Washington Post Goes Full MAGA in Defense of the Wealthy?

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,655
3,828
113
Today's opinion from the Editorial Board - which I take to mean it's the official WaPo position - is insidious. It leads off with 3 specious claims, and then "backs them up" with sometimes good, sometimes misleading statistics and pretty graphs.

Here are the first 2 paragraphs containing the 3 MAGA-like straw men:

Americans look longingly at Europe, where many countries have relatively high social spending, and dream of bringing that system to the United States. U.S. politicians, aware of this desire, campaign on two falsehoods.

First, that the U.S. government does not already spend massively on pensions and health care. Second, that the only obstacle to bringing a European-style welfare state to the U.S. is a lack of taxes on the rich.

Here's the link for those who want to dig deeper. As I said, some of the graphs are pretty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e-states-inevitably-raise-taxes-middle-class/
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,655
3,828
113
Pay wall

And our federal govt spends more per capita for health care than Canada does. They cover everyone.
Sorry about the pay wall but those 2 paragraphs make clear the Editorial Board's intent.

Most of the rest focuses on how much tax gets taken across different countries, but almost entirely ignores what citizens get for their taxes.

The argument more-or-less boils down to "EU taxes are higher; higher taxes are bad; that's all you need to know."
 

Rastafarian

All-Conference
Aug 21, 2025
1,266
1,799
113
Here it is. Eff Bozos.


Americans look longingly at Europe, where many countries have relatively high social spending, and dream of bringing that system to the United States. U.S. politicians, aware of this desire, campaign on two falsehoods.
First, that the U.S. government does not already spend massively on pensions and health care. Second, that the only obstacle to bringing a European-style welfare state to the U.S. is a lack of taxes on the rich.
The reality is more complicated, and growing America’s tax wedge brings serious risks in and of itself.
Some of the other wealthy countries in the world do indeed have more robust safety nets than America. Yet they don’t rely on narrow taxes on their most wealthy citizens; rather, they’re financed by broad levies on the middle class. And as rising defense spending squeezes national budgets, those already high taxes are rising.
Average tax rates on wages rose for the fourth consecutive year across the majority of the 38 countries that comprise the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). An average earner faced a tax burden of 35.1 percent in 2025, the highest level in a decade, according to a recent OECD report.

The tax wedge for a single worker reached its highest level in a decade​

Average tax wedge as percentage of labor costs

Single
worker

One-
earner married couple with two children

Two-
earner married couple with two children



Source: OECD Taxing Wages 2026 (Figure 1.1)



The leaders of too many OECD countries have overpromised, and now they’re targeting income because it’s easy to tax and guaranteed to bring in consistent revenue. Some countries have avoided increasing tax rates, but by not adjusting income thresholds to reflect inflation, they drag more workers into higher brackets.
Doing this is not free of consequences. The OECD report finds that the tax wedge grew in 24 countries compared with 2024, contracted in 11 and held steady in three. In 13 of the countries where the tax wedge grew, it was a direct result of a rising personal income tax as a percentage of labor costs.
Of the 11 countries where the tax wedge fell, nine cut their personal income taxes, including Australia, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Sweden and the United States.
The United Kingdom suffered the largest rise in taxes between 2024 and 2025 after the country increased its jobs tax.

In 9 of 11 OECD countries with a declining tax wedge, the drop was driven by lower income taxes​

Percentage point change from 2024 to 2025
Country
ANNUAL CHANGE OF TAX WEDGE
ANNUAL CHANGE OF INCOME TAX
Australia
−1.67
−1.7
Latvia
−1.44
−1.44
Italy
−1.21
−1.21
Ireland
−0.63
−0.79
Denmark
−0.41
−0.48
Sweden
−0.37
−0.37
Portugal
−0.24
−0.24
Greece
−0.16
0.54
United States
−0.09
−0.08
Norway
−0.07
0.02
Iceland
−0.05
−0.04
Source: OECD Taxing Wages 2026 (Table 1.1)



The U.S. helps pull down the OECD average. America’s tax wedge is the lowest of all advanced economies in the Group of Seven.
Households with children are squeezed harder than singles on average across the OECD. The difference in the tax wedge for a one-earner household with two children versus a single household fell to 8.9 percentage points, from a pandemic-peak of 10 percentage points in 2021. This shows a reduced tax advantage for families.
The U.S., however, is particularly generous when it comes to fiscal breaks for one-earner families. When an average American family received an extra $1 in wages, they kept 9.3 cents more of it than a single-earner household did.
But not all parents are treated equally. A single parent with two children in America earning 67 percent of the average wage loses half of any pay raise they get at work due to higher taxes and reduced benefits.

For low-income single parents, a raise pays less than expected​

After a $1 increase in gross labour costs, how much reaches a single parent with two children earning two-thirds of the average wage, after higher taxes and reduced benefits


Canada

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

United Kingdom

United States

OECD-EU 22

OECD-Average

Source: OECD Taxing Wages 2026 (Table 3.9)



It’s also worth noting that about half of federal spending in the U.S. goes to pensions and health care. Despite spending like some European countries, America keeps taxes low by running deficits.
Being the global reserve currency helps hide fundamental problems with this arrangement, but America’s relatively low tax regime is not sustainable if politicians don’t get sober about spending. The U.S. national debt, over $39 trillion, has surpassed 100 percent of gross domestic project, an ignominious milestone.
The spending addiction risks undercutting the rewards of economic policies that America is getting right. Last year, real wages rose 1.2 percent and post-tax income rose 4 percent. In simple terms, this means Americans are earning and keeping more of their own money.
Economic growth can help alleviate fiscal pressures, and lower tax rates lead to higher growth.

Americans’ wages increased as average tax rates declined​

Annual percentage change in 2025
Country
CHANGE OF WAGE BEFORE TAX
CHANGE IN TAX RATE
Canada
−0.2%
−0.2%
France
0.5%
0.3%
Germany
2.8%
3.3%
Italy
1.6%
−5.3%
Japan
−0.3%
2.2%
U.K.
2.8%
5.5%
U.S.
1.2%
−0.4%
Change of wage is adjusted for inflation. Tax rate is based on the personal average tax rate of the average worker (single without children).
Source: OECD's Taxing wages 2026 report (Table 1.7)



See how much of their earnings people could keep based on family size and income level across developed countries.

Select a household type
Single
No children
Single parent
2 children
Married
2 children
Married
No children
Select an income level
Lower income
67% of avg. wage
Typical
100% of avg. wage
Higher income
167% of avg. wage
Household income at this level: $73,520 (100% of U.S. avg. wage)
Due to data limitations, a standard set of household types and income levels is used to compare countries consistently.

Share of labor costs not taken home, 2000-2025​


How much of what employers pay doesn’t reach the pocket of your chosen household?​


How much would be taken out of the next $1 raise of your chosen household?​


Where does each dollar of compensation from employers go?​

Total labor cost: $79,466
Take-home $55,644
Income tax $12,278Employee social security contribution $5,661Employer social security contribution $5,946

How much is the take-home income for the same household across the G7 countries and EU?​

This chart uses Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) dollars as a currency unit to real living standards across countries.

* EU22 includes 22 countries in the European Union
Source: OECD's Taxing Wages 2026 report
 

Rastafarian

All-Conference
Aug 21, 2025
1,266
1,799
113
Odd that a paper owned by bozos is preaching the dangers of taxing the rich, but not the need to cut all the corporate tax breaks, loopholes, and lost tax revenue due to irs understaffing. It’s almost as if he only cares about himself.


From Claude, but when most discuss government expenses, they miss the forgone revenue from tax credits to corporations and individuals.

Vote buying happens on both sides, it just looks different. Would be nice if we actually had a system that made everyone pay what they should pay, as well as making any social service program much more efficient. Oh, and we have about $700B each year that goes uncollected due to shortages in the IRS, about 10% of our budget.


Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of FY 2024 federal spending (~$6.9 trillion total), layered with subsidies and tax expenditures:

Total Federal Spending: ~$6.9 trillion
Core Program Spending
∙ Health programs (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, ACA): ~$1.7 trillion (24% of budget) 
∙ Social Security: ~$1.5 trillion (21%) 
∙ Defense: ~$872 billion (13%) 
∙ Net interest on debt: ~$892 billion (13%) 
∙ Veterans & federal retirees: ~$526 billion (8%) 
∙ Economic security programs (food, housing, other hardship aid): ~$476 billion (7%) 
∙ Remaining discretionary (education, infrastructure, etc.): ~$900 billion

Tax Expenditures (“Spending Through the Tax Code”): ~$1.9 trillion
This is the big one people often miss. The federal government collected $3.0 trillion in individual and corporate taxes in 2024, while simultaneously generating $1.9 trillion in tax breaks — exceeding the size of Social Security, Medicare, defense, or any other single program. 
Individual tax expenditures: ~$1.7 trillion, including:
∙ Reduced rates on dividends and capital gains: $237 billion (the single largest individual tax break) 
∙ Retirement accounts (401k, defined benefit, IRAs): ~$415 billion combined 
∙ Child Tax Credit: ~$120 billion 
∙ ACA premium tax credits: ~$80 billion 
∙ Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): ~$73 billion 
∙ Pass-through business income deduction (QBI): ~$59 billion 
∙ Mortgage interest, charitable deductions, employer health insurance exclusions, and others
Corporate tax expenditures: ~$188 billion, including:
∙ Reduced rates on income from foreign corporations: $57 billion (largest corporate tax break) 
∙ IRA-related credits for clean energy, semiconductors, EVs, etc.
∙ About $20 billion in IRA tax credits were traded between companies in 2024 via transferability 

Direct Corporate Spending Subsidies: ~$181 billion
Direct corporate welfare spending for 2024 totaled approximately $181 billion , covering agriculture (farm subsidies), Amtrak, Export-Import Bank, SBA loans, energy subsidies, and more. This is separate from the tax expenditure figure above.

The “Hidden Budget” Summary



|Category |~Amount |
|---------------------------------------|----------|
|Core mandatory programs |~$4.4T |
|Defense + discretionary |~$1.8T |
|Net interest |~$0.9T |
|**Tax expenditures (individuals)** |**~$1.7T**|
|**Tax expenditures (corporations)** |**~$188B**|
|**Direct corporate spending subsidies**|**~$181B**|

The key insight: tax expenditures are often called “spending in disguise,” because lawmakers use the tax code to direct subsidies to specific constituencies — and they generally receive far less scrutiny than direct spending programs since most don’t require annual review or reauthorization. 
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,153
4,559
113
Today's opinion from the Editorial Board - which I take to mean it's the official WaPo position - is insidious. It leads off with 3 specious claims, and then "backs them up" with sometimes good, sometimes misleading statistics and pretty graphs.

Here are the first 2 paragraphs containing the 3 MAGA-like straw men:



Here's the link for those who want to dig deeper. As I said, some of the graphs are pretty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e-states-inevitably-raise-taxes-middle-class/
honestly don't want to spend a lot of time reading/rehashing all the discussions on taxes...but since you've read it, other than the conclusions that you posted - and apparently don't agree with - do the charts seem realistic/honest? I think most of us realize that taxes, in general, are higher in OCED countries, and benefits are, in general, more available. But isn't that our debate in the US especially as laid out by politicians like Bernie Sanders, AOC and others? A big difference is that those leaders here want to solve the problems simply by taxing billionaires and they sort of gloss over the higher tax rates in the OCED countries at just about every income level. Who knows, there might well be a middle ground somewhere in this debate.

I'm only reading what Rastafarian posted, but couple of things stand out to me...the really high tax on singles, no wealth tax, our deficits/debt are not sustainable, and for sure tax rates in OCED countries is higher than in the US.

Our major problems in the cost of living area are healthcare and housing..and as we discussed yesterday, we don't seem interested in solving these.
Sorry about the pay wall but those 2 paragraphs make clear the Editorial Board's intent.

Most of the rest focuses on how much tax gets taken across different countries, but almost entirely ignores what citizens get for their taxes.

The argument more-or-less boils down to "EU taxes are higher; higher taxes are bad; that's all you need to know."
if that's what it concludes, I don't agree...higher taxes are not all bad...in fact we've had higher taxes - across just about every income level and done quite well. It's the use of the taxes that determines good or bad taxes, IMO. And, again IMO, somewhere in the future tax rates are going to go up...
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,655
3,828
113
Odd that a paper owned by bozos is preaching the dangers of taxing the rich, but not the need to cut all the corporate tax breaks, loopholes, and lost tax revenue due to irs understaffing. It’s almost as if he only cares about himself.


From Claude, but when most discuss government expenses, they miss the forgone revenue from tax credits to corporations and individuals.

Vote buying happens on both sides, it just looks different. Would be nice if we actually had a system that made everyone pay what they should pay, as well as making any social service program much more efficient. Oh, and we have about $700B each year that goes uncollected due to shortages in the IRS, about 10% of our budget.


Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of FY 2024 federal spending (~$6.9 trillion total), layered with subsidies and tax expenditures:

Total Federal Spending: ~$6.9 trillion
Core Program Spending
∙ Health programs (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, ACA): ~$1.7 trillion (24% of budget) 
∙ Social Security: ~$1.5 trillion (21%) 
∙ Defense: ~$872 billion (13%) 
∙ Net interest on debt: ~$892 billion (13%) 
∙ Veterans & federal retirees: ~$526 billion (8%) 
∙ Economic security programs (food, housing, other hardship aid): ~$476 billion (7%) 
∙ Remaining discretionary (education, infrastructure, etc.): ~$900 billion

Tax Expenditures (“Spending Through the Tax Code”): ~$1.9 trillion
This is the big one people often miss. The federal government collected $3.0 trillion in individual and corporate taxes in 2024, while simultaneously generating $1.9 trillion in tax breaks — exceeding the size of Social Security, Medicare, defense, or any other single program. 
Individual tax expenditures: ~$1.7 trillion, including:
∙ Reduced rates on dividends and capital gains: $237 billion (the single largest individual tax break) 
∙ Retirement accounts (401k, defined benefit, IRAs): ~$415 billion combined 
∙ Child Tax Credit: ~$120 billion 
∙ ACA premium tax credits: ~$80 billion 
∙ Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): ~$73 billion 
∙ Pass-through business income deduction (QBI): ~$59 billion 
∙ Mortgage interest, charitable deductions, employer health insurance exclusions, and others
Corporate tax expenditures: ~$188 billion, including:
∙ Reduced rates on income from foreign corporations: $57 billion (largest corporate tax break) 
∙ IRA-related credits for clean energy, semiconductors, EVs, etc.
∙ About $20 billion in IRA tax credits were traded between companies in 2024 via transferability 

Direct Corporate Spending Subsidies: ~$181 billion
Direct corporate welfare spending for 2024 totaled approximately $181 billion , covering agriculture (farm subsidies), Amtrak, Export-Import Bank, SBA loans, energy subsidies, and more. This is separate from the tax expenditure figure above.

The “Hidden Budget” Summary



|Category |~Amount |
|---------------------------------------|----------|
|Core mandatory programs |~$4.4T |
|Defense + discretionary |~$1.8T |
|Net interest |~$0.9T |
|**Tax expenditures (individuals)** |**~$1.7T**|
|**Tax expenditures (corporations)** |**~$188B**|
|**Direct corporate spending subsidies**|**~$181B**|

The key insight: tax expenditures are often called “spending in disguise,” because lawmakers use the tax code to direct subsidies to specific constituencies — and they generally receive far less scrutiny than direct spending programs since most don’t require annual review or reauthorization. 
So basically we give away around $2 trillion in subsidies?

I'm not saying all subsidies are bad, but are you effing kidding me?
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,655
3,828
113
honestly don't want to spend a lot of time reading/rehashing all the discussions on taxes...but since you've read it, other than the conclusions that you posted - and apparently don't agree with - do the charts seem realistic/honest? I think most of us realize that taxes, in general, are higher in OCED countries, and benefits are, in general, more available. But isn't that our debate in the US especially as laid out by politicians like Bernie Sanders, AOC and others? A big difference is that those leaders here want to solve the problems simply by taxing billionaires and they sort of gloss over the higher tax rates in the OCED countries at just about every income level. Who knows, there might well be a middle ground somewhere in this debate.

I'm only reading what Rastafarian posted, but couple of things stand out to me...the really high tax on singles, no wealth tax, our deficits/debt are not sustainable, and for sure tax rates in OCED countries is higher than in the US.

Our major problems in the cost of living area are healthcare and housing..and as we discussed yesterday, we don't seem interested in solving these.

if that's what it concludes, I don't agree...higher taxes are not all bad...in fact we've had higher taxes - across just about every income level and done quite well. It's the use of the taxes that determines good or bad taxes, IMO. And, again IMO, somewhere in the future tax rates are going to go up...
I found some of the charts interesting but mostly a deflection from the main issue.
 

Scrubby

Heisman
Jul 2, 2025
8,517
11,154
113
Pay wall

And our federal govt spends more per capita for health care than Canada does. They cover everyone.
Thanks Obama..

Canadian Healthcare is terrible BTW. Why do you think rich Canadians come to america for procedures? If you don't want to wait 18 months for basic services they will recommend you kill yourself. Seriously.. they are already approaching 100,000 "medically" assisted deaths in Canada now. Dystopian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riveting

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,491
4,415
113
So basically we give away around $2 trillion in subsidies?

I'm not saying all subsidies are bad, but are you effing kidding me?
Which subsidies are you upset about? This list says $1.9 trillion with $1.7 trillion going to individuals and $0.2 trillion going to businesses.
  • People being able to deduct mortgage interest?
  • Child credits?
  • ACA premium tax credits?
  • Earned income tax credits?
Very few of these things go to high earners.
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,655
3,828
113
Which subsidies are you upset about? This list says $1.9 trillion with $1.7 trillion going to individuals and $0.2 trillion going to businesses.
  • People being able to deduct mortgage interest?
  • Child credits?
  • ACA premium tax credits?
  • Earned income tax credits?
Very few of these things go to high earners.
As I said, not all subsidies are bad.

I read a couple of years ago that we give $79 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. Probably higher now. We could start with those.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,491
4,415
113
As I said, not all subsidies are bad.

I read a couple of years ago that we give $79 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. Probably higher now. We could start with those.
What fossil fuel subsidies are you talking about? Some people complain about things like depletion allowance but to me that's mostly just allowing an oil company to write off their investment. I read that companies have been got tax credits for carbon capture projects in the inflation reduction act. I also read that the BBB provided $40 billion in new subsidies for intangible drilling costs but that's only $4 billion per year out of the $1.9 trillion mentioned. I also think this is mostly a timing benefit (write off the cost in year one instead of over time).
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,655
3,828
113
What fossil fuel subsidies are you talking about? Some people complain about things like depletion allowance but to me that's mostly just allowing an oil company to write off their investment. I read that companies have been got tax credits for carbon capture projects in the inflation reduction act. I also read that the BBB provided $40 billion in new subsidies for intangible drilling costs but that's only $4 billion per year out of the $1.9 trillion mentioned. I also think this is mostly a timing benefit (write off the cost in year one instead of over time).
I'd ditch all fossil energy subsidies. It's a mature industry and still needed, but is increasingly more harmful than beneficial. Exceptions might be justifiable, but rare.

I'd also nationalize all reserves and only lease drilling rights that are in the clear national interest. Eliminating the depletion issue.
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
6,153
4,559
113
I'd ditch all fossil energy subsidies. It's a mature industry and still needed, but is increasingly more harmful than beneficial. Exceptions might be justifiable, but rare.

I'd also nationalize all reserves and only lease drilling rights that are in the clear national interest. Eliminating the depletion issue.
depletion allowance has been an issue since I was in college in the '60s. The oil companies write off their asset. The comparison used then was the equivalent of the depreciation allowance allowed for basic equipment, rental properties etc.

Now I don't know if people see it the same today....but I can see a point to an allowance for using up an asset.

In the case of renewables, companies are allowed to write off their wind turbines, solar panels as they are, just like pumped oil, tangeable assets

I'm sure there are opposite viewpoints in the accounting world, I just don't know what they are.
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
34,655
3,828
113
depletion allowance has been an issue since I was in college in the '60s. The oil companies write off their asset. The comparison used then was the equivalent of the depreciation allowance allowed for basic equipment, rental properties etc.

Now I don't know if people see it the same today....but I can see a point to an allowance for using up an asset.

In the case of renewables, companies are allowed to write off their wind turbines, solar panels as they are, just like pumped oil, tangeable assets

I'm sure there are opposite viewpoints in the accounting world, I just don't know what they are.
If the fossil energy assets belong to the public, fossil energy companies can no longer write them off. They can, of course, still write down their equipment, just as renewable companies can.

Needless to say, nationalizing those assets is a pipe dream. It may be necessary to save us from catastrophic climate change, but it's presently a non-starter in this country.
 

Anon1750875978

Heisman
Dec 26, 2018
7,242
12,555
113
To summarize...first Trump pressured CBS ownership on Steven Colbert.

Now, he's tailored some legislation in favor of big corporations, aka Bezos, to get favorable print media with the Post.

Yep...nothing nefarious going on here!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Riveting