Comment of the week

Two quick thoughts:

1) For many rich folks, taxes in the US are already higher those in Germany.

Federal income tax (35%), state income tax (10.3%), payroll tax (15%). That's 60%, but the state income tax is deductible, so call it 55%.

Germany's top tax rate is only 45%.

2) You can't move to another country to avoid paying US taxes. As a US citizen, you are bound to pay US taxes regardless of where you live. If you renounce your citizenship and move out, you must continue paying US taxes - as a non citizen and non resident - for I believe ten years.

3) The original poster is of course utterly correct - why bother working when you only get to keep half - or less. When it comes to passing money on to your family - evidently and important goal for the original poster - the effective marginal rate is about 75%, since the inheritance tax takes half as well.

Methinks is right on. I have had a similar situation for the last 20 years.

I've done a lot of rewarding things- working in inner city schools, coaching youth sports, and helping develop an innovative new part-time school model.

What I haven't done is paid hardly any taxes for these 20 years or created hundreds of new jobs like I did in the 80's.

Several years of paying mid six figure income tax bills convinced me that the marginal utility of earning over a million dollars a year just wasn't that great. The biggest difference in lifestyle for me between the big dollar days and now is having to fly commercial- but I don't need to travel much anyway.

I'm not sure how you could get empirical evidence. I don't think Methinks or myself are that unusual. I don't think making big money is that interesting to those who have already done it so why bother if a huge chunk goes to the government.

You can't move to another country to avoid paying US taxes.

That's true for earned income, but if you stop earning income, or put you money in muni bonds....

Consider how Americans migrate within the U.S. It is only one measure of economic freedom but states without personal income taxes (or v. low top rates) tend to be faster growing than their neighbors. I'm thinking NH vs. VT, FL & TX vs. most states, SD and WA have strong economies too. The exception of course is the NYC area (NY,CT,NJ). There must be many studies on the determinants of state growth which speak to the impact of marginal tax rates.

I wonder what proportion of successful entrepreneurs are willing to emigrate to lower tax countries-Australia and Singapore are good options. The IRS owns you as long as you hold a U.S. passport though. I imagine reduced work hours and risk taking will be a more common response. Until things get really bad.

Perhaps the worst impact will be driving would be immigrants away (EB5 greencard program).

"Consider how Americans migrate within the U.S. It is only one measure of economic freedom but states without personal income taxes (or v. low top rates) tend to be faster growing than their neighbors. I'm thinking NH vs. VT, FL & TX vs. most states, SD and WA have strong economies too. The exception of course is the NYC area (NY,CT,NJ). There must be many studies on the determinants of state growth which speak to the impact of marginal tax rates."

Yes. And they've all bee used to confirm that Federal control is the only solution. If the Feds don't homogenize tax rates, the resulting competition will create transparency -- and that cannot be good.

I am not sure what the effect of increasing top marginal tax rates is on the behaviors of the high earners. I don't really care. What matters is their effect on the economy as a whole.

The historical evidence, for example, is not consistent with the belief that taxes have a large effect on economic growth. There is no clear link between periods of low taxes and high growth. The strongest period of growth in U.S. history was the 1960s — when the top marginal rate was 70 percent or higher. More recently, as discussed below, economic growth in the 1990s was quite strong, despite the 1993 increase of the top marginal tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent.

More recently George W Bush made dramatic tax cuts benefiting mostly the very wealthy. (I think totaling over 1 or 2 trillion dollars). Hows that worked for us? Heck how has it worked out for the high income earners? Methinks are you gonna pay less taxes this year because of the tax cuts or because of decreased wages? Most of that wealth is hidden in off-shore accounts or these people have moved to Dubai.

So if people like methinks leave because we jack the highest tax rates up... we won't miss them a bit because they'll be plenty of people to fill their shoes and the evidence suggest the economy for everyone else will get better.

Russ -

I made this video that is related to this topic. I know the math is flexible based on whether Obama uncaps payroll / social security taxes.

What people do not understand is that if you are a small business, the work decision is not about whether you work another hour, it is whether you hire another worker or open another location or office.

The marginal income I make off that worker or location is taxed at near 50%, yet I still own all the risk.

If the casino charged a 50% tax after every winning hand at blackjack they would quickly go out of business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66z5TDrwPxM

I can think of two 'Libertarian' solution as to why times like the '60s grew with high taxes:

1. There were plenty of tax loopholes that next to no one paid huge tax rates.

2. There were huge increases in productivity that more than made up for the tax rates. Nowadays taxes may be lower but the productivity is far lower. (It's same with computers - they were getting very fast very quickly in the '90s yet are slow changing in the '00s. (Partially due to components being at their physical limits and part due to the Law of Diminishing Returns - most people can use a five year old computer to do most of what they want to do.))

muirgeo -

Those top marginal tax rates (70%) only applied to a very small portion of taxpayers, and basically if you are that rich you just take your compensation in less taxable ways.

For example: a company car, stock options, deferred compensation plans. The end up with perks and income that gets taxed agains the cap gains tax rate and not the income tax rate.

Under that scenario, all you have managed to do is distort decisions.

Back in the 1970s there was so much unproductive shenanigans going on. People would invest in shady real estate deals, but diamonds and weird metals.

Law firms were notoriously paternalistic. The book "The Firm" is in part based on the time when if you worked at a Law Firm they bought your house, your car, your wife's jewelry, your clothes, you went on vacation to company-owned properties. Basically, you were paid in shady perks. Your life was the firm and it was a way to dodge taxes.

That is incredibly distortionary.

Why on earth would you want people investing offshore accounts trading exotic metals that evade tax rules?

That is stupid when that clearly is an unproductive use of capital.

muirgeo -

I think the economic performance after 9/11 speaks for itself. The tech bubble in combination with 9/11 was a dramatic economic shock and the economy shrugged it off.

Up until 2007, the economy was fine. I love how the left portrays the Bush years as 8 years of economic torture.

He inherited an economic crisis just like Obama has. Then he got 9/11 which could have paralyzed commerce in ways equal to the banking crisis.

None of that happened. It did not even meet the technical definition of a recession because there was not 2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline (I know this is a crude definition, but it is the only technical definition that exists). NBER dating is quite subjective when you get down to it. There is no exact formula for their dating methods.

History is so easily lost on some people.

muirgeo -

You do realize that George Bush cut middle class taxes MUCH more than Obama will, right?

You do realize that he basically took the bottom 15% of taxpayers off the tax rolls entirely. It was a progressive tax cut. The right paid a much higher percentage of total taxes after the cut than before it.

Why do you not know any of this data? It is on the IRS web site.

Obama lied at least a dozen times during the campaign when he said we have not given tax cuts to the middle class.

It was an outrageous lie. Bill Clinton actually raised middle class taxes in subtle ways. Bush cut middle class taxes and eliminated lower class taxes.

It amazes me how few people actually go look at the data and treat soundbites as fact.

Really, you have to stop buying the talking points. Go look at the IRS data.

"The right paid a much higher percentage of total taxes after the cut than before it."

Should be "the rich" paid a much higher % of total taxes after the cut.

"So if people like methinks leave because we jack the highest tax rates up... we won't miss them a bit because they'll be plenty of people to fill their shoes and the evidence suggest the economy for everyone else will get better."

This is a rationalization. It neglects the fact that someone (or many) chose to pay for these people's skills. Talent is power. Replacing talent with lesser talent may provide a temporary sense of security to the political class, but it leads directly to the inefficiencies that plagued the socialist experiments of the 20th century.

Germany's top tax rate is only 45%

I don't believe that includes payroll taxes. It also doesn't include the "solidarity surcharge" of 5.5% or the 19% VAT.

I'll confess to learning everything I know about Germany's tax structure from thirty seconds on Wikipedia. The Wiki appears to say that Germany has no payroll tax - if that's not true, then it would certainly impact things.

And the VAT has less impact the more one earns... we are talking higher tax rates here, yes? Of course many states here in the US will have sales taxes near 10%. That's not 19%, but still...

And ultimately, either way, the US taxes are coming close at least. In my original post, it appeared that US taxes are 10% higher in some cases. If that's not the case, I don't believe high income Germans are paying significantly more than high income Americans...

You can't move to another country to avoid paying US taxes. As a US citizen, you are bound to pay US taxes regardless of where you live.

That used to be so. It is no longer the case as the law changed last year. I suspect it became too expensive to hunt down ex-pats.

Now, if you immigrate, you must pay a capital gains tax on worldwide assets above a certain amount at the time of immigration but you will owe no taxes after that. You must also pay another capital gains tax on any U.S. assets when you sell them. It is the most punitive immigration policy outside of the Soviet Union's (the Soviet Union did the same thing when we immigrated from there).

However, if your current accumulated assets are reasonably small compared to your future projected income, it's worth it at some income tax rate.

Muirgeo points out that the top marginal tax rate was much higher in the 1960's. Milton Friedman points out that loopholes and tax breaks made the effective tax rate for top earners about 23%. The tax restructuring program undertaken during the first Reagan administration traded loopholes and tax breaks for a lower top marginal tax rate. Now that those loopholes and tax breaks are gone, the effective rate is pretty close to the posted rate.

He then goes on to blather about offshore accounts, etc. The wealth that is already in tax-advantaged accounts doesn't matter because it's not being taxed at the top marginal rate today. What matters is how much more wealth will be pushed there instead of into wealth creating enterprises because that represents both lost economic activity and lost tax revenue against which the government has already written obligations.

When taxes were cut in the 1980's, economic activity grew substantially and so did tax receipts. Demand for tax advantaged assets and tax shelters fell. I'm pulling this from memory, but I believe Barro did the research.

Eloquence is the eye of the beholder. I do not find the rant eloquent. I find it delusional. As one who has indeed lived in a few countries, I know it is NOT "very easy" for ANYONE to get almost instant citizenship in any other country. Second, the reaction is not believable. The marginal tax rate will increase by 4-5%. What utility function (ok, not utility, say value system) justifies such a radical reaction?

"Yes, it's sustainable to raise taxes on the most productive. However, it's not sustainable at a high standard of living. It's sustainable only at ever decreasing standards of living. France and Germany are good examples."

I know it is a lot to ask that statements actually be supported by facts, but the German economy has grown 29% since 1991 and the French economy has grown 41% [data at european central bank website, real growth].

Professor Roberts: "What empirical evidence do we have about the responsiveness of high earners to tax rates? What is the reliability of that evidence?"

I'll keep searching as I find time to do so. Richard Vedders, professor of economics at Ohio State, wrote in 2005:

"My research shows 2,845,700 Americans moved into the 10 states with the overall lowest state and local tax burden in the 1990s, from other states. Meanwhile, there was a net out-migration of 2,151,300 from the 10 states with the highest tax burdens.

... While it is true many non-tax factors influence migration, more sophisticated econometric analysis confirms that, controlling for other factors, the negative tax-migration relationship exists"

I haven't seen Professor Vedder's research, but I'm pretty sure he's a reliable source.

To answer Russ's question about evidence on taxing the rich:

I published a paper over a year ago on individual state taxing the rich (using a dataset of baseball players). There are citations to other papers on taxing the rich in the introduction and literature review, most of which have been done by Slemrod or Goolsbee. Here is the link to my paper:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=891507#show1026120

Sorry, link redirects to the wrong place, here is the link to the paper:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract...>

gappy,

"What utility function (ok, not utility, say value system) justifies such a radical reaction?"

A line is crossed. How does an argument in a bar turn into a fight? How does a disagreement over house chores turn into a divorce? How does a disagreement over taxes turn into a revolution? Justification has nothing to do with it. Its a simple matter of crossing a line. The wise know where the lines are, but the Progressive political class is unwise.

More from Richard Vedder, via John R. La Plante of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy

"During the 1990s, the top 25 high-tax states experienced a relative decline in population, while the 25 lower-tax states saw a relative gain in population. The pattern continued through 2002 (the last year for which data were available).

Vedder calculated the tax burden imposed by each of the states. He found that a 1 percent increase in state-and-local tax burdens leads to an out-migration from a state of more than 150,000 people during a decade. When looking at why migration totals varied across states, he found that 46 percent — nearly half — of that variation was due to the tax burden.

gappy,

Every developed country has a wealth test for citizenship. It seems the wealthy are welcome everywhere. I didn't claim that it's easy to for ANYONE to obtain citizenship from another country. I said it's easy for the wealthy.

A 4-5% increase in the marginal tax rate may not encourage anyone to immigrate. But, a 4-5% increase in the top marginal tax rate will not be enough to meet the obligations government has created - particularly since the incomes of the top 2% have fallen more dramatically over the course of the economic downturn than for any other group. People's actions are based on expectations. Given the philosophical bent of the current administration, it is reasonable to assume that tax increases won't stop at 4-5 percentage points.

Also, as I mention, immigration is not the only way to avoid paying taxes. If you're smart enough to figure out how to make a lot of money (assuming you didn't just get lucky), then you're smart enough to figure out how to either legally avoid paying taxes and maximize your leisure time. In any case, the point is that the tax revenue you collect will not be the increase x current income because taxable income will decline as people at the margin choose to work less and shelter more.

Charlie: "the German economy has grown 29% since 1991"

That really had little to do with tax rates, did it? In late 1990, capitalist West Germany and and Communist East Germany were united. As East Germany's industry was privatized, and as the two halves of Germany removed trade barriers, the united economy of Germany very predictably flourished.

If you are arguing that privatizing a formerly Communist economy can offset the negative effect of high tax rates, I'm sure that few will disagree.

know it is a lot to ask that statements actually be supported by facts, but the German economy has grown 29% since 1991 and the French economy has grown 41% [data at european central bank website, real growth].

Great but irrelevant since the statement you're responding to is a claim that the standard of living, not GDP growth will be lower. Germany has been working to scale back socialist programs and lower income tax rates. France reversed most of Mitterand's 1980's socialist programs. Of course GDP grew.

That's not the point. The standard of living in Europe is lower than in the United States. Compare the PPP adjusted GDP/capita. Compare the size of houses, number of cars, and consumption of luxury goods such as air conditioning, washing machines and dishwashers. The Obama promise is that he can subsidize the current high standard of living by simply taking more from the producers under the fantastical assumption that producers don't respond to incentives.

"So if people like methinks leave because we jack the highest tax rates up... we won't miss them a bit because they'll be plenty of people to fill their shoes"

So there'll always be someone else to enslave... that is until John Galt convinces them not to let you... or that next one is you

Atlas Shrugged. I may not be in the top 2%, but I wish they would all do this. Bring some common sense to the world.

John Dewey,

Pick different dates, start at 1995 or 2000, you'll get the same results. Besides he picked the examples, I just checked the veracity of the claim.

-Methinks

"Great but irrelevant since the statement you're responding to is a claim that the standard of living"




Yes, Germany and France also consume more leisure and have better health outcomes than the U.S., which aren't reflected in GDP growth.

I know logic is hard, but please try to notice that this statement, "The standard of living in Europe is lower than in the United States. Compare the PPP adjusted GDP/capita" is logically different than this statement, "It's sustainable only at ever decreasing standards of living."

Also, while I would generally agree that living standards are higher in the U.S. than Europe, Norway has the highest GDP per capita in the world. The top marginal income tax rate is 47% and they have a 14% payroll tax. Facts are important, albeit I can also imagine they are ever so frustrating.

Charlie

Charlie, I would not confuse Germany's unemployment rate with a higher consumption of leisure. Saying people who can not find work are consuming more leisure is akin to saying a drowning man is consuming more water.

It is true that not all cultures have the same work patterns. In our company, the Americans often complain that the Europeans never get anything done, and the Asians call us slackers. What would be a better comparison for you Charlie is the tax rates of say S. Korea, Taiwan, Japan and the USA with GDP, growth and the like.

Charlie,

Norway is a tiny country with a high natural resource (oil) to population ratio and allows virtually no immigration, thus does not import poverty at the rate the United States does. I can see why you think facts are so bothersome. Your claim that Europeans have better health outcomes is as laughable as your claim that Europe consumes more leisure goods such as cars, dishwashers, air conditioning and washing machines.

If you're a fan of logic, let's think about this logically:

You (let you represent the government)promise to redistribute more money to maintain people's standard of living by raising my taxes. The incremental dollar is no longer worth earning (a subjective judgment). I (let me represent entrepreneurs) don't create it. You can't tax it. There's less to redistribute. You raise taxes again in an effort to make good on your promise and in the name of "fairness" or whatever. Another dollar is now no longer worth the time, energy and risk to earn. I don't earn it. You can't tax it. There's even less to redistribute. The side effect to me cutting down my business is that I won't need to employ as many people either directly or indirectly. Fewer people who wish to be employed will have employment opportunities and since there will be more of them relative to the number of jobs, those who are employed will have to accept a lower wage and the associated lower standard of living. The people to whom you promised to redistribute receive a smaller than promised distribution because you taxed a smaller amount of wealth. Their standard of living declines also.

The current obligations government has created cannot possibly be paid by tax increases on the top 2%. So, either the tax rates will have to be almost confiscatory on the top 2% (providing incentive to produce exactly nothing) or taxes will have to be raised on the people to whom the goodies were promised. Either way, the standard of living is coming down. The more promises of goodies at the expense of someone else, the less incentive to produce the goodies, the less goodies are produced, the more the standard of living has to come down.

As a fan of logic, point out the fallacy.

It is absurd to compare Norway to other countries. Norway is something like the 4th biggest oil exporter with a population of about 5 million. They could outlaw all non petrol related business and still have a sizable "output" simply by selling their oil to people who work.

It is not possible to copy Norway's approach. If it were then why are Sweden/ Denmark/Finland dismantling their welfare states? Why are the other Nordic countries so much less rich Norway?

Those that say this is only a 4-5% increase are missing the elimination of PEP and other deductions.

Not only does this raise taxable income, it raises the rate at which it is taxed.

He is also going to raise the payroll taxes cap dramatically which will be a HUGE tax increase.

How do you think he is going to do entitlement reform?

Uncapping payroll taxes for a small business owner is a 12% hit on that marginal income.

Now we are talking ~60% effective marginal rates at certain income ranges(including state and local). Who expands their business when their is a 60% tax on risk-taking?

SInce it is people like me, he talks about, who live in Europe (Germany and France), I'd like to respond.

Yes, you think about emigrating (at least your money), if taxes are too high. There are some billionaires who say they don't think about it, because they love their country and they believe in marxian redistribution, but they are less and less.

However, the "standard of living" in France and in Germany is pretty high compared to the US. Yes, you don't have all AC in your houses (but instead they are built with newer technology in mind). You are cared for in every way (public transportation, public health care with enough doctors for everyone etc.). Yes, there are other things that (especially entrepreneues) will hate, but the average joe six pack will not be touched by it.

So, I think for the majority it is no problem living in Europe (even to have halfed your wealth every 30 years or so is no problem), if you can:

a) go without guns

b) accept more beaurocracy but also more efficient

you get for it:

- painless living with a security net


- healthy food


- no stupid "no sex" bullshit


- drinking allowed with 16

So, you gotta choose =) So, actually, many rich folks decide that the latter count more for standard of living than the drawbacks and they stay, while they try to smuggle money to liechtenstein or into swiss banks (though that seems to be over).

Max,

The average Joe six pack in the united states is accustomed to his gun collection, can't imagine living without an air conditioner or a washer, dryer, and dishwasher. Healthy food is abundant but he doesn't care about it (it's a cultural issue, not an economic one). He is also accustomed to a 2,400 square foot house. What does your Joe six pack live in?

(BTW, I Used to live in Western Europe before ending up here)

I lost a filling in the UK some time ago; as a recent graduate on a student work visa, my only dental coverage was under the National Health. I had the filling replaced. It felt a little funny, but it was sound enough; no more pain, anyway. If I'd stayed there, I'm sure it would've been fine. But when I returned to the United States and went to a dentist for a checkup, she literally recoiled when I opened my mouth: "What is THAT?!"

Standard of living has its subjective aspects, I s'pose.

the average joe six pack will not be touched by it

The average joe six pack will be touched by it, when he realizes that a muffin and juice now cost $12 and a pizza is $25. Go to any European city these days and check out the prices of things. They are astonishingly high compared to the US, and not just in the central business districts. Don't forget $8/gallon gas and 15-20% VAT. Standard of living in Europe isn't lower just because of income.

"Either way, the standard of living is coming down...As a fan of logic, point out the fallacy."

It is actually very simple, you don't account for economic growth. Even if the money is totally wasted, the disincentive effects aren't large enough to trump the long run growth rate of the U.S. That is why Western Countries have grown despite many bad economic policies.

Think of it this way, a rubber ducky is sitting in the bath tub, while the bath tub is filling up, now slow down the water pouring in...the ducky still rises. Understand?

"It is not possible to copy Norway's approach."

When did I advocate copying Norway. I'm proving a statement false, this statement, "It's sustainable only at ever decreasing standards of living." To prove it false, I need one counterexample. I've given three. There are many more, like the U.S. in the 90s. Are there any examples? Are there any examples of a country growing, then raising its tax rates and then having a prolonged period of negative growth?

I think it is quite likely the converse is true. A country with a history of economic growth cannot possibly raise its tax rates high enough to have a long period of declining living standards. Obviously it is possible in an economic model, but in practice it may well be false for public choice reasons.

Your claim that Europeans have better health outcomes is as laughable as your claim that Europe consumes more leisure goods such as cars, dishwashers, air conditioning and washing machines."

First, please try to read carefully. I said leisure, not leisure good. Maybe it is not obvious to someone without an economics background, but economists think of a tradeoff between production and leisure. Pretend we were just looking at one person who works 40 hours per week and makes $40,000 per year. Suppose he decided to work 40 additional hours a week for $1. Is is "GDP" higher? Yes, one dollar higher. Is he better off? No, he has a lot less time for leisure activities. Thus, when I say leisure, I mean leisure, not leisure goods. The French and German work less hours than Americans do.

As far as health outcomes, we have a higher rate of infant mortality and lower life expetency at birth. [source] What supports your view that my claim is laughable?

Yes, Charlie. Now, I understand. I understand that you don't understand incentives and where growth comes from. I also now understand that you think a country with completely different economic drivers is a good predictor of what will happen here and I understand that you will simply obfuscate and ignore specific points that you find uncomfortable and resort to bathtub examples.

Thanks for playing.

The wealthy are more mobile than ever before. They will just leave. They will select a county of opportunity, for the moment, and use it. The US and EU - high tax and high regulation and are anachronisms trying to hang on.

This body of law and ideas is ideal to induce capital flight.

As far as health outcomes, we have a higher rate of infant mortality and lower life expetency at birth.

Not THIS canard again. The difference is in how infant mortality statistics are recorded. 500g preemies (which have a 50% mortality rate) are recorded as live births and then deaths in the United States. In Europe, they are recorded as fetal deaths. Americans are wealthier and can afford to avail themselves of fertility treatments which result in a higher incidence of multiple fetus pregnancies. Multiple fetus pregnancies result in more preemies. Both of these things increases the U.S. infant mortality statistic relative to European statistics.

Longevity is a poor comparative statistic for developed countries. First of all, Europe's lifespan is not longer by a statistically significant amount. Second, longevity is influenced by lifestyle and genetic factors completely outside of health care. Compare the obesity rates in Europe to the U.S.. for example.

I said leisure, not leisure good. Maybe it is not obvious to someone without an economics background...

Yes, I know what "leisure" is. Although I graduated before there was such a thing as the internet, I was an economics major and I still remember some things. I assumed you misread my comment since I didn't ask you to look at how much "leisure" Europeans consumed but how many "leisure goods". As for the consumption of "leisure", the Europeans don't have much choice in how much leisure to consume since they are not the ones making that trade off. I though Hammer dealt with that issue rather well. I'll repeat it since you don't seem to have read it:

Charlie, I would not confuse Germany's unemployment rate with a higher consumption of leisure. Saying people who can not find work are consuming more leisure is akin to saying a drowning man is consuming more water. - Hammer

Is it leisure when it's forced leisure? If a person would rather earn $1 but is forced to accept leisure, is he better off? How would someone with an economics background answer that?

The reason you decided to sidestep my question about leisure goods is because the answer is "a lot less" and that messes up your whole position. Yet, the promise Obama is making is that he will ensure that people will get EXTRA goodies at somebody else's expense. How can he ensure even the current standard of living for anyone when he provides incentive for their boss to fire them?

I realize you don't have a background in entrepreneurship, so you have no clue how much it actually costs to start and run a company and employ people, but if you want to test how sensitive entrepreneurs are to small tax increases then raise taxes and see what happens.

Obama's hope is that growth will recover by 2011, so the impact of tax increases will be muted and, even if the growth is slower than it otherwise would be, it'll be growth and he'll get credit for it in the next election. I'm surprised to see someone who claims to be an economist satisfied with that inefficiency. As an economist, you should also recognize that the the waste and inefficiencies created by government in Europe are a drag on the economy. Without that waste and inefficiency, they could grow even faster and have a higher standard of living.

Even if you tax the rich out of existence, the burden of taxation will always be borne by those who labor to create value.

"Not THIS canard again. The difference is in how infant mortality statistics are recorded. 500g preemies (which have a 50% mortality rate) are recorded as live births and then deaths in the United States"

You sure about that? I think you might be talking about neonatal mortality rate. But probably you are not because if you knew the difference you would understand a comparison of the two dispels the myth you perpetuate. You can also look at maternal mortality statistics to see the real difference in our health outcomes.

http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select.cfm

The problem is poverty and access to health care. We have more of the former and less of latter then any other developed nation.

The result of massive accumulations of wealth and of neglecting our poor is that babies, infant and mothers die more often in this country.

ok, cool. if you downsize your business, that's great for me who is trying to grow my business

Morongeo,

You sure about that? I think you might be talking about neonatal mortality rate. But probably you are not because if you knew the difference you would understand a comparison of the two dispels the myth you perpetuate.

Thanks for bringing that to our attention and once again illustrating for all in a public forum that you are a crap doctor - especially considering that you claim to be a pediatrician.

The death of a 500g preemie is recorded as a PERInatel death by Europeans, thus appearing in NEITHER neonatal nor infant death statistics.

The "infant mortality" statistic for the U.S. includes perinatal deaths which are not stillbirths in "infant mortality". and the Europeans don't. The WHO is aware of this issue and has been working to normalize the statistics.

Fortunately for me, I have not only an OBGYN but WHO doctors and epidemiologists in my family. In 2006, the WHO published a study which tried really hard to normalize the data. Although, they admit, they are still somewhat thwarted in that effort by (probably) politically motivated creative reporting. I suspect the least reliable statistics come from third world countries while developed countries did their best to adhere to WHO category definitions.

The study focused on neonatal mortality (within 4 weeks of birth) and perinatal mortality (fetal death and death within 1st week after birth). Here's what they found:

Intrapartum (go look that word up, Muirdiot) deaths per 1,000 were 1 in Europe and 0.3 in North America

Stillbirths, early neonatal and perinatal mortality was 21/1000 in N. America and 38/1000 in Europe. Larger in Europe! Although, I don't know if the difference is large enough to be statistically significant. The study, if I remember correctly, lumped Europe in with America and declared the morality rates too low to worry about.

This is the only study I know of that tries to account for differences in reporting statistics.

The report is available from the WHO. It's called Neonatal & Perinatal Mortality - Country, Regional, Global Estimates. Do avail yourself of this resource and try to wrap your mind around its implications - that the number of little babies who die in Europe is actually higher but not by a significantly high amount to make claims on the basis of baby deaths.

"Thanks for bringing that to our attention and once again illustrating for all in a public forum that you are a crap doctor -"

Methinks-

LOL. My father was a physcian as was his father, his uncle, his cousin, and his brother. All were private practice MD's and have for years railed against the general course of the profession over the last 40 years, ( my father is 80 and long retired now). Anyway I was talking with him at Christmas about Muirgeo's assertions about the medical profession these days and he said the very same thing, he's a crap doctor.