patrick.net

lostand confused says

Peter P says

Thus US has the best social mobility in the world. One can go from nothing to $1B in a few short years.

A few people becoming billionares is not social mobility. In Singapore, 11.4% of the population are millionares. much easier there for you to be the elite.

The only country in the developed world that has worse social mobility than the US is the UK.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2006/04/26/1917/understanding-mobility-in-america/

Peter P says

It is about how high you can go.

No, it's about how many people have the opportunity to go higher. And in the US, that number is lower than just about any developed nation.

Peter P says

How many billionaires did Germany/Japan mint in the last ten years?

Who cares? The answer to that will tell you nothing about the amount of social mobility in those countries.

bob2356 says

health care and college for starters. Pretty big omission. Really big omission. Like maybe 10-15% of gdp omission.

Yes, the taxes in many of those countries pay for college and health care, but college and health care in the US are not taxes. American health care in particular is primarily revenue for private companies. If some of those other countries use tax revenue to pay for school lunches for all kids should we in the US count the cost of sending our kids to school with a bag lunch as a tax?

The US chooses to spend a good portion of its taxes on military, should the other countries get a reduction on the chart because they don't choose to spend as much on military?

bob2356 says

Bahamas,Vanuatu,St Bart,Qatar,Oman, BVI,Cayman Islands,Bahrain,Turks and Caicos,Maldives,Brunei,Bermuda,Saudi Arabia,AUE,St Kitts and Nevis,Andorra, Azergijan are all at zero. Belarus,Switzerland,Bolivia,Ukraine,Mauritius,Bulgaria,HK,Czech,Montenegro,Lichtenstein,Lithuania,Russia, are below 15% max rate.

Yes, you do list many countries with low or no income taxes. However, we are not just talking about income taxes. Many--if not all-- of the countries you list as zero taxes actually have taxes(and other revenues) in forms other than an income tax.

Qatar for example has a corporate tax rate of 10%:
http://www.taxrates.cc/html/qatar-tax-rates.html

The government revenues are 35.4% of GDP:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2221.html

lostand confused says

States vary massively-. CA has a maximum of what 11%? TX , FL, NV and WA have no state income tax. But real estate taxes may vary-so I don't think the above list can accurately state the tax impact of the whole US-because it varies-by a lot.

Sure, the US is big and by moving around you can vary your tax burden to a degree, but the point of the list is to compare the overall accumulated taxes in the US to that of other countries.

Looking at the "best" state for overall taxation is different than country by country.

Here is a list of state-by-state revenues as % of GDP:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/compare_state_revenue_2013pF0c

California at 17.79% is pretty close to the combine revenue of all states at 16.34%.

leo707 says

The US chooses to spend a good portion of its taxes on military, should the other countries get a reduction on the chart because they don't choose to spend as much on military?

Remind me what percentage of gdp people in other countries need to spend out of pocket for military that the government doesn't provide.

leo707 says

Yes, you do list many countries with low or no income taxes. However, we are not just talking about income taxes.

Actually we were. Personal tax rates are what the original post is all about.

The irony here and one that Republicans will never seem to grasp is that looking at that list, a large number at or near the top are also countries that enjoy the highest standards of living in the world.

What if we only look at the top 10%?

I think US will do quite well.

Besides, cramping in small homes is hardly a sign of high living standard.

Another indicator, aircraft ownership. I worked with people who own planes. Thry are regular senior engineers.

edvard2 says

The irony here and one that Republicans will never seem to grasp is that looking at that list, a large number at or near the top are also countries that enjoy the highest standards of living in the world.

Yep.

Peter P says

What if we only look at the top 10%?

Then we are ignoring 90% of the population. What would that prove?

finehoe says

Peter P says

What if we only look at the top 10%?

Then we are ignoring 90% of the population. What would that prove?

Anyone can have a realistic chance of joining the top 10%. Percentile membership is not etched on your forehead.

Just not everyone at the same time. When everyone tries, all boats are lifted by the tide of growth.

Peter P says

finehoe says

Peter P says

What if we only look at the top 10%?

Then we are ignoring 90% of the population. What would that prove?

Anyone can have a realistic chance of joining the top 10%. Percentile membership is not etched on your forehead.

Most people may be able to realistically reach the top 10% or even top 5%, but not the top 1% or .01%, and the US is one of the most difficult places in the developed world to try and move up the class ladder.

Peter P says

Anyone can have a realistic chance of joining the top 10%. Percentile
membership is not etched on your forehead.

Of course--that's what powerball is for, right?

Most of the successful people started with nothing. My two heroes are the prime examples: George Soros, Dennis Washington

tatupu70 says

Peter P says

Anyone can have a realistic chance of joining the top 10%. Percentile

membership is not etched on your forehead.

Of course--that's what powerball is for, right?

People tend to vastly underestimate the role that luck plays in any method of improving ones socioeconomic status.

Unlike other countries, America is a country of becoming, not being. It is one of change and growth, not one of stagnancy and complacency.

Peter P says

Unlike other countries, America is a country of becoming, not being. It is one of change and growth, not one of stagnancy and complacency.

Interesting, yes that is the myth, but the facts show that America has almost the worst social mobility of any developed nation.

leo707 says

tatupu70 says

Peter P says

Anyone can have a realistic chance of joining the top 10%. Percentile

membership is not etched on your forehead.

Of course--that's what powerball is for, right?

People tend to vastly underestimate the role that luck plays in any method of improving ones socioeconomic status.

Life is about managing luck. Much can be learned from options market makers.

leo707 says

Peter P says

Unlike other countries, America is a country of becoming, not being. It is one of change and growth, not one of stagnancy and complacency.

Interesting, yes that is the myth, but the facts show that America has almost the worst social mobility of any developed nation.

It is a bad place not to take risks though.

Also, for a lot of people, they drank the wrong cool aid like working hard for someone, getting a degree, diversify, etc.

Peter P says

leo707 says

Peter P says

Unlike other countries, America is a country of becoming, not being. It is one of change and growth, not one of stagnancy and complacency.

Interesting, yes that is the myth, but the facts show that America has almost the worst social mobility of any developed nation.

It is a bad place not to take risks though.

Most people in the US are not born in a position where they can afford to take risks. Most of the people on Forbes list--while they did not all start out as billionaires--were born into families that allowed them the opportunity to take risks.

Peter P says

leo707 says

tatupu70 says

Peter P says

Anyone can have a realistic chance of joining the top 10%. Percentile

membership is not etched on your forehead.

Of course--that's what powerball is for, right?

People tend to vastly underestimate the role that luck plays in any method of improving ones socioeconomic status.

Life is about managing luck. Much can be learned from options market makers.

People tend to vastly underestimate their ability to manage luck.

Peter P says

Most of the successful people started with nothing.

40% of the individuals who appeared on the Forbes list of wealthiest people received a "significant economic advantage in their lives by inheriting a sizeable asset from a spouse or family member." More than 20% received sufficient wealth to make the list from this inheritance alone. Of the rich countries listed by the OECD, the three in which men's earnings are most likely to resemble their father's are, in this order, the UK, Italy and the US. If you are born poor or born rich in these nations, you are likely to stay that way.

Equal opportunity, self-creation, heroic individualism: these are the myths that predatory capitalism requires for its political survival.

Peter P says

Also, for a lot of people, they drank the wrong cool aid like working hard for someone, getting a degree, diversify, etc.

As in most things in life-it depends. I know a couple who worked for others .One was a police officer and retired at 50 and the other an IT worker-yeah working for somebody with a degree. Two houses in the bay area, payed off, he gets pension and still works as a security guard for concerts, games at the arena etc. She still works part time now-because she is bored.

I also know plenty of people who were in business -some for a long time- and don't have a pot to pee in.

It depends-what works for some will not work for others. Extreme ideology is not good-unless of course you are in politics and making a ton of money out of suckers.

finehoe says

Equal opportunity, self-creation, heroic individualism: these are the myths that predatory capitalism requires for its political survival.

With the occasional power ball winner thrown into the mix to give the peasants hope.

Peter P says

Most of the successful people started with nothing.

All businesses exist within a vast network of human connections — customers, vendors, employees, investors and the communities that support their work. Saying you did it all yourself and therefore don’t owe anybody anything is about as absurd (and self-centered) as saying that you raised yourself from babyhood, without any input from your parents, and therefore don’t have any further obligations to your family.

Risk taking is comparatively cheaper for those with less to lose.

The middle class offers the worst risk reward ratio though. They tend to have something they cannot afford to lose.

That is a separate problem.

finehoe says

Peter P says

Most of the successful people started with nothing.

All businesses exist within a vast network of human connections — customers, vendors, employees, investors and the communities that support their work. Saying you did it all yourself and therefore don’t owe anybody anything is about as absurd (and self-centered) as saying that you raised yourself from babyhood, without any input from your parents, and therefore don’t have any further obligations to your family.

Don't be concerned with who you owe. That is not relevant. The market is a system in which participants push against each other. A struggle at the individual level.

Peter P says

Don't be concerned with who you owe. That is not relevant.

It is relevant if we want to live in a system where people coming after us also have the opportunity to succeed.

Ignoring the benefits that one reaps from the system marginalizes the contribution that the system played in ones success, and a marginalized system is going to be less effective at helping others also succeed.

My point is that participating in the market is all that matter. All debt, karmic or not, is reflected in the system.

If there exists a system with which self interest leads to the greatest good, is it even selfish to act for oneself in the context of this system?

Peter P says

If there exists a system with which self interest leads to the greatest good, is it even selfish to act for oneself in the context of this system?

Who the hell knows, but that in no way proves or supports your assertion that the US has the best social mobility in the world.

Peter P says

If there exists a system with which self interest leads to the greatest good, is it even selfish to act for oneself in the context of this system?

I depends on how one defines the "greatest good". I think that you could ask 10 different people and get 10 different ideas on what the greatest good is.

I for one don't think that installing an aristocracy would be serving the greatest good.

As long as we are waxing philosophical we might as well ask, are we even capable of taking an action that is not selfish?

finehoe says

Who the hell knows, but that in no way proves or supports your assertion that the US has the best social mobility in the world.

I don't think that there is any data that supports the idea that the US even has close to the best social mobility in the world.

finehoe says

Peter P says

If there exists a system with which self interest leads to the greatest good, is it even selfish to act for oneself in the context of this system?

Who the hell knows, but that in no way proves or supports your assertion that the US has the best social mobility in the world.

It is about the possibility of becoming rich without being born in a rich family.

This is vitually non-existent outside of the US except in places where illegal corruption is commonplace

Peter P says

It is about the possibility of becoming rich without being born in a rich family.

This is vitually non-existent outside of the US except in places where illegal corruption is commonplace

Absolute and total nonsense. There is plenty out there that refutes this. Huffington post had an article recently on it, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/class-mobility_b_1676931.html . BBC ran a series maybe 5-6 years ago called Self Made Man (or something like that) that profiled people in Europe that became rich.

Forbes top 10 richest people only has 3 Americans. Of the 7 others 4 (Carlos Slim, Armancio Ortega, Li Ka-shing, and Karl Albrecht) came from middle class or lower back rounds. I'm sure if you continue down the list the pattern won't change.

But how old are they? Do those places create 30-year-old billionaires?

Did they make the money before the advent of the welfare state?

Peter P says

But how old are they? Do those places create 30-year-old billionaires?

bob gave you the links and names to answer these questions for yourself. I do see a lot of evidence that the US has, relative to other developed nations, poor mobility, but you have presented zero evidence to support the great mobility claims you have been making.

http://hustleb.blogspot.com/2012/08/billionaires-under-age-of-40.html

Most young self-made billionaires in the developed world are still American.