government does?
It appears your agenda is becoming clearer and clearer -- and it isn't a purely academic agenda.
I had confused the debt-ceiling/default crisis of the summer and the shutdown issue of the spring. Same difference.
"Most Americans say that a federal government shutdown would be bad for the country, according to a new national poll.
"a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey also indicates that . . . self-described Tea Party movement supporters say such a shutdown, even for a long period of time, would be a good thing. . . .
and 52 percent of Tea Party supporters say a shutdown for a few weeks would be good for the country" (CNN March 2011)
Jay,
Your citations does not support your argument.
You aren't claiming that the shutdown would be good for the country.
You are claiming that the Tea Party would rather shut down the government than raise taxes.
You are drawing conclusions from facts not presented.
Nearly six in ten people questioned in the poll say that it would be a bad thing for the government to shut down for a few days because Congress did not pass a new spending bill
NOT A SINGLE WORD IN THERE ABOUT RAISING TAXES.
Your agenda is showing Sir
You’re absolutely right. In the summer, the Tea Partiers were willing to let the United States default on its sovereign debt in order to prevent any tax increase on high incomes. In the spring, they were willing to let the government shut down in order to get their way on spending. Spending - Shutdown. Taxes - Default. As I said, I confused the two.
I’m sure that if taxes had been the issue back in the spring, the Tea Party would have gone along with new taxes on the rich rather than let the government shut down. Of course, I have no evidence to support that, but I’m sure there must be statements from the TP leaders and surveys of the rank and file to the effect that reducing the deficit by some tax increase is preferable to a government shutdown.
Jay,
You must not read much history either.
the Tea Party would have gone along with new taxes on the rich rather than let the government shut down.
Can you name a "tax increase" that impacted "only the rich" in the last 40 or 50 years?
Every tax increase I've read about or seen usually hurts the middle income more than the 'rich'.
So...besides that fact - how much of their money should the 'rich' be allowed to keep?
You seem all fired sure you know the answer.
Help me understand your world view:
Do you support seat belt laws for adults?
Laws banning transfat in food?
Laws requiring people to wear helmets if they ride motorcycles?
How about mandatory health insurance?
What is freedom in your world view?
Post a Comment