Americans are very good at assuming we can have our cake and eat it too (pardon the cliche). As we begin a trip toward socialism, I don’t think many of us are aware of the coming taxes (for everyone). According to a world-wide, non-political tax information group, here are some tax facts from the best known socialist nations:

Sweden–municipal tax, 31% + 25% national tax + a Value Added Tax of 25%. (an example of a VAT–item parts cost $5, item sells for $30, purchasing consumer pays 25% of the $25 of “added value” to the government.)
Denmark–municipal tax, 25% + national income tax = abt. 51%.
Norway–municipal and federal tax = 40% + 25% VAT.
France–40% combined income tax + 19.6% VAT.
Finland–51% combined income taxes + 23% VAT.
United Kingdom–50% combined income taxes + 17.5% VAT.
Germany–42% combined income taxes + 19% VAT

All of these countries have lower to much lower corporate tax rates, acknowledging that business must thrive to build a country.

The United States–average combined income taxes 35%. Average corporate tax rate 35%. We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates, yet there are calls to raise it?

Keep in mind also that the nations in Europe about to be bailed out have been told that they MUST cut social programs. A British economist has predicted serious riots when the announcement comes.

This is NOT a rant for Republicans or any party–it is a concern that many of us do not realize the consequences of moving toward socialism—Taxing the rich will not pay the bill–your own income to do with what you choose will be greatly reduced.

Source: http://www.taxrates.cc/index.html

8 comments
  1. “The United States–average combined income taxes 35%. Average corporate tax rate 35%. We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates, yet there are calls to raise it?”

    You may want to revise this statement.  According to your own source, the 35% rate is not the average rate for either income or corporate taxes, but rather it is the top statutory rate in a progressive system. This is different than an average tax rate.  Additionally, the effective tax rate on both corporations and individuals tends to be lower than the statutory bracket once deductions and credits are applied to reduce the actual taxes paid.

  2. Thanks for the interesting data.  First off, I’m completely against socialism.  The thing is, though, throughout much of the first half of the twentieth century, the rich were paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than they are now, were they not?  I’m almost positive they were during the 1950s at least.  Does that mean we were moving toward socialism then?  

    1. SJ you’re sharp! Fed income taxes are lower now since the Bush cuts than they’ve ever been since the income tax amendment in 1913, I don’t know what this woman is ranting about. The one Republican President Republicans NEVER mention is Dwight D, Eisenhower.You’ll hear Reagan, this and Reagan that but no mention of the man who saved the world from fascism.Why?  Because under Ike the highest Tax Rate was 90%.But under IKE we had eight years of peace and prosperity which explains all the fifties nostalgia in pop culture.Union membership was at an all time high and REAL WAGES went up 26%.Many moms were able to stay at home to raise families (the Leave it to beaver model if you will) Ike is not a Republican favorite because although he got rid of some New Deal programs he refused to dismantle Social Security.He also cut military spending, relying on strategic weapons to fight the Cold War. Although a General IKE coined the phrase “Military Industrial Complex” warning the Nation of the dangers of undue influence on the government by the weapons industry.

      1. Thanks for the helpful info, professorjoe, about Ike.  I agree that military spending also needs to be kept under appropriate control. The Iraq war in particular was a huge waste of money (and lives) IMO. Reagan wasn’t perfect, but I really don’t think he (or most other U.S. Presidents) would have ever started it.

  3. SJ,
     Thanks for the comment, and I’m glad you’re against socialism. I think that it’s too easy to blame the rich for all of our problems–it has become a virtual witch hunt. Here are some thoughts on the subject.
    President Obama’s attitude that somehow the more wealthy Americans should pay more ignores a few points:

    1. A person making $5 mil a year, and paying perhaps 35% income tax, pays a whole lot more money into the government than does a person in the 35% bracket making say $250,000.

    2. It is an undeniable fact that without wealthy people who own businesses and invest in businesses, none of us would be working because there wouldn’t be anywhere to work, unless we wanted to be farmers growing enough food to sell to the neighbors.

    3. Check into how much the wealthy contribute to charity, for instance the Bill Gates family.

    4. People like to demand more money from the “greedy” corporate heads. We also have greedy middle class managers–if greed is the sin, then why don’t we demand more money from middle-classers who are hoarding their cash instead of giving it to the gov’t to be redistributed to the poor?

    There is just too much being taken for granted and not thought through these days. Suddenly a culture that is in love with the “grays” of life wants to see the rich, middle class, and poor in only stereotypes that are starkly black and white.

    I wish all of us would think about our country’s financial situation in a deeper and wiser fashion.

    1. Thanks for the comment, and I’m glad you’re against socialism.

      You’re welcome.  And thanks for your response, Sue.

      I think that it’s too easy to blame the rich for all of our problems–it has become a virtual witch hunt.

      It is.  But I think it’s also too easy to think that tax breaks for the wealthy are a panacea for jump-starting the economy.  

      1. A person making $5 mil a year, and paying perhaps 35% income tax, pays a whole lot more money into the government than does a person in the 35% bracket making say $250,000.

      That’s true.  But we could also extend that same logic down to someone who’s only making $10,000 a year, who pays perhaps 15%.  In that case, why not have those making $5 million a year pay only 15%?  

       2.  It is an undeniable fact that without wealthy people who own businesses and invest in businesses, none of us would be working because there wouldn’t be anywhere to work, unless we wanted to be farmers growing enough food to sell to the neighbors.

      Definitely. However, the trickle-down theory of economics, while very popular with many Republicans, seems to be a tenuous at one best.  Here’s what one leading economist, Robert Frank from Cornell University, had to say about it in a newspaper article:

      Trickle-down theory…predicts a positive correlation between inequality and economic growth, the idea being that income disparities strengthen motivation to get ahead. Yet … researchers … find a negative correlation. In the decades immediately after World War II, for example, income inequality was low by historical standards, yet growth rates in most industrial countries were extremely high. In contrast, growth rates have been only about half as large in the years since 1973, a period in which inequality has been steadily rising.

      The same pattern has been observed in cross-national data. … Again and again, the observed pattern is the opposite of the one predicted by trickle-down theory.

      The trickle-down theorist’s view of the world … bears little resemblance to reality. In the 1950s, American executives earned far lower salaries and faced substantially higher marginal tax rates… Yet most of them competed energetically for higher rungs on the corporate ladder. The claim that slightly higher tax rates would cause today’s executives to abandon that quest is simply not credible.
      ——————————————–

      4. People like to demand more money from the “greedy” corporate heads. We also have greedy middle class managers–if greed is the sin, then why don’t we demand more money from middle-classers who are hoarding their cash instead of giving it to the gov’t to be redistributed to the poor?

      I see your point there.  “Greed” per se shouldn’t be the determining factor–only total income.  That’s sort of like the misguided concept of a “hate crime”–one should never criminalize thought.

      There is just too much being taken for granted and not thought through these days. Suddenly a culture that is in love with the “grays” of life wants to see the rich, middle class, and poor in only stereotypes that are starkly black and white.

      I wish all of us would think about our country’s financial situation in a deeper and wiser fashion.

      I agree with you.  We all have a lot to learn and a lot of thinking to do.  However, I just have a problem with the way trickle-down economics is continually promoted by many well-meaning Republicans as the sure way to fix our economy, when I just don’t see enough data to back up such bold assertions.  It seems to me that for the majority of Republican lawmakers, it’s more about what policy will bring in the most donations than what’s really been proven to work economically.  I’m a Republican too (and a socially conservative one at that), but I am just disturbed by many things that I see going on in our party, including what I consider to be pat, monolithic thinking about tax cuts for the wealthy–something that currently goes against the preferences of about two-thirds of Americans, and of over 40 percent of Republicans even.

  4. Boywonder,
    I’m glad you took the time to read the article. Thanks for spotting my error, but I’m sure you noted the high taxes paid in socialist countries. That would be our fate if we continue to pursue our current course. Please read my reply to SJ, as my thoughts are probably as well reflected there as in statistical charts.

  5. So, we can’t afford health care, social security, food stamps for the poor and money for education but I see nothing here on the behemoth of military spending. You can kick the kiddies out of school, starve the poor, and push Grandma off a cliff in her wheelchair and America is STILL going bankrupt unless we stop the cycle of perpetual warfare. The three wars we’re in now are costing a billion dollars a day.We must decide our priorities, we can stop putting our nose where it doesn’t belong and have the best healthcare
    and most educated population providing security for its older population or we can continue to fatten up the military industrial complex.Here’s what it cost: 1 Cruise missile 830 k the cost of 39 college degrees, 
    One aircraft carrier 13,5 billion or the price of 60 thousand homes. If we had one less Nuke(52 billion) in our vast arsenal,  we could pay for health insurance for 3.5 million Americans.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

To Be A Politically Active Christian, Or Not To Be

Recently I responded to a Facebook status that said, “I am really…

Mediocrity in Senate Results in “Epic Fail” for Health Care

Epic Fail -A mistake of such monumental proportions that it requires its…

Tying His Hands on Terror

Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey in an Op/Ed for the Wall Street…

Hillary Clinton’s Security Clearance Withdrawn

The U.S. State Department confirmed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security clearance was withdrawn at her request.