It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
What struck me about this analysis at The Conversation by Beverly Moran comparing various plans for taxing “the rich” was not the plans themselves but the eye-catching graphic attached to it, comparing the Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, of the United States with those of Spain, Luxembourg, France, etc.
Why those countries? By and large they’re ethnic states, relatively small, and geographically compact. The only thing we have in common with them is we’re rich. Why latch onto the tax system? Each of those countries also has an official language. Why not latch onto that difference?
Why not compare us with large diverse countries that are former colonies of European countries like, say, Brazil? We’re much more equal than Brazil. Or Mexico. Is it possible that such comparisons wouldn’t prove what they want to prove?
I want the people in the U. S. to be more equally economically and socially as they were up until about the time I graduated from college. IMO changes in the tax system are less significant in the developments since then than immigration, trade, and educational policies and taxing “the rich” without changing the other policies will not accomplish what their proponents believe they will. Invidious comparisons don’t help to make their case.
As I’ve pointed out before, a lot of those European countries have worse GINI coefficients before taxes and transfers are taken into account. So one could say they haven’t solved the problem of income inequality, they are just masking it with a more redistributive tax and benefits system than we have. And, given the fact that they generally have much more social and political cohesion than we do, none of that is surprising.
Comparisons to these other countries is also invidious because they don’t have full blown military budgets, which changes the tax and spend considerations. Subsidized entities have different worldviews.
IMHO you correctly identify immigration, trade and education policy as important GINI spread factors. To put a finer point on it. Immigration and managed trade pull down the traditional laborer. Education policy benefits the college professor and administrator class while pulling aspiring but incapable students 200 yrds behind the starting line. And for those capable, the return to education, knowledge and skills has increased over the last 5 decades.
Attempting to remediate those with taxes is the typical boneheaded proposal. If I was a cynic I’d imagine its all just ginned up rationale to get into peoples wallets…………….
First, European GINI numbers are given for individual countries, not the EU as a whole. If you look at the whole EU, its income inequality is substantially greater than the US, viz Luxembourg vs. Romania.
Second, all Europeans are poorer than Americans. I forget the exact number, but if the EU countries were states, every one of them would rank below all but 6 or so States in per cap income.
Third, America’s health care is ranked low by the UN simply because it isn’t socialized medicine, not because of inferior outcomes. In fact, American medical outcomes are better than that in many EU countries, for example cancer survival here is much better than in the UK. We spend more, and we get more.
The sad truth is that if our black population is factored out, the US looks like a northern European country (before the current invasions by Muslims and Africans) in just about every category: educational attainment, overall health, access to health care, violent crime, incarceration rates… Except income, where we are significantly richer.
Unfortunately, our corrupt, incompetent, treasonous, and largely alien Ruling Class is converting us into Brazil. Mexico would be preferable. California is practically Mexico now.
The GINI effect was created specifically to promote income redistribution. Period.