When th government makes everything free...the poor pay the most....

[2aguy]

Yes, Britain shows what happens when you allow the government to pay for everything...the poor end up paying huge amounts of their wealth for crappy government services....

Brits Of All Incomes Struggling Under Massive Tax Burden

The poorest people in the UK pay out nearly half of their income in taxes, new research has found. At the other end of the scale, the richest 10 per cent pay out nearly £30,000 a year more than they receive in benefits in kind.
The figures explode the government’s rhetoric on lifting the poorest out of taxation, as, although the government has given with one hand in the form of lower income taxes, it has taken with the other, primarily through VAT.

Previous analysis of the distribution of the tax burden has focused on income tax, which falls disproportionately on the highest earners. Last year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies repeatedly warned the government against looking to this group to plug its finances, arguing that “lumping more taxes on the rich” was not a sustainable strategy in the long term.

This view was further reinforced when, at the end of last year, it emerged that the top 3,000 earners pay more in tax than the bottom third of earners, some 9 million people.

However, new analysis by the TaxPayers’ Alliance shows that high taxes aren’t only a problem for the rich. This year, Value Added Tax (VAT) will be the government’s second largest source of revenue, and that tax hits lowest income households the hardest as a percentage of outgoings.

And this is why the States in the US that rely solely on a State Sales Tax and do not have an income tax as well, are HURTING the poor the most and gifting the wealthiest with much more of their income.

Sales taxes are regressive taxes, and in all states with a sales tax, even if they have an income tax as well....tax the poor more as a percentage of total income, than the wealthiest in State Taxation. This is one reason why the progressive income tax at the federal level of taxation was considered fair and balanced....it made up some of that "unfairness" in State taxation from what I have read.

Lesson to learn.....DO NOT EVER let our government create a VAT, a Sales tax, it will only hurt the poorest the most.

No...you just can't have a VAT tax on top of every other tax....choose one or the other, not both.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a more rational look at the topic....

A Guide to Understanding International Comparisons of Economic Mobility


If this were the only factor to be considered, it would indeed lead many people to the conclusion that there is little or no upward economic mobility for about half of the bottom quintile. But what does it mean to be “stuck” in the bottom income quintile? That you are mired in a swamp of poverty from which you cannot emerge? That your quality of life does not improve relative to the life your parents had? To assume so would ignore the existence of strong absolute mobility in the United States. It would obscure the fact that “the median family [in America] today has nearly twice the purchasing power of its counterpart in 1960.”[8] As Winship points out, there is certainly an important distinction to be made between “people’s well-being and the rate at which that well-being improves.”[9]

To tell a more complete opportunity story, it can also be enlightening to look at absolute mobility in the context of a person’s economic condition relative to that of his or her parents, or intergenerational mobility. Absolute mobility in this context, notes the San Francisco Federal Reserve, “can be measured as the percentage of adults whose incomes are higher than that of their parents at the same age.”[10] This metric is able to capture part of the idea of the American Dream in the sense of one’s children doing better in life. It indicates the benefits of robust economic growth through general improvements in the future income of children.

In other words, this metric shows whether the new generation is better off on an income basis than the one before it—an idea of progress and opportunity that is undoubtedly ingrained in the American consciousness. Remarkably, not only do 84 percent of all Americans exceed their parents’ family income,[11] but 93 percent of Americans raised in the bottom quintile do so as well, which gives an important twist on the stickiness concern for those at the bottom of the income spread.[12] In contrast, despite stickiness at the top, only 70 percent of all Americans who were raised in the top quintile were able to surpass their parents’ family income. (See Chart 2.)

*******************************


As noted by Julia Isaacs, currently a senior fellow at the Urban Institute,because most of the cross-country studies use this father–son IGE measure to illustrate relative mobility, they “ignore the question of cross-country differences in absolute mobility, that is, the likelihood that individuals in a given country will have higher standards of living than their parents due to national rates of economic growth.”[16] Unfortunately, comparable longitudinal data needed to compute absolute mobility are not widely available for most countries.

Thus, putting aside the inherent issues involved in drawing conclusions from incomplete data, when looked at through one mobility definition lens, the available data suggest that America may not be as “relatively mobile” as some European nations are, but looked at through another lens, the United States boasts a great degree of absolute economic mobility and may indeed be the land of opportunity. However, it is still very difficult to draw even these conclusions definitively without more and better data on intergenerational and intragenerational mobility.

In any case, when examining mobility between income quintiles over time in different countries, it is important to consider two questions:

• Are we mostly concerned with how much better off children are when compared with their parents?
• Or are we mostly concerned with how much better off children are relative to the progress made by the children of other households?

 

[Brain357]

Here is a more rational look at the topic....

A Guide to Understanding International Comparisons of Economic Mobility


If this were the only factor to be considered, it would indeed lead many people to the conclusion that there is little or no upward economic mobility for about half of the bottom quintile. But what does it mean to be “stuck” in the bottom income quintile? That you are mired in a swamp of poverty from which you cannot emerge? That your quality of life does not improve relative to the life your parents had? To assume so would ignore the existence of strong absolute mobility in the United States. It would obscure the fact that “the median family [in America] today has nearly twice the purchasing power of its counterpart in 1960.”[8] As Winship points out, there is certainly an important distinction to be made between “people’s well-being and the rate at which that well-being improves.”[9]

To tell a more complete opportunity story, it can also be enlightening to look at absolute mobility in the context of a person’s economic condition relative to that of his or her parents, or intergenerational mobility. Absolute mobility in this context, notes the San Francisco Federal Reserve, “can be measured as the percentage of adults whose incomes are higher than that of their parents at the same age.”[10] This metric is able to capture part of the idea of the American Dream in the sense of one’s children doing better in life. It indicates the benefits of robust economic growth through general improvements in the future income of children.

In other words, this metric shows whether the new generation is better off on an income basis than the one before it—an idea of progress and opportunity that is undoubtedly ingrained in the American consciousness. Remarkably, not only do 84 percent of all Americans exceed their parents’ family income,[11] but 93 percent of Americans raised in the bottom quintile do so as well, which gives an important twist on the stickiness concern for those at the bottom of the income spread.[12] In contrast, despite stickiness at the top, only 70 percent of all Americans who were raised in the top quintile were able to surpass their parents’ family income. (See Chart 2.)

*******************************


As noted by Julia Isaacs, currently a senior fellow at the Urban Institute,because most of the cross-country studies use this father–son IGE measure to illustrate relative mobility, they “ignore the question of cross-country differences in absolute mobility, that is, the likelihood that individuals in a given country will have higher standards of living than their parents due to national rates of economic growth.”[16] Unfortunately, comparable longitudinal data needed to compute absolute mobility are not widely available for most countries.

Thus, putting aside the inherent issues involved in drawing conclusions from incomplete data, when looked at through one mobility definition lens, the available data suggest that America may not be as “relatively mobile” as some European nations are, but looked at through another lens, the United States boasts a great degree of absolute economic mobility and may indeed be the land of opportunity. However, it is still very difficult to draw even these conclusions definitively without more and better data on intergenerational and intragenerational mobility.

In any case, when examining mobility between income quintiles over time in different countries, it is important to consider two questions:

• Are we mostly concerned with how much better off children are when compared with their parents?
• Or are we mostly concerned with how much better off children are relative to the progress made by the children of other households?

That is all you have? Your claim they are more held down is false.

Thus, putting aside the inherent issues involved in drawing conclusions from incomplete data, when looked at through one mobility definition lens, the available data suggest that America may not be as “relatively mobile” as some European nations are, but looked at through another lens, the United States boasts a great degree of absolute economic mobility and may indeed be the land of opportunity. However, it is still very difficult to draw even these conclusions definitively without more and better data on intergenerational and intragenerational mobility.

 

[Care4all]

The Heritage Foundation article does a lot of twists and spinning to come up with their conclusions or to try to raise 'doubt' but as the facts show, upward mobility out of the bottom 20% quin-tile in the USA is less likely than many countries in the Europe.

Sure, on some, their income may be greater than parents, but regardless of such, they can not escape still being in the bottom 20%

 

[2aguy]

The Heritage Foundation article does a lot of twists and spinning to come up with their conclusions or to try to raise 'doubt' but as the facts show, upward mobility out of the bottom 20% quin-tile in the USA is less likely than many countries in the Europe.

Sure, on some, their income may be greater than parents, but regardless of such, they can not escape still being in the bottom 20%

No, they actually explain the differences...while the left wing researchers come to false conclusions.....

 

[Brain357]

The Heritage Foundation article does a lot of twists and spinning to come up with their conclusions or to try to raise 'doubt' but as the facts show, upward mobility out of the bottom 20% quin-tile in the USA is less likely than many countries in the Europe.

Sure, on some, their income may be greater than parents, but regardless of such, they can not escape still being in the bottom 20%

No, they actually explain the differences...while the left wing researchers come to false conclusions.....

No they pretty much say that while all the evidence points to other countries having more mobility, hey we aren't that bad.

That does nothing to prove your claim their poor are stuck where they are.

 

[2aguy]

The Heritage Foundation article does a lot of twists and spinning to come up with their conclusions or to try to raise 'doubt' but as the facts show, upward mobility out of the bottom 20% quin-tile in the USA is less likely than many countries in the Europe.

Sure, on some, their income may be greater than parents, but regardless of such, they can not escape still being in the bottom 20%

No, they actually explain the differences...while the left wing researchers come to false conclusions.....

No they pretty much say that while all the evidence points to other countries having more mobility, hey we aren't that bad.

That does nothing to prove your claim their poor are stuck where they are.

Yeah....not real. You tax everyone to the same level and you really believe there is more mobility......? Right......

 

[Brain357]

The Heritage Foundation article does a lot of twists and spinning to come up with their conclusions or to try to raise 'doubt' but as the facts show, upward mobility out of the bottom 20% quin-tile in the USA is less likely than many countries in the Europe.

Sure, on some, their income may be greater than parents, but regardless of such, they can not escape still being in the bottom 20%

No, they actually explain the differences...while the left wing researchers come to false conclusions.....

No they pretty much say that while all the evidence points to other countries having more mobility, hey we aren't that bad.

That does nothing to prove your claim their poor are stuck where they are.

Yeah....not real. You tax everyone to the same level and you really believe there is more mobility......? Right......

What does taxes have to do with mobility?

Even the conclusion is just wishy washy.

Conclusion
International comparisons can be very helpful both in understanding patterns in one’s own country and in assessing social conditions and policy impacts, but it is also easy to draw erroneous or at least questionable conclusions from cross-country comparisons. This can be the case when looking at economic mobility and opportunity. Differences in data collection methods, the inclusion or exclusion of certain forms of income and benefits, and cultural differences are just a few of the reasons to be cautious.