Is America Undertaxed? (A question for Rep. Michele Bachmann)
My headline question is deliberately provocative, but not insane.
Of the 30 nations of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), which includes most of the prosperous industrialized nations of the world, the U.S. ranks 26th for overall tax burden. That number is calculated by taking all taxes paid as a percentage of GDP.
Here is the OECD data in graphic form:
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
This general ranking is nothing new. And it is a fact, which, as Ronald Reagan liked to say, are stubborn things.
The U.S. has long been among the lower taxers in the industrialized world. The four countries that have lower tax levels -- Japan, Korea, Turkey, and Mexico -- are hardly a good starting point for the argument that lower taxes are the key to prosperity.
Why mention this now? It's a fact, and an important one, that generally goes unmentioned in the perpetual arguments over how much government should tax and spend. Two, it's a counterpoint to the often hysterical warnings from Republican/conservative circles that the U.S. is one tiny tax hike away from Bolshevism.
Minnesota's own Michele Bachmann is a frequent purveyor of this hysteria, although she usually uses the terms "totalitarianism" and "socialism" to describe the direction in which liberals are dragging our overtaxed and overregulated nation.
The other day, I rudely mentioned an interview in which Rep. Bachmann made an unfortunate error (has she retracted/apologized for this one yet?) about which party controlled the White House during swine flu outbreaks. I didn't mention, but should have because it really is important to keep fact-checking Rep. Bachmann, that she also commented that average Americans now pay "a higher tax rate than was endured by medieval serfs." I do not believe she has yet specified the nation or the century in which serfs enjoyed more freedom than 21st century Americans.
The OECD does not do the comparison between 21st century Americans and medieval serfs, but it does compare the overall U.S. tax burden with the burden in other wealthy industrialized countries.
More like this
- Michele Bachmann might know the cause of the swine flu outbreak
- Rep. Bachmann thinks U.S. health-care system is best in the world, but the statistics say otherwise
- Clip shows Bachmann calling Iowa's Steve King 'stunning'
- Bachmann says GOP-led House must pass 'full-scale' repeal of health care law
- Does the local media overcover Michele Bachmann?
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
27 comments
-
22 comments
-
19 comments
-
18 comments
-
15 comments
Comments (24)
Have you retracted or apologized yet for apparently wishing swine flu on the congresswoman? Or was that accomplished here with the adjective "rudely"? How many reporters does MinnPost need on the Bachmann beat, anyway? Just curious.
Where and when did Eric Black wish swine flu on the Congressperson?
Pardon me: the adverb "rudely."
Yet another worthless post. What is correlation between GDP and taxes? The US has the largest GDP by far, so calculation is already skewed. Why is the US GDP so high? How is GDP calculated? What component of GDP is causing the disproportionate shift. How does GDP produce taxable income? You hate Rep. Bachmann we get it. Good job finding unrelated facts to support your conclusion.
To be fair, Kyle, MinnPost had only five stories on Bachmann today ... and they're working hard to cover the other Minnesota congresspeople, too. Didn't you see the fascinating story about Rep. McCollum dreaming about Hillary Clinton?
In regards to Black's post, there's not enough context. What period of time is being covered? Why no link to the study? I know it covers "tax burden," but how is that changing with the federal government's gazillion dollars in new spending that has been going on? That has to be paid for some how.
And I'm always surprised that bright people on the left say we need to increase our tax burden simply because a bunch of European countries have higher tax burdens than we do. Where is the logic in that?
There's lots of room for good discussion on the subject, but I don't see how this opinion piece gets it started.
Even though shooting fish in a barrel can get old, I do appreciate any public humiliation of Rep Bachmann by embarrassing facts held next to her silly public comments as much as the next.
But I was looking for a link for that OECD graphic.
My skills at the Google aren't always the best, but I couldn't find it there either and was hoping to use the original source in another discussion....
Arguments about "too much/too little" taxation miss the point.
Taxes are good when they provide a significant return on investment or provide services that are vital and best organized on a large, public scale. Taxes are bad when they are wasted, create unintended consequences, or provide profit to a special interest with no public benefit.
If you talk to people in the high tax countries, they do complain about taxes, but they also acknowledge the valuable public purpose of those taxes.
I think taxes should be judged by two tests: Does the tax provide a return on investment and/or is it just the right thing to do? The chart above is useful as a crude indication about how other countries make these calculations.
Good point, Ed. Perhaps it was a little more noticeable yesterday because they were exceeding their Bachmann average. If you did a search on the last names of the state's U.S. representatives at MinnPost last night, Bachmann's name turned up more than 7,700 hits, and none of the other representatives cracked 1,000. By that (admittedly imperfect) measure, she accounts for only about 71 percent of MinnPost's legislative coverage, not the 83 percent she got yesterday. It's a really neat pie chart if you plot it out.
But you can see why. I mean, those other representatives only do things like chair committees in the House as members of the majority party, setting policy and boring stuff like that. It's not like people enjoy making fun of them on YouTube and MSNBC, the sort of thing that demands vigorous fact-checking (and jokes about them getting swine flu) from thoughtful journalists.
Kyle, to suggest that a news organization ought to ignore Rep. Bachmann's public statements is a strange idea. I'm unconvinced that MinnPost has a vendetta, as you seem to believe, against Bachmann. The occurrences that she puts herself in the media spotlight must be weighed in your consideration by how much she's covered. For example, MinnPost covered Rep. Ellison's protest arrest (http://tinyurl.com/dem3g7). When Rep. Peterson joined the GOP and voted against the omnibus spending bill, it was covered (http://tinyurl.com/c5e8ps). These are newsworthy items that were covered appropriately. The ratio that Rep. Bachmann is in the news seems to be in direct proportion with how often she makes a newsworthy - if not controversial - statement at a rally, on the floor of the House, or as a guest on a national TV program. If any other Minnesota political figure put themselves on television as much as she does, I would expect that the coverage would be comparable. These statements should be covered, and, judging by how often she gets in front of a camera, she would agree.
Some of you wanted a link to the OECD data. It's here:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf
and there's a lot of tax-category-by-tax-category stuff available if you start here:
http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00....
Counting how often I or or others write about Rep. Bachmann is fine, but is no substitute for discussing the accuracy/merits of the things she says. Cheers,
Eric, in your opinion, is it appropriate for a professional journalist to joke about a member of Congress (or anyone else, for that matter) getting swine flu?
Let's put it this way: Imagine Rep. Bachmann made that kind of bad joke, but made it about the president, or about Barney Frank. She used your exact headline from the other day but substituted another name. Do you suppose you and others at MinnPost would have found an opportunity to object? I think we know the answer to that, given that the post in question involved a long digression into her merely leaving the last two letters off of "Democratic" in "Democratic Party," surely a much smaller offense than encouraging schadenfreude over the momentary suggestion someone contracted a potentially deadly disease.
Are you responsible for the merits of the things you say?
And to be clear: If you want to criticize Bachmann, or anyone else, on the merits of their arguments, that's fine by me. Even if you and MinnPost want to persistently single out one representative for opprobrium in a way that dwarfs coverage of all her peers combined, that's your prerogative. I suppose it all depends on what the mission of the site is.
As in education, the liberals want to distribute the pain equally, even if that means the highly above average have to suffer. In their minds, it is okay to take money (or education in the case of public schools) and give it to others who won't be able to use it well.
This is why bright children do worse in the public schools, even though the total class score may improve.
So, liberals, is it worth it? Do the ends justify the means? If so, where do you draw the line? Killing useless eaters?
All of the countries with the highest tax rates support varying measures of Socialism in their governments. The people of Europe and the Netherlands have come to where they are today via a history that is not shared by America, nor do we wish to follow their futures.
Americans have stated, over and over again, that we do not find Socialism acceptable. This country was not founded as a nanny state.
Indeed, the founders laid out proper taxation implicitely.
The appropriate level of taxation is that amount needed to effectively and efficiently carry out the tasks laid out in the constitutions of the United States and the several sovereign states; no more, no less.
It's unfortunate that so many of us have forgotten that.
It's called democratic socialism, and it is not pure socialism. It is definitely not communism. It is citizens freely choosing to prefer that government provide certain services.
The U.S. actually practices democratic socialism insofar as it selects those things government does better and cheaper and provides them with tax money: police and fire protection, defense, safe air and rail travel, safe food and drugs, public health (in OTHER countries, health care for all while we socialize only the V.A.), roads and highways, clean air and water, water treatment, public schools, et cetera.
For the benefit of Kyle and anyone else who mistakenly believes I was wishing an illness on Rep. Bachmann, I state sincerely and without reservation that I wish her a long and healthy life.
MinnPost is simply reporting on what the congresswoman is stating as "fact" in her numerous interviews and appearances. It would appear that MinnPost is only "fact checking" her claims and statements.
If it were not the fact that Ms. Bachmann's claims and or statements are so numerous, it would not be this newsworthy.
If similar statements of fiction were made from any other politician, I have no doubt that MinnPost would call that individual out as well. Whatever the political persuasion may be.
Clearly Congresswoman Bachmann enjoys her time in the spotlight. The price of that is to have her statements examined for accuracy and fact. After all it is rather entertaining to see some of her less than factual claims debunked. It is a shame that there is not more responsible journalism that is willing to do this public service.
Perhaps what we are witnessing from the Congresswoman is McCarthyism 2.0
The term McCarthyism is now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.
Thanks for clarifying, Eric.
I'm not sure what the congressperson has to do with our international tax rating but staying on topic the information about our ratings certainly makes this dog get up and and beg for questions.
I guess the first would be just how bad off is life here due to the tax structure for some people ? For our infrastructure ? For our health and safety ? For the education of the population ? For our peace of maind and well being ?
To know how ugly it is we need journalists willing to dig into the muck again en mass and write these stories with all their drama.
Mr. Black,
Obviously there are some who are simply not interested in fact based public policy, don't be discouraged by their posts. Please continue providing rational information for those of us who ARE interested.
For good measure, here's another fact, the unemployment rate in the Netherlands (with almost twice our tax rate)- 2.7%. Yeah, taxes are a real job killer.
With any luck the lunacy of Republican "magic plans" is finally losing it's grip on the public imagination. After a couple decade of confusion people seem to be realizing that there really is no such thing as magic. The cut taxes, privatize, deregulate, and wait for the magic to happen plan just hasn't panned out.
As an interesting corollary to the international scene, there never has been a definative relationship among the STATES that high taxes discourage business development (or low taxes encourage it). If that were the case, Mississippi would be booming, and the so-called "high tax" states would be disaster areas. Not so!
We are not a purely capitalistic country and haven't been since before the turn of the 20th Century. Our system of public education, toll-free transportation (well, mostly) and the modern military draft have moved us away from a purely capitalistic society. And, the reason we moved that way is that capitalism, in its purest form, is far from perfect. Even with social security, unemployment insurance, social welfare and government-sponsored economic development, we are still not a socialist or communist country. We are a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. And, here's the part conservatives hate to hear, SO IS EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WITHOUT EXCEPTION. No one is pure. Even China and Cuba have small entrepreneurs running restaurants and taxi cabs. And there is no purely capitalistic country in the world. The United States, Korea and Japan are probably as close as any countries gets to pure capitalism.
The real difference, therefore, is not whether we are one kind or the other. The difference is what kind of hybrid are we? Are we a country that throws the working poor under the wheels of progress, or one in which your basic needs are met from cradle to grave, or somewhere in the middle. I would argue that the United States high level of capitalism is unhealthy and destined to fail. We need to adopt some more socialistic attitudes about health care and education.
if you and MinnPost want to persistently single out one representative for opprobrium in a way that dwarfs coverage of all her peers combined, that's your prerogative. I suppose it all depends on what the mission of the site is.
Perhaps there's another way of looking at it: we have a representative who singles herself out for (negative) coverage by being a loudmouthed embarrassment who consistently lies and makes things up and whose behavior is generally borderline insane and erratic. I'm not sure where her conservative apologists for Bachmann get this idea that all congresspeople deserve equal amounts of positive and negative coverage despite what they deserve - sounds like they're advocating for socialism in media coverage! The best thing conservatives could do with respect to her is to admit she's the exact kind of anti-intellectual, non-serious walking joke who is what's wrong with our country, regardless of party, and distance themselves from her.
Speaking of which, liberals don't say we should raise taxes 'because Europe has'. We simply point out that they have much higher taxes and nothing terrible has happened to them, so while an honest debate about the merits of various tax rates can be had, the hysterical claims of conservatives on the issue are childish. Further, liberals are willing to point out that while we may not want to be Denmark, there are some awful nice things about most western European countries, including the fact that their populations are consistently healthier than we are.
Thanks for the link, EB. I appreciate the effort.