"So...when you fools say "close the loopholes"....what the fuck are you talking about? Other than just mindlessly regurgitating things you heard on TV....give me an example of a "tax loophole" (whatever that is....) that you want taken away. Please be specific....and please tell me the ENTIRE fiduciary extent of said "loophole"...i.e. ALL whom will be impacted by closing this "loophole"."
I don't know the tax laws in America so can't answer this. However what I do know is that a fixed tax rate would have no loop holes.

Mortgage interest deduction. We don't have that in Canada and our housing market did not collapse. In many cases our homes are move valuable then they were in 2007/2008.

The mortgage interest deduction encourages people to hold mortgages rather then to pay them off, resulting that when the housing market goes down a little, more people are underwater (because they had less incentive to pay off the mortgage) and this results in foreclosures and a negative feedback loop.

@TC: what are your thoughts on Canadian healthcare?

Also Norway is not poor and stop saying Europe is poor, it is the richest continent on the planet.

Fasces, I guess you think that my finding studies showing that Sweden has a standard of living below the poorest state in the United States means I am saying it or that means that Scandinavia is poor.
The facts those studies found are the facts.
Deal with them is all I can tell you.

As far as Canadian medicine.
Almost 45,000 Canadians visit the United States annually for healthcare.
That seems rather odd given they pay onerous taxes for their state run system.
Also Canadian healthcare doesn't provide access to all the therapeutic drugs that Americans have access too.

I agree with Joey about the mortgage deduction.
One thing he didn't point out is that the mortgage deduction is a subsidy for the wealthy to own expensive homes.
Put an end to it tomorrow.
You live in a home. It isn't an investment.

I agree with Fasces, there is no such thing as a loophole.
It is a convenient label for Big Government types to use as an excuse to raise taxes, pure and simple.

It's funny that in America people in the middle quintile and below pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than Europeans in the middle quintile and below.
The lower quintiles in America also receive a higher percentage of state aid than in Europe.
The problem is that per capita income in Europe is so low in comparison to the United States and unemployment traditionally 1-2% higher that European quintiles are simply poorer than their American counterparts.

Yaxay, I worked at UCLA after I left.
The students are heavily subsidized at UCLA.
The grossly oversized administration at UCLA is heavily subsidized.
In fact I was reading in the Chronicle of Higher education yesterday that at Michigan there are over 50% more administrators than full-time faculty.
Talk about administrative blight in Ann Arbor.

So you can spin all the fantasy you want about "students" being subsidized at America's public universities, but I've worked in the administrative side (before I had the good taste to leave) as that is where the subsidy goes.

Thanks for being an easy target though.
I don't suffer poorly conceived points, ill-informed individuals, or Big Government misrepresentation of reality well.
Sorry about that.

Here is the link to the CHE article since I know you propagandist shriek when you get exposed.

http://chronicle.com/article/Great-Colleges-to-Work-For/128312/

There is also an excellent book on administrative blight in American higher education,
The Fall of the Faculty-The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters by Benjamin Ginsberg.
Of course you have to pay money for access to it because it isn't a subsidized government publication.
It's easy to figure out why.

@ Thucy, What a pointless post "I say we cut the government down to size. The entire government should be able to operate on $1 million a day, anything more is waste."
No explanation of what government should do, what level should do it.
Just empty Thucydian rhetoric. Expected, useless, prolific.

Here's a tax loophole. I can make thousands of dollars and never ever report it to the IRS playing poker as long as my cash outs on any given transaction are under $5000. If the government required all gambling facilities to record all deposits and cash outs, then both losses and gains would be recorded and a proper accounting (and susequent tax collection) could be done on those of us who make money at the tables. The loophole? Only individual cashouts in excess of $5000 require tax forms to be filled out and, if you can show your buy in was significant enough, you can get by that as well as the law only requires it for profit in excess of $5000. But it is easy to wander around to the differnet cages at the end of the night and cash in 2 or 3 Gs at each.

"Fasces, I guess you think that my finding studies showing that Sweden has a standard of living below the poorest state in the United States means I am saying it or that means that Scandinavia is poor.
The facts those studies found are the facts.
Deal with them is all I can tell you. "
Cause your facts are totally misleading. Living Standards are calculated using 3 factors:
Health, Education and Wealth. Your totally ignoring 2 of the 3 criteria. If you count Health and Education then Norway has one of the highest standards of living...

"As far as Canadian medicine.
Almost 45,000 Canadians visit the United States annually for healthcare.
That seems rather odd given they pay onerous taxes for their state run system.
Also Canadian healthcare doesn't provide access to all the therapeutic drugs that Americans have access too. "
I wanted to know if you believed the facts that Glenn Beck made up, this confirms that you do. That number is accurate, but once against misleading. Compared to the 22 million people who go to a Canadian Hospital every year 45,000 is 0.2% of that number. So 0.2% of Canadians go to the states for health care, that says nothing good or bad about the system

Our Healthcare system is far better then Obamacare, can we agree to that?

"I agree with Joey about the mortgage deduction.
One thing he didn't point out is that the mortgage deduction is a subsidy for the wealthy to own expensive homes.
Put an end to it tomorrow.
You live in a home. It isn't an investment."
I think both, there is nothing one with buying and selling houses for profit, what is wrong is not having to pay taxes on doing so.

"I agree with Fasces, there is no such thing as a loophole.
It is a convenient label for Big Government types to use as an excuse to raise taxes, pure and simple."
When did I say that, what I said was that a good simple tax code would have no loopholes I never said the American tax code was good or simple (since it is neither).

"It's funny that in America people in the middle quintile and below pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than Europeans in the middle quintile and below.
The lower quintiles in America also receive a higher percentage of state aid than in Europe.
The problem is that per capita income in Europe is so low in comparison to the United States and unemployment traditionally 1-2% higher that European quintiles are simply poorer than their American counterparts. "
BULLSHIT! Unemployment rate of Europe is 9.3%, but that is counting Spain which has 25%. If you don't count Spain as a European country the Unemployment rate of Europe is lower then America's 9.2%. So much for your 1-2%...

Also everything I have read on social equality in Europe vs America, the socialist Europe is far superior. However I don't think social equality is a good thing.

"Here's a tax loophole."
Here is my tax suggestion:
All forms of income, regardless of what it is, is taxed at 20-25%. Organize it like the GST, (so corporations have to declare the taxes of their employees) and then there are no loopholes and its the corporations accountants, not the people who have to scramble to file tax returns at the end of the fiscal period.

This way there is no loopholes and taxes are 100% fair.

Fasces, Yes we can agree that Canadian healthcare is better than Obamacare.
If you look at the studies I linked to your statement that healthcare makes Norway rich is clearly refuted.
It isn't my statement. It is in the New York Times piece and the studies.

As far as treating a home as an investment this was a major cause of the financial meltdown.
Put an immediate end to the subsidy for home ownership.
This will end speculation.

As I said Fasces (unemployment traditionally). Look at the aggregate unemployment rates in Europe vs the US over the last twenty years and the one with bullshit on their face is you.

Social Equality, what an ambiguous term.
I love the way that people who want to defend big government use terms no one ever uses in a day to day personally conversation.

Could you imagine, "Morning Joe" "Morning Phil" "I'm feeling socially equal today"
"I want to feel some social justice."
Just so dumb. Please offer more than that empty bullshit.
A pair of levis 501's in $130 dollars in Stockholm. Now that is real economic inequality and Europe is always on the short end of the stick there.
It isn't my fault that the European model is unsustainable and failing.

Forget income taxes. Consumption tax-national sales tax. If you consumer you pay. If you don't consume you don't pay.
Talk about limiting government in one fell swoop and invigorating the economy.
The accounting/Bookkeeping/Tax lawyering sectors would disappear faster than Tower records.

I read some great stuff yesterday about how Europe figures their unemployment rates and how they differ from American calculations in ways that would make the European figures higher. I'll be back with the info and links.

@Fasces: Though I disagree with you, thank you for being intellectually honest.
@All (but TC in particular):
There are a number of problems with comparing Europe and the US. Europe isn't a country; it's a continent, part of which has a monetary union, and other confederate structures--that is to say, a lightly binding union of independent, sovereign states.
The US is a federal state.

I personally am in favor of a progressive tax, such as a variable-rate tax on income, rather than a regressive tax like a sales tax, because marginal consumption declines with wealth. That said, no matter what, I think we can all agree that a simpler tax code would be a good thing.

And a little while ago, someone mentioned that the average European has 1000 sq. ft. of living space, while the average American has 1800, but all that shows is that land is more expensive in Europe than in the US. You'd probably get similar numbers comparing cities and suburbs in the US; could someone check that out?

Moshe, here is the link to the study that covered the cost of living space.
http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf
It is a 48 page research study.

Cost of living space is certainly a factor in standard of living.
I'm sorry that Europe is densely populated, but you can't ignore that fact and act like it isn't.
I do welcome the number of problems comparing the EU to the US.
That's a refreshing attitude on this board where the EU is selectively compared to the US constantly.

I'd like to see how the Sq Ft of living space is computed. Is that indoor and outdoor combined? If so, that seems low on both counts. If it is just indoors, I want to know who has all the indoor space. I have a large 3 bedroom ranch (1700 ft2) with just two people living in it and, even if you count the unfinished basement, we would only be at 3000 ft2 total. But with the yeard (and not counting the basement) we have almost 12000 ft2 (.27 acres) between us.

"'Fasces, Yes we can agree that Canadian healthcare is better than Obamacare.
If you look at the studies I linked to your statement that healthcare makes Norway rich is clearly refuted.
It isn't my statement. It is in the New York Times piece and the studies."
I never said Norway was rich, but they have a good healthcare and education system that kills their economy due to taxes...

"As far as treating a home as an investment this was a major cause of the financial meltdown.
Put an immediate end to the subsidy for home ownership.
This will end speculation. "
Put an immediate end to subsidies.

"As I said Fasces (unemployment traditionally). Look at the aggregate unemployment rates in Europe vs the US over the last twenty years and the one with bullshit on their face is you. "
I stand corrected, after looking at the data its closer to 3% then 1-2...

However that just proves that our capitalist system is better then their socialist system. Cause they get paid min wages for sitting around, they do. It doesn't mean that conservative spending benefits the poor more then liberal spending.

"Social Equality, what an ambiguous term.
I love the way that people who want to defend big government use terms no one ever uses in a day to day personally conversation. "
???

"Could you imagine, "Morning Joe" "Morning Phil" "I'm feeling socially equal today"
"I want to feel some social justice."
Just so dumb. Please offer more than that empty bullshit. "
Are you retarded? So I suppose everyone talks about unemployement, tax loopholes and big government every day...

that just makes no sense...

Also so many people have campaigned for social equality, its why Black females are now given so many benefits over white males in the working world. Benefits that they don't deserve.

"Though I disagree with you, thank you for being intellectually honest. "
What do you disagree with? I have been defending the socialists in Europe so that would mean you agree with TC.

"There are a number of problems with comparing Europe and the US. Europe isn't a country; it's a continent, part of which has a monetary union, and other confederate structures--that is to say, a lightly binding union of independent, sovereign states.
The US is a federal state. "
However we were talking about the political ideologies of Europe and America. He claimed Norway's standard of living (keeping in mind that it has the highest HDI in the world) is lower then America's. That is how the hole Europe vs America started.

"I personally am in favor of a progressive tax, such as a variable-rate tax on income, rather than a regressive tax like a sales tax, because marginal consumption declines with wealth"
I disagree, it should be directly proportional, rather then confusing. Rather then figuring out what income bracket, calculating the % etc etc. Why not make it like GST. Your employer takes it out of pay check directly, so you never have to worry about taxes or anything. Its simple and fair.

"And a little while ago, someone mentioned that the average European has 1000 sq. ft. of living space, while the average American has 1800, but all that shows is that land is more expensive in Europe than in the US. You'd probably get similar numbers comparing cities and suburbs in the US; could someone check that out?"
I would like to see anyone claim New York has an average over 500... Cause they would be wrong...

"Cost of living space is certainly a factor in standard of living.
I'm sorry that Europe is densely populated, but you can't ignore that fact and act like it isn't.
I do welcome the number of problems comparing the EU to the US.
That's a refreshing attitude on this board where the EU is selectively compared to the US constantly."
EU is effectively a union of states, so some say they could be compared...

So Fasces, I guess you don't understand that having good healthcare in your twenties when you don't need it and having a good education in your twenties isn't worth a damn if you economy provides jobs that pays peanuts because of high taxes and your standard of living is in the toilet.
This is why the New York Times piece was entitled "We're Rich, You're Not, End of Story."
I guess Norwegians like sitting around healthy with great educations not being able to enjoy the basic standard of living of what Europeans call a "poor" American.

You keep saying "he," the author of the New York Times piece "claimed."
The 48 page research study I gave a link to substantiates everything he said and goes far beyond.

The author of the New York Times peace anticipated your type of attitude in his closing sentence when he said that the misconception of Norway as a rich country won't be put to rest by a measly think-tank study or two.

Why let facts get in the way of an illogical argument to perpetuate a comfortable myth?

The important part of including cost of living in a discussion of Europe comes into play when European Welfare State advocates talk about Europe's mass transit which is functional only because of the dense population which drives up the cost of housing.
The same thing comes into play talking about delivery of medical care in Europe where rural populations don't receive the same access to care that urban populations do and the advantages of medical delivery in urban Europe are again offset by the higher cost of housing.

Trying to compare Europe only to American cities ignores American's vast geographic expanse. Something that Europeans carrying out comparisons love to do, but ultimately makes their comparisons completely invalid.

That's exactly why pointing out that a poor American lives in a substantially larger abode than a middle-class European is perfectly relevant in those types of comparisons.

I'm all for ending subsidies.
Lets end the one to the farmers, the oil companies, and the home owners shall we.

@TC: I'm reading through the Timbro report, commenting along the way.
First thing I notice: "The US recession, with growth rates of 1 or 2%..."
If there is positive real growth, it is no longer a recession.

"Comparison of the countries of the EU with states of the US is warranted"
Except that the Federal Government is much more powerful than the EU. A country within the EU has more independance than a US state, but less than the US as a whole.
But that's just the introduction. Let's see what the body holds for us...

"The problem with [measures of national well-being] are extremely sensitive to the choice and weighing of the variables included." An excellent point. Let's see what he does with it...he uses it to justify sticking to GDP. Ok.

I just realized that this study was from 2004, so I don't think I'll bother commenting on the rest. There are, however, some weird things going on in his data. For instance, more Italian households own a clotheswasher (96%) than American households (90%), despite Italy having lower GDP than almost all of the states in the Union. Furthermore, his correlations between GDP and median household income are present, but not the strongest; I'd give it an r-value of around 70 to 80%.

But all of this is pre-recession. Take Sweden, a country the report loves to take digs at. They are acclerating out of the recession much faster than the US, and have had much higher rates of growth in the past couple years. See this, a ranking of every country by GDP growth, and Sweden far and away outranks the US:http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sw&v=66
For Swedish growth rates over time, see: http://www.indexmundi.com/sweden/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

and @Fasces, the points I don't agree with:
--"our healthcare is better than Obamacare"; I support a government backed, universal single-payer system.
--"I don't think social equality is a good thing". And I do, at least up to a point.
I should have said that I disagree with some of what you said, not that I disagree with you generally.

Looking back, it's clear that the beginning of the last decade was part of a financial bubble, which (when it collapsed) shook the global financial system. The US and the Eurozone are both struggling to recover from the collapse, though for different reasons. And, apparently, it's high-tax Sweden that gets the last laugh.

@Mosh - Then you *don't* support Obamacare. Nothing about Obamacare is a government-backed single payer system. I still have health insurance provided through my employer, but now if I lose my job I have to pay the Cobra and then pick up private insurance despite being unemployed and not having the money to do so. No,m Obamacare is a Mongolian Cluster Fuck of the highest order and *not* a single payer government backed system in any way shape or form.

I think the Affordable Care Act is, on the whole, better than the null alternative. I think single-payer would be better, but I don't see America adopting such a system any time soon. I'm sorry if the ACA screwed you over, but it's very rare that something is good for _everyone_. Not that it makes things any better for you...

But hell, I'm just an 18-year old who's read some stuff. In five years, not only will everything I know be wrong, but everything I thought I knew will prove to have been wrong at the time. The only thing I can really say is "Teyku"; it's what the rabbis of the Talmud would say when they couldn't resolve an argument. It's an acronym, and means "The Tishbite (Elijah the Prophet) will resolve all questions and problems."

It didn't screw me over (I've got a job and very good insurance), but it could screw me or anyone else who becomes unemployed over by forcing them to buy insurance through an outrageously expensive COBRA plan then a personal plan after that or go 6 months without coverage (something beyond fucked up) just to qualify for the government's plan. Have you ever looked at the cost of COBRA? I just went through it (thankfully I had 20 grand in the bank to see us through the three months of unemployment) and it costs my household $900 every month. And forget about a personal plan because I'm a diabetic with a thyroid condition. I tried once in the past and was denied coverage as being to high of a risk.

You're 18 you say, so you probably read, but don't analyze every possible contingency or think about every age group affected by this MCF of a plan. I'd rather have universal healthcare than this, but what I'd really rather have is a cap on what is a reasonable rate and an alternative to anyone required to cover a plan above that cap without the 6 month waiting period.

Oh, and McCain's was an even worse plan because it offered alternatives to young and healthy folks so they could opt out of their company plans and leave those of us who were stuck in the company plan paying even higher premiums or losing coverage altogether because the company no longer had enough covered employees to maintain their discounted rates.

My wife's current employer's insurance rates were higher than the COBRA we decided not to take because it was ludicrously expensive, so thank god we have a doctor who will waive the very occasional office visit or her pneumonia in April would have had us living out of a box. As it was, we've had months of monetary touch and go.

The problem isn't healthcare. It's health insurance. Of course, the fact that people can sue doctor's for millions at the drop of a hat doesn't help things. But I don't think our hospitals and doctor's should take the blame laid on them all the time for this. Remove the "for profit" aspect to insurance (of all types) so that it is a pay into program to mitigate risk across a group of people and you would find insurance costs go down. Then remove the ability to sue for outrageous claims and offer doctors and hospitals the ability to sue back for false accusations and you would see the high instances of malpractice suits and ambulance chaser attornies drop, making it even more reasonable to get quality healthcare.

"So Fasces, I guess you don't understand that having good healthcare in your twenties when you don't need it and having a good education in your twenties isn't worth a damn if you economy provides jobs that pays peanuts because of high taxes and your standard of living is in the toilet. "
But thats the thing, its not in the toilet...

"The 48 page research study I gave a link to substantiates everything he said and goes far beyond.

The author of the New York Times peace anticipated your type of attitude in his closing sentence when he said that the misconception of Norway as a rich country won't be put to rest by a measly think-tank study or two. "
Cause there not facts, they are using accurate numbers to mislead the public.

"The important part of including cost of living in a discussion of Europe comes into play when European Welfare State advocates talk about Europe's mass transit which is functional only because of the dense population which drives up the cost of housing."
New York as public transit as well...

"Trying to compare Europe only to American cities ignores American's vast geographic expanse. Something that Europeans carrying out comparisons love to do, but ultimately makes their comparisons completely invalid.

That's exactly why pointing out that a poor American lives in a substantially larger abode than a middle-class European is perfectly relevant in those types of comparisons. "
I can guarentee you that the lower class in Europe is better off the the lower class in America.

"I'm all for ending subsidies.
Lets end the one to the farmers, the oil companies, and the home owners shall we."
End all of them. There is a bullshit lie that says government subsidies makes things cheaper, the opposite is the case.

First of all, it technically remains the same price, but we pay for it more in taxes then in actual paying, this misleads us into thinking prices are lower then they actually are and causes us to spend more then we should (US Housing Market 2008 is an example). Also second it actually raising prices. Because subsidies reduce competition, prices will be higher (after tax) then without subsidies.

Also subsidies violates the first law of economics. Economics is the way of deciding how scarce resources are sustainable divided among a population. However subsidizing it makes it unsustainable cause it drives down the (before tax) value to prices were we can't afford it.

Cutting subsidies would allow us to lower taxes and prevent big businesses from getting free cash. That way they would have to find ways to drag the prices down themselves.

"But all of this is pre-recession. Take Sweden, a country the report loves to take digs at. They are acclerating out of the recession much faster than the US, and have had much higher rates of growth in the past couple years. See this, a ranking of every country by GDP growth, and Sweden far and away outranks the US:http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sw&v=66
For Swedish growth rates over time, see: http://www.indexmundi.com/sweden/gdp_real_growth_rate.html"
Thats because of 2 reasons:
1. Obama
2. Right Wing countries generally have longer recessions but faster growths after the recessions...

"--"our healthcare is better than Obamacare"; I support a government backed, universal single-payer system. "
2 problems with that.
1. Obamacare is not Universal.
2. Canada's is. So you contradicted yourself saying Obamacare is better then universal healthcare because its universal. That makes no fucking sense.

"Looking back, it's clear that the beginning of the last decade was part of a financial bubble, which (when it collapsed) shook the global financial system. The US and the Eurozone are both struggling to recover from the collapse, though for different reasons. And, apparently, it's high-tax Sweden that gets the last laugh."
Thats because Sweden actually had semi-intelligent leaders. Rather then spending $3 for every $1 they earned like Obama and Bush, Sweden actually ran surpluses during the decade. That meant that going into the recession they had money. They lowered taxes and that increased spending and got them out.

Also Canada was the first country out :P (my source: Stephen Harper)

"@Mosh - Then you *don't* support Obamacare. Nothing about Obamacare is a government-backed single payer system. I still have health insurance provided through my employer, but now if I lose my job I have to pay the Cobra and then pick up private insurance despite being unemployed and not having the money to do so. No,m Obamacare is a Mongolian Cluster Fuck of the highest order and *not* a single payer government backed system in any way shape or form."
+1 Draug

"I think the Affordable Care Act is, on the whole, better than the null alternative. I think single-payer would be better, but I don't see America adopting such a system any time soon. I'm sorry if the ACA screwed you over, but it's very rare that something is good for _everyone_. Not that it makes things any better for you..."
NONONONONONONONO! Affordable health care put a strain on corporations by forcing them to provide, as a result they cut wages and forced insurance companies to raise their prices. It completely backfired as the average person in America is now paying more for healthcare then pre-Obamacare.

"The problem isn't healthcare. It's health insurance. Of course, the fact that people can sue doctor's for millions at the drop of a hat doesn't help things. But I don't think our hospitals and doctor's should take the blame laid on them all the time for this. Remove the "for profit" aspect to insurance (of all types) so that it is a pay into program to mitigate risk across a group of people and you would find insurance costs go down. Then remove the ability to sue for outrageous claims and offer doctors and hospitals the ability to sue back for false accusations and you would see the high instances of malpractice suits and ambulance chaser attornies drop, making it even more reasonable to get quality healthcare."
Or America could do it like everyone else. Not have health insurance... It works perfectly in Europe (oh wait I am not allowed to mention Europe in this)

@Fasces - The problem is shutting down a whole sector of for profit companies would result in massive layoffs and trash our economy even further. That's why we can't even do what I suggest. This has to be a gradual change by enforcing maximum profit margins like the feds did with the banks some years back, and gradually turning those for profit insurance companies into something similar to a credit union. We'll call it an insurance union for lack of a better term. Then maybe, eventually, we could look at the feds slowly supplementing the insurance unions until they were fullt funded and folded into a universal healthcare plan. But it sin't an overnight thing and Obamacare isn't going to get us there.