What should the highest marginal tax rate be for any personal income

[badass]

What you couldn't be bothered to look at what that article referenced, that's hardly my fault is it, either way it's not really a reason to get your knickers in a twist is it.

Bit rich coming from someone that's sharing opinions on marginal rates of tax when they don't even know what it means
Still, at least that makes you no worse than the general voting public.

Anyway, I did read the link within the link after looking again and seeing that one word was highlighted in blue and wasn't just advertising. The author of the link within the link stated the likely reasons for the high rate of work being good in work benefits that make working less costly/easier. The Author you linked to completely ignored that and just decided that meant that marginal rates have no little to effect on people working. Rather than considering that perhaps some of the higher marginal rates mentioned may reduce the effectiveness of the well planned in work benefits system.

i.e. if some of the marginal rates were reduces, said Scandinavian countries may end up with even better rates of employment.

So I stand by my previous statement, despite this new (to me) information. That's not evidence. It's conjecture. P.S. Please look up the definition of the word conjecture before replying. We wouldn;t want you commenting on something you don't understand now, would we

[Corky34]

Bit rude from someone that can't read, or are you just choosing to ignore that i only provided that link as a direct reply to peterb's claim that high rates of income tax disincentivising work.

[peterb]

What you couldn't be bothered to look at what that article referenced, that's hardly my fault is it, either way it's not really a reason to get your knickers in a twist is it.

Besides i only provided a link to that article in reply to what peterb said about high rates of income tax disincentivising work.

Sorry, I haven't been back to this thread for a bit. I have read the article, and while it is interesting reading, it appears to deal with a flat rate taxation system, rather than a progressive system, where the marginal rate increases with earnings. I don't know if the US has a progressive system - certainly in (I think two) states income tax is almost zero but sales tax is high.

VAT is a flat rate tax, so I can see how increasing VAT might encourage harder work. The flip side, touched on in the article, is that quality of life - a difficult measure to quantify - might be worse.

Which reminds me of the old adage "Money doesn't make you happy - but it does enable you to be miserable in comfort"

[TeePee]

Sorry, I haven't been back to this thread for a bit. I have read the article, and while it is interesting reading, it appears to deal with a flat rate taxation system, rather than a progressive system, where the marginal rate increases with earnings. I don't know if the US has a progressive system - certainly in (I think two) states income tax is almost zero but sales tax is high.

VAT is a flat rate tax, so I can see how increasing VAT might encourage harder work. The flip side, touched on in the article, is that quality of life - a difficult measure to quantify - might be worse.

Which reminds me of the old adage "Money doesn't make you happy - but it does enable you to be miserable in comfort"

The US tax system has a federal income tax which is progressive. In addition, each state sets it's own tax policy. Some have a progressive state income tax, some have a sales tax, and most have both. Alaska has neither. I've lived in States with every combination. I'm at the point where I can choose to live anywhere. My short list is States with only a sales tax.

[peterb]

The US tax system has a federal income tax which is progressive. In addition, each state sets it's own tax policy. Some have a progressive state income tax, some have a sales tax, and most have both. Alaska has neither. I've lived in States with every combination. I'm at the point where I can choose to live anywhere. My short list is States with only a sales tax.

Thank you for the clarification. Is State Tax still collected by the IRS or fo States have their own tax collection system. I guess it isn't PAYE.

I knew that there was both State and Federal income tax, but wasn't sure if it was progressive; members of the Armed Forces who are able to choose where they are legally domiciled for tax purposes (as opposed to the State where they may be stationed) usually choose a State with zero income tax. 😊

I guess that rates are lower than the UK, the flip side (some might think it a benefit) is that there are fewer state provided services.

[ik9000]

the most stable countries are those with the best state service provision. It is an ugly country who oppress the poor and say "let them fend for themselves". We all have corporate responsibility to each other, and the more fortunate we are to have been given much, the more responsibility we have to look after the less fortunate.

[peterb]

the most stable countries are those with the best state service provision. It is an ugly country who oppress the poor and say "let them fend for themselves". We all have corporate responsibility to each other, and the more fortunate we are to have been given much, the more responsibility we have to look after the less fortunate.

That may be true for stability, the counter argument would that for a stronger society, survival of the fittest would prevail.

It probably isn't an accident that America is such a dynamic country is that natural selection favoured the bold explorers and adventurous explorers to go there. Many of those perished, leaving the strongest to survive, and those selected characteristics have continued.

Same might be true of the pioneers that colonised the West coat of the USA , crossing the continent took great courage, determination (and 'luck').

Which is better depends on your point of view, personally I prefer our system, but that doesn't generate as many entrepreneurs as the USA, which is probably not so good for our economy.

One thing is sure, though, if and when some global natural disaster destroys the veneer of human civilisation, it will be the survival of the fittest. The individual instinctive desire for survival will come to the fore.

[ik9000]

That may be true for stability, the counter argument would that for a stronger society, survival of the fittest would prevail.

It probably isn't an accident that America is such a dynamic country is that natural selection favoured the bold explorers and adventurous explorers to go there. Many of those perished, leaving the strongest to survive, and those selected characteristics have continued.

Same might be true of the pioneers that colonised the West coat of the USA , crossing the continent took great courage, determination (and 'luck').

Which is better depends on your point of view, personally I prefer our system, but that doesn't generate as many entrepreneurs as the USA, which is probably not so good for our economy.

One thing is sure, though, if and when some global natural disaster destroys the veneer of human civilisation, it will be the survival of the fittest. The individual instinctive desire for survival will come to the fore.

Then I hope i go in the mushroom cloud. Survival of the fittest is all well and good but it does not remove the obligation we all have to look after others. The "fittest" are those best placed to do that - and they will be expected to do so.

[TeePee]

Thank you for the clarification. Is State Tax still collected by the IRS or fo States have their own tax collection system. I guess it isn't PAYE.

I knew that there was both State and Federal income tax, but wasn't sure if it was progressive; members of the Armed Forces who are able to choose where they are legally domiciled for tax purposes (as opposed to the State where they may be stationed) usually choose a State with zero income tax. ������

I guess that rates are lower than the UK, the flip side (some might think it a benefit) is that there are fewer state provided services.

Everybody has to file a tax return by April for the feds, which is a total mess. A part of your income is withheld from each paycheck, with the tax return being the opportunity to balance the books with the government. Each state then has it's own tax collection, with income tax states requiring separate withholding and a tax return of their own. The military pay taxes to the state of which they were last a resident. Most people pay taxes to the state in which they work, however as a transportation worker, I have to pay taxes to my state of residence, which is currently NM. If this sounds like a disaster, it is.

The average tax burden on Americans is very slightly higher than for the British, after all, we do have to fund Team America.

[peterb]

Everybody has to file a tax return by April for the feds, which is a total mess. A part of your income is withheld from each paycheck, with the tax return being the opportunity to balance the books with the government. Each state then has it's own tax collection, with income tax states requiring separate withholding and a tax return of their own. The military pay taxes to the state of which they were last a resident. Most people pay taxes to the state in which they work, however as a transportation worker, I have to pay taxes to my state of residence, which is currently NM. If this sounds like a disaster, it is.

The average tax burden on Americans is very slightly higher than for the British, after all, we do have to fund Team America.

That last line is a surprise, for some reason I thought the overall tax burden was lower, but then I guess you have both state and federal beurocracies to support.

Sadly we seem to be going the same way with multi level regional tiered government. The last piece of rubbish for the 'Police commissioners'.

Then I hope i go in the mushroom cloud. Survival of the fittest is all well and good but it does not remove the obligation we all have to look after others. The "fittest" are those best placed to do that - and they will be expected to do so.

Well, that's all very well in theory, but if it came to the choice of your survival or the survival of some random stranger, which would you choose. I'm thinking now of a scenario where there is no mains power, and a complete breakdown of law and order.

My guess is that there would be collections of individuals who would co-operate as long as it was in the members mutual interest to do so - gangs if you like - with some form of informal internal structure. The mutual advantage would be that strong groups would survive at the expense of weaker ones. But if survival conditions became extreme, those groups might well disintegrate and it would be every person to fend for themselves. The basic instincts of self preservation eat and procreate are still there. Again, this is in an extreme case of the breakdown of civilisation.

Sadly, such a disaster may not be that remote. An asteroid hitting the earth is one scenario, a massive underwater earthquake triggering a tsunami is another, as is a large volcanic eruption, perhaps the caldera under Yellowstone park.

[badass]

Bit rude from someone that can't read, or are you just choosing to ignore that i only provided that link as a direct reply to peterb's claim that high rates of income tax disincentivising work.

Oh dear. We have someone that doesn't mind taking the mick but gets their knickers in a twist when someone responds in kind. Awwww diddums.

You do realise that this is a forum right? There is a reason that anyone can reply to any post, whether it was directed at them or not. Thought I might explain that to you as you clearly understand about as much about that as you did about what a marginal tax rate is

There is a difference between can't read and not clicking an underlined link. But of course you're lashing out. You're hurt when someone pokes fun at you.

With someone with such a sensitive disposition as yourself, I have a couple of recommendations:

As you are so sensitive, perhaps you should avoid dishing out insults.
Perhaps you should make sure you you are prepared for someone to disagree with something you post on the internet before posting or you might get upset when people inevitably disagree with you. Particularly when you don't understand what you are posting about.

If you actually look at my original post pointing out that your "evidence" is actually conjecture, I think you will fond it was pretty polite.

[badass]

I've learnt something reading this thread and from a particularly unexpected area and it has changed my opinion on in work benefits.

It appears that from reading a linked article from within an article posted in this thread by corky34 that well designed in work benefits have a strong correlation with people of working age actually working.

Well designed meaning benefits that reduce the costs associated with working rather than simply paying people benefits who have children and work.

A quote from the article http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/up...abt=0002&abg=0

In Scandinavian countries, working parents have the option of heavily subsidized child care. Leave policies make it easy for parents to take off work to care for a sick child. Heavily subsidized public transportation may make it easier for a person in a low-wage job to get to and from work. And free or inexpensive education may make it easier to get the training to move from the unemployment rolls to a job.

Those kind of subsidies are something I would support wholeheartedly even with high marginal rates of up to 50%
Note that the graphs don't deal at all with marginal rates, only the overall tax burden where they have the UK at 55% and Norway at 78%

[ik9000]

equally though, the US have a system where a lot of the health care etc are provided by the employer as worker benefits. This is not the same thing. It is not good enough as the times you most need health care are when you are long-term sick and not in work, and surprise surprise the cover isn't there when your employer lets you go as a result of not working for them for x months. Ditto if you get made redundant suddenly you also have no medical/dental/accident cover AND less or no disposable income to make alternative arrangements. It affords the employer a greater degree of leverage over their staff above and beyond what ought to be reasonable IMO.

[TooNice]

the most stable countries are those with the best state service provision. It is an ugly country who oppress the poor and say "let them fend for themselves".

I think that there is a distinction to be made between "oppress the poor" and "let them fend for themselves", and stability is at least in part set by society's own expectations versus what they are getting.

There are plenty of countries in Asia that are very stable, but generally do not have the same level of welfare provision as seen in the UK. There is a stronger burden on the family who have a stronger expectation of giving each other a helping hand. Knowing that you are a burden to your relative is probably a stronger incentive (though not fool proof - "parasite single" is a term found in Japan) than being a burden to the states or anonymous tax payers. Not saying that someone on their deathbed should be expected to go out and work, but someone able would be expected to find something short-term, even if it's not something glamorous. And I think that it also contribute partly to a saving culture (saving for a rainy day). And if you aren't taxed as much, you would be expected to be able to save more all else being equal.

Now I am all in favour of having a decent public health care system. But what is considered decent, may be subjective. I am not sure what the NHS's *goal* is, but the 8 weeks for non-emergency appointment I see all too often is quite frankly inadequate in my opinion. Something that may not be an emergency may still be pretty disruptive, and cause one from being less productive if not completely unproductive. And those 8 weeks in some case is the time it takes to make a full recovery. And something disruptive may end up having to wait 4+ months for a full recovery. On the flip side, yes NHS still beats nothing at all. Which is what you get in some country. However, I find myself once again thinking quite favourably of the Japanese model, where there is an contribution to be made for the national health insurance depending on your ability to pay (which is really quite minuscule when you have no income), but it also only covers 75% of the cost. On the other hand, you can usually get a specialist appointment the same week if not the next day. While it's not quite as good as the NHS if you are completely broke, but have unlimited time, I think that it's very good value for people who have a little bit of saving for those rainy days / family they can rely on in the short term or people working but not eligible for employees' health insurance (I think that might apply for self-employed and freelancers but I haven't looked into it), effectively getting private or near private level responsiveness, meaning that you don't have to deal with something disruptive for months.

[ik9000]

I think that there is a distinction to be made between "oppress the poor" and "let them fend for themselves", and stability is at least in part set by society's own expectations versus what they are getting.

There are plenty of countries in Asia that are very stable, but generally do not have the same level of welfare provision as seen in the UK. There is a stronger burden on the family who have a stronger expectation of giving each other a helping hand. Knowing that you are a burden to your relative is probably a stronger incentive (though not fool proof - "parasite single" is a term found in Japan) than being a burden to the states or anonymous tax payers. Not saying that someone on their deathbed should be expected to go out and work, but someone able would be expected to find something short-term, even if it's not something glamorous. And I think that it also contribute partly to a saving culture (saving for a rainy day). And if you aren't taxed as much, you would be expected to be able to save more all else being equal.

Now I am all in favour of having a decent public health care system. But what is considered decent, may be subjective. I am not sure what the NHS's *goal* is, but the 8 weeks for non-emergency appointment I see all too often is quite frankly inadequate in my opinion. Something that may not be an emergency may still be pretty disruptive, and cause one from being less productive if not completely unproductive. And those 8 weeks in some case is the time it takes to make a full recovery. And something disruptive may end up having to wait 4+ months for a full recovery. On the flip side, yes NHS still beats nothing at all. Which is what you get in some country. However, I find myself once again thinking quite favourably of the Japanese model, where there is an contribution to be made for the national health insurance depending on your ability to pay (which is really quite minuscule when you have no income), but it also only covers 75% of the cost. On the other hand, you can usually get a specialist appointment the same week if not the next day. While it's not quite as good as the NHS if you are completely broke, but have unlimited time, I think that it's very good value for people who have a little bit of saving for those rainy days / family they can rely on in the short term or people working but not eligible for employees' health insurance (I think that might apply for self-employed and freelancers but I haven't looked into it), effectively getting private or near private level responsiveness, meaning that you don't have to deal with something disruptive for months.

I would welcome a system that charged some rate for non-critical matters. The idiot with the ketchup bottle up his backside = 250%, voluntary plastic surgery (i.e. not due to disfigurement, burns etc) =100%, self-inflicted "jack-ass" wounds 150%. Adults bothering A&E with a cough and cold, 200%, repeat time wasters at GPs/A&E (and there are a good number of these) 500%. This could then subsidise genuine heath matters which could have a 10% charge weighted +/-5% based on tax bracket for minor/non critical things. Critical matters however, 100% free. i.e. cancer treatments, serious car-crashes, loss of use of legs, brain tumours, serious burns, that sort of thing. (the things that no-one would choose and can in no way avoid).

[Corky34]

Oh dear. We have someone that doesn't mind taking the mick but gets their knickers in a twist when someone responds in kind. Awwww diddums.

No, we have someone who takes offense when someone starts acting like a prepubescent teen because they can't be bothered to read the research that was cited in an article, an article that for the sake of trolling was taken out of context, that in some vain display of machismo was used to attack another forum goer.

You do realise that this is a forum right? There is a reason that anyone can reply to any post, whether it was directed at them or not. Thought I might explain that to you as you clearly understand about as much about that as you did about what a marginal tax rate is

Do you? Do you go around IRL speaking to people in the manner as you have in this thread?

There is a difference between can't read and not clicking an underlined link. But of course you're lashing out. You're hurt when someone pokes fun at you.

Yes there is and it seems you can't do either, it seems you didn't read the evidence from the University of Michigan economists Matthew Shapiro and Miles Kimball, or the Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, or Felix Reichling and Charles Whalen from Macroeconomic Analysis Division in the Congressional Budget Office, instead you've choose to claim it's not evidence - it's conjecture.

With someone with such a sensitive disposition as yourself, I have a couple of recommendations:

As you are so sensitive, perhaps you should avoid dishing out insults.
Perhaps you should make sure you you are prepared for someone to disagree with something you post on the internet before posting or you might get upset when people inevitably disagree with you. Particularly when you don't understand what you are posting about.

If you actually look at my original post pointing out that your "evidence" is actually conjecture, I think you will fond it was pretty polite.

If you idea of being polite is to accuse someone of lying and implying they're stupid then you have a funny idea of being polite.