The middle class is basically paying for the rich and poor and they don't have money to spend on the economy. We can't support our companies because their products are actually more expensive than outside products (companies pay a lot of taxes too).

It's more than known by every good economist that overtaxing isn't good for any economy.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_annual_labor...

And in all the countries the middle class pays for the rich and poor... unfortunately.

Something like tax rates statistics wouldn't tell you whether those taxes are actually paid - but tax revenue statistics do exactly this.

Imagine a person in Portugal has a 1000€ salary, and the state takes 40%, the person has 600€ to live.

A person in Germany gains 3000€, the state takes 60%, the person has 1200€, double the Portuguese.

Cost of living in Germany is higher, but not twice that much. And the cost of living already factors in some taxes, such as VAT, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Hm...that's a good point actually - net PPP-adjusted household displosable income is definitely lower in Portugal: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/

The US is largely socialism and profits for the corporations and free market absolutism and costs for the working poor.

Doesn't seem like it to me.

These kinds of statements don't really add much to the debate - they sound like political slogans. To add to some light instead of just heat to the discussion, it is better to explain what you are saying. How are you defining poor? What tax rate do you think this group should pay? What tax rate do you think corporations should pay? How does that compare with other countries? etc.

(I don't mean to single out this particular posting, as I have seen political slogans used throughout this thread.)

The actual taxes paid aren't as important as the incentives they create.

Ding-ding-ding - you hit the nail on the head! The US' competitive advantage and special position in the world, including all those fortune 500 companies, doesn't come from its special adherence to laissez-faire capitalism, it comes from other historic advantages. The supply-side trickle-down cult didn't start until the 70's and incidentally real median purchasing power in the US has been in decline ever since.

> Debunked where? Here's a random paper I found

Here's a very non-random book I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...

Also, do I really need to remind you that correlation is not the same as causation?

According to Wikipedia, that book makes the argument that economic equality will grow over time. It doesn't show that countries with more economic freedom grow slower. To copy from the "Criticisms" section of that wiki page:

" According to Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf, he merely assumes that inequality matters, but never explains why. He only demonstrates that it exists and how it worsens.[36] Or as his colleague Clive Crook put it: "Aside from its other flaws, Capital in the 21st Century invites readers to believe not just that inequality is important, but that nothing else matters. This book wants you to worry about low growth in the coming decades not because that would mean a slower rise in living standards, but because it might ... worsen inequality." "

>Also, do I really need to remind you that correlation is not the same as causation?

Indeed, fortunately we also have economic models suggesting such a relationship should exist so it's not just blind correlation.

Meta-comment: I find this style of argument (make one claim, have the claim debunked, make a different claim and say "see I was right") to be very annoying, and I wouldn't mind if it disappeared from HN.

I will very happily argue for any of the points I've made, and I promise not to change topics and stay with a single point as long as is needed.