Marginal tax rates in California for top earners (including the medicare surcharge) are already about equivalent to France. 37% fed + 13.3% CA + 1.45% Medicare = 52%. Compared to France's 45% income + 7.5% social security taxes.

I’ve always observed that California has European tax rates on income. Is there a good understanding of why the outcomes are worse? I could imagine:

- Ineffective spending

- Lower taxes on wealth (i.e. non-income)

- Higher taxes on consumption

- Higher taxes in Europe on employers (i.e. non-personal income)

- Higher taxes on capital income

Do people have good resources to understand the relative source of discrepancy?

God that would be awful huh, having healthcare and decent public transportation systems

That isn't what would happen. Lack of funding is not the reason we don't have those things now.

I dunno. Seems like every time a public transportation system proposal pops up in my city, money is the number one thing they cite when they say “it’s just not feasible.” :shrug:

American infrastructure costs are an order of magnitude higher than the European comparable: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/07/29/the-us-leads-t...

That's because it costs a lot to build, because voters have made it difficult by passing strict zoning laws, because they don't want people to be allowed to build.

If the city did find the money, you would then see people opposing transit on the grounds of environmental impact, or noise, or crime, or the "character of the neighborhood". Then the lawsuits would start.

Right, we should never strive for beneficial public things because they're hard and people complain. Yes, this makes sense.

Yeah I'm sure you would be very happy to get services that exclusively other people are paying for. Who wouldn't? How about a broad tax increase on the middle class and above which would actually generate the revenue necessary to pay for these types of projects sustainably? Funny how when that gets suggested, support for public spending tends to evaporate.

I am okay with a broad tax increase on the middle class and above which would actually generate the revenue necessary to pay for these types of projects sustainably. I suspect the poster you're replying to would be as well.

Yeah, I would absolutely be okay with this if it meant i could legitimately get rid of my vehicle, ride transit reliably, reduce my emissions. It would probably mean a net decrease in my expenses.

The reduction in air pollution and traffic stress/accidents could possibly lead to subtle gains in public health and reduced strain on healthcare systems, as well!

Great, then we are all aligned. I am 100% in favor of building high quality public services as long as everyone is paying.

Super, when are we repealing Prop 13?

Adjusted for inflation the state budget has ~tripled in the last 20 years. How much healthcare and decent public transportation has it gotten us?

Not much, because private money has most of our state legislatures by the neck. it's a money problem, just not in the way that you're saying.

So then... how does more tax revenue help with the healthcare and public transportation you're talking about?

Depends on if you believe raising taxes will get you those things, or if the money will be squandered on inefficiency, large salaries for public servants, and corruption on your construction / maintenance contracts. So far, high taxes have worked out well for California. I've lived here the past 10 years and I'm looking around and not sure the money is well spent these days.

France's top marginal rate is 45%.

Well France is the master of all countries at taxation (they invented VAT, amongst many other kinds of taxes...). In particular when employing people, the employer has to pay employment taxes on top of the employee income (same as in the US, but at a much higher rate), and that is not subject to income tax, yet represents "cotisation sociales" (social contributions, i.e. retirement, unemployment, health taxes) that came on top of that.

Use this simulator : https://entreprise.pole-emploi.fr/cout-salarie/ and you'll see that for a 100 kEuro/year employee, what the employee sees is 55 kEuro/year (and that's before income tax). My point is that most taxation in France is not income tax, so even if a marginal rate of 45% exists, that's not where the French are most taxed (although the French would argue that "cotisation sociales" are not taxes, IMHO they very much are). Income tax is not even the number 1 tax for the French state (that would be VAT, see https://www.performance-publique.budget.gouv.fr/budget-compt...).

Not saying this is a bad thing (I wouldn't mind a top marginal rate of 90 % as has existed in the US for most of the 20th century... most people aren't subject to it), and in fact I think the French get a lot (although not enough, the state budget could be better managed) for all their taxes.

Gosh, a 3 percent increase on income over four million dollars whatever will you do to survive.