> "Comparisons of corporate tax rates should focus on the measures that reflect what companies actually pay, not the top statutory rate. Proponents of slashing the corporate tax rate often note the U.S. statutory tax rate is the highest among developed countries. But many U.S. companies use an array of targeted tax breaks and loopholes to significantly lower the taxes they pay. These include tax subsidies for certain types of investments (such as in research and development) and for particular industries (such as oil and gas).
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that in 2016, while the corporate income tax raised $300 billion in revenues, targeted subsidies delivered to companies through the corporate tax code cost about $270 billion. As a result of these subsidies and other tax avoidance measures, many large U.S. companies pay very low rates. For example, Pfizer paid a rate of about 7.5 percent on its $12 billion in worldwide pre-tax income in 2014. Studies generally also find that U.S. companies’ tax rates vary widely by industry and type of investment."
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/actual-us-corporat...
The former effective US corporate income tax rate, for all corporations, was higher than Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark's statutory rate.
The effective rate for the S&P 500 was higher than the statutory rate for Finland, Sweden, and comparable to Denmark. And that's for the elite of the elite of tax avoiding companies. eg:
"The average effective tax rate among S&P companies that had posted calendar fourth-quarter results as of Friday was 24.11 percent"
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/13/tax-cuts-sp-500-may-not-get-...
"The United States’ corporate tax ranks relatively high on all three measures [among the G20]. The U.S. has the highest statutory rate (39.1 percent), the third highest average effective tax rate (29 percent), and the fourth highest marginal effective tax rate (18.6 percent)."
https://taxfoundation.org/cbo-report-compares-us-corporate-t...
You can't use taxes paid as a percentage of revenue because it's meaningless. A retailer with a 3% profit margin would have a ~1% effective tax rate because 97% of their revenue goes to tax-deductible expenses.
But if you use taxes paid as a percentage of profit then you're not counting any of the tax avoidance, because the way international tax avoidance works is to shift profits to sister companies in other countries instead of the one with a high nominal tax rate.
FANG pays ~10% on income.
Our official capital gains is 20%; I have no idea what the effective rate is.
But I still regret attributing low wages solely to shifting tax burden. Labor glut is probably the biggest factor.
Though I do think automation will be biggest factor in the near future.
Healthcare is obviously dramatically expensive in the US, with per capita costs about twice that of the next highest spending nations. For most employed Americans, that ends up becoming a $5,000 to $10,000 'perk' in their compensation (which isn't counted in wage figures). If you make $50,000 at a full-time job (the median figure for full-time), you're liking getting a health insurance plan that is worth upwards of 10% of your salary.
Buffett likened healthcare costs to a monster that is eating the US economy. It's spot on. There's a trillion dollars per year there in excess costs, that if even half went into labor competition, would do wonders for giving wages a jolt at the median.
https://i.imgur.com/rNa2smF.gif
Which can be lined up with this chart, showing the extreme cost inflation in healthcare:
https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/8...
Those rates have very clearly not impeded their exceptionally high standards of living.