I just wish Euroland was as socialist as you yankees think it is . . .

I am the author of the chapter in the OECD report that deals with income redistribution through the tax and benefit systems. (I am now at the University of New South Wales in Australia rather than the OECD.)

One point to note is that progressivity describes the structure of taxes and benefits, but redistribution is determined both by the progressivity of taxes and benefits and the level of taxes and benefits. For example, a more progressive tax system may redistribute less than a less progressive system if the level of taxes is substantially lower.

It is also important to note that the results refer to 2005, and so do not take account of any changes since then.

It is correct that the report finds and states that the USA has the most progressive system of direct taxes in the OECD, which includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer contributions or indirect taxes. Adding these in would be unlikely to change the results because indirect taxes are everywhere less progressive than direct taxes.

The report also points out that the USA is the only OECD country which redistributes more through the tax system than through the system of cash benefits.

What this mean of course is that other countries reduce inequality more through paying social security benefits than through taxes.

The other half of the equation is that the US redistributes less through social security and unemployment payments etc. than most other countries. (Also most but not all other countries support families with children through cash benefits, whereas the USA mainly does this through the tax system.)

So when you look at the combined effect of taxes and benefits overall the USA redistributes less than most other OECD countries, despite the fact that it has the most progressive system of direct taxes.

The USA also starts off with one the highest levels of earnings inequality among OECD countries, so that when you look at household incomes “after” taxes and benefits, the USA is the fourth most unequal country in the OECD – after Mexico, Turkey and Portugal.

Even though the US social security system overall is about average in progressivity, the overall redistributive effect is lower mainly because most other countries spend a lot more through their social security systems than the US.

The study of equality of opportunity looks at earnings mobility – how the earnings of men compare with those of their fathers. This is before taxes and benefits, and as a result, this is not affected by the welfare system. That is, Denmark does not have greater equality of opportunity than the USA because it has more welfare – it is because it has a less unequal earnings distribution and more mobility in earnings (and it also has a much more effective system of social security, but for the purposes of the results this is irrelevant).

..but wasn’t Jack “liberated” by placing a pillow over his face? Forced youth-in-asia? I knew Obama was evil and the crazy wingers were right all along.

The folks at SAIC, Halliburton, Blackwater, et al, might beg to differ – if they weren’t so busy laughing their asses off as they count the money from all those no-bid contracts & de facto governemt subsidies right now.

Cronyism = free lunches galore (for the “right people”).

The problem with a comfort-blanket made of bullshit is that while YOU may not notice the stink after a while, others downwind do not share that luxury.

Ayers? Really, Shannon honey? I mean, I understand when your Kristol types parrot that shit for the Palintariat (thank you whoever came up with this, I forget who you are but I love you for it), but I think your little blog is pretty safe from them. They aren’t going to find you and your Randroid SuperFriends, as they think the Internet consists of Free Republic and Lucianne.com.

I have to go. I am pressed for time. Silicon Valley halloween party, where we’ll pretend that billionaires who drive to the hangar where their 767 is stored in a Prius are “humble”.

Up there.

Not here.

POOPE!

Oh. I thought the free market did that out of the kindness of its soul. And magic and stuff.

Awesome in that Oh My God How Did People Live Like This? way. Two rooms, 8×8 and 12×8 to live in, fun for the whole family!

It’s mentally jarring and in addition I am pressed for time.

Just jumping ahead to nominate this as the funniest sentence in the thread.

Will finish reading now.

there’s some great gelato being sold right next door, too.

Oh, dude. Do you really want to go there?

Ever read any Dickens?

Ever visit the Lower East Side Tenement Museum in NYC?

Yeah, didn’t think so. The average person in the early days of the Industrial Revolution didn’t have it so good.

What age are you? — Twenty-two.

What is your occupation? — A blanket manufacturer.

Have you ever been employed in a factory? — Yes.

At what age did you first go to work in one? — Eight.

How long did you continue in that occupation? — Four years.

Will you state the hours of labour at the period when you first went to the factory, in ordinary times? — From 6 in the morning to 8 at night.

Fourteen hours? — Yes.

With what intervals for refreshment and rest? — An hour at noon.

When trade was brisk what were your hours? — From 5 in the morning to 9 in the evening.

Sixteen hours? — Yes.

I would love to, but unfortunately I couldn’t find a direct comparison by googling. If you can find something, please share, I’m a slut for statistics. A brief search did find this site, from which I compiled a few numbers: http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/data.cfm

% of total population that is foreign born (most recent data:
US: 12.1%
Sweden: 11.8%
Netherlands: 10.6%
Ireland: 10.4%
Australia: 23.9%
Canada: 18.8%

If you are correct, why do socialist paradises such as Sweden and Canada sustain nearly the same or higher percentages of immigrants?

As for internal US migration, you are full of shit. California, which you claim is socialist, contains many of the fastest growing counties in the country. The rural populations of the Midwest have flocked to liberal cities like Chicago, leaving ghost towns.

While it is true that there has been a general trend of movement from the Northeast and Midwest to the Southeast and Southwest, every area to which these refugees of socialism have fled – CA, AZ, CO, NM, TX, NC, VA, FL – has been trending more liberal. Why would people pick up and move across the country to escape the Democrats, only to vote for them wherever they settle?