Business

These Are The Countries With The Highest Income Tax Rates

Unsustainable debt, monetary inflation, uneasy markets, quantitative easing — the health of the global economy is on everyone’s mind.

Why? Because when coupled with massive amounts of public debt, weak economies usually lead to one thing: tax increases.

And it’s happening right now.

Just look at the eurozone where, desperate to address increasing deficits, several countries in the 17-nation union have increased personal income tax rates.

“Spain, for example, raised its personal tax rate by 2 percentage points to 45 percent last year and France’s newly elected Socialist Party is also proposing hiking taxes on the rich,” CNBC reports.

“Hike,” however, may be too kind a word. France’s newly-elected Socialist François Hollande wants to impose a 75 percent income tax on citizens earning more than $1.3 million. That’s a bit more than a “hike.” That’s an “ultra increase.”

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, many Blaze readers are well aware of the political war being waged over tax increases.

The current strategy of President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats can be summed up in two words: “Buffett Rule.” GOP opposition to the proposed tax increases can also be summed up with two words: “no way.”

However, although the current top tax rate in the U.S. is a whopping 35 percent, take comfort in knowing there are several countries with higher rates.

“In fact, the U.S. is ranked 23rd in terms of the top marginal tax rate among 96 countries surveyed by KPMG in 2011,” CNBC reports.

All we’re trying to say is things could be worse (we know that’s not very comforting, but it’s all we got).

Here are the countries with the highest income tax rates [block quotes from CNBC, data KPMG]:

10. Ireland

These Are The Countries With The Highest Income Tax RatesHighest income tax rate: 48 percent
Average 2010 income: $50,400 

Ireland’s tax rate of 48 percent is much higher than the 40 percent average in Northern Europe. In fact, Northern Europe is the region with the world’s second-highest personal income tax rates, according to KPMG.

The Irish government, which has been trying to bridge a big fiscal gap after the financial crisis, raised the top rate by one percentage point for a third-consecutive year in 2011.

The country’s top marginal rate kicks in at about $43,900 of taxable income. Citizens also have to pay an additional social security tax of 4 percent. The government increased tax rates that apply to gifts and inheritances as well as capital gains from 25 percent to 30 percent in December. While income taxes are high, the country has among the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe of just 12.5 percent.

9. Finland

These Are The Countries With The Highest Income Tax RatesHighest income tax rate: 49.2 percent
Average 2010 income: $49,000

Finland’s current marginal rate of 49.2 percent comes into effect at $91,000. The country has been reducing its top marginal rate from 53.5 percent in 2004 to put more money into the pockets of households in order to fight the effects of inflation.

Municipal tax rates are also significant in Finland — varying between 16.25 percent and 21.5 percent. If an individual belongs to a Finnish church, then a church tax of 1 percent to 2 percent may also be due. Workers have to pay additional social security taxes like unemployment and pension insurance premiums. Other taxes include property tax, gift tax and tax on interest as well as a capital gains tax of 28 percent.
[...]
The government announced plans in March to increase revenues by $1.98 billion via tax hikes by 2015. The measures include income tax hikes for high-earners with annual incomes or pensions of more than $132,000, as well as those with inheritances in excess of $1.3 million.

8. (Tied) United Kingdom

These Are The Countries With The Highest Income Tax RatesHighest income tax rate: 50 percent
Average 2010 income: $52,320

The U.K. increased its highest tax rate by 10 percentage points in 2010 to 50 percent, joining the ranks of only three other countries with such a high marginal rate. In March, the government backtracked and cut the tax band for the highest earners to 45 percent, effective from April 2013.

As part of the reforms, the government also raised the income tax threshold to $14,300, taking more poorly paid people out of the tax net, while introducing a new stamp duty of 7 percent on the sale of property worth more than $3.24 million.

Britain’s top marginal tax rate kicks in at an income of $231,000. Although 50 percent is the current top rate of tax, the phasing out of personal allowances on income over $160,000 can result in a marginal tax rate of 60 percent. Workers have to pay a social security tax of 12 percent, which rises 2 percent on earnings above $1,259 per week. The country’s capital gains tax also ranges from 18 percent to 28 percent.

7. (Tied) Japan

These Are The Countries With The Highest Income Tax RatesHighest income tax rate: 50 percent
Average 2010 income: $53,200

Japan is the only Asian country to make the list of the top 10. Its top tax rate of 50 percent is more than double Asia’s average rate of 23 percent.

The country’s highest income tax rate is broken into two parts with a marginal rate of 40 percent, which comes into effect at around $217,000, plus an additional 10 percent municipal tax. Social security taxes range from 0.6 percent for employment insurance to 5 percent for health insurance capped at $700 a month. With Japan’s rapidly aging society, those 40 and over are also required to pay a nursing care insurance of 0.8 percent, capped at $110 a month. Other notable taxes include capital gains for stock transactions at 20 percent.

Japan’s tax revenue is the fifth lowest among OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] members, and the country has been dealing with its growing debt problems…In 2011, the tax burden for all Japanese families increased due to higher employee and employer social security contributions and a cut in tax allowances related to children…

6. (Tied) Belgium

These Are The Countries With The Highest Income Tax RatesHighest income tax rate: 50 percent 
Average 2010 income: $52,700

Belgium’s highest tax rate of 50 percent is 5 percentage points higher than the average for Western Europe, which has the highest personal tax rates of any region globally.

The highest marginal tax rate kicks in at $46,900 of income. The country’s employee social security rate is 13 percent with employer contributions at 35 percent. Municipal taxes can be up to 11 percent of income, while nonresidents pay a fixed 7 percent rate. Capital gains tax is either 16.5 percent or 33 percent, though taxpayers can get some exemptions. For expatriates, if an executive travels 25 percent of their time on business, then the top marginal tax rate can be reduced to 40 percent of income.

Belgians have the highest tax and social security burden, according to a recent OECD study. In 2011, single taxpayers with an average income took home less than 45 percent of what they cost their employer. Taxpayers at higher earnings took home less than 40 percent.

5. (Tied) Austria

These Are The Countries With The Highest Income Tax RatesHighest income tax rate: 50 percent
Average 2010 income: $50,700 

Austria…levies a high income tax and social security burden on households.

Its highest marginal tax rate comes into effect at $80,000 of taxable income. The country’s social security rate ranges from 17 percent to 18 percent. Special payments for workers like a holiday bonus are also taxed at 6 percent, up to a limit of one-sixth of the annual income. Annual property tax is levied by municipalities at a rate of 0.5 percent to 1 percent of the property’s value. Other notable taxes include a capital gains tax of 25 percent.

In April, the Austrian government nailed down a crucial deal with Switzerland to tax money stashed away by its citizens in secret Swiss bank accounts. The existing funds will be taxed between 15 percent to 38 percent based on the size of the deposits and is expected to bring in $1.3 billion in revenue starting in 2013. The government estimates about $12 billion to $20 billion in undeclared funds are parked in Swiss accounts.

Click here to see the rest of the countries with high income tax rates.

Front page photo source: Quantum Marketing. Carousel image courtesy of Shutterstock.com.

This story has been updated.

Comments (127)

1 2 3
  • Constitution Hour
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:53pm

    The income Tax is theft by force. I suppose I could choose to be homeless and live off the Government mamary gland. So by the Pelosi standard I choose to pay taxes by working. Gee maybe it is an excise tax after all.

    Report Post »  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 8:38pm

      To everyone who doesnt understand why Ron Paul folks dont want to support Romney, read this article….

      http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/11312-romney-takes-swipe-at-ron-paul%1As-budget-blueprint

      Report Post » soybomb315  
    • hallkbrdz
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 8:48pm

      Hear hear!

      They steal our money – and then spend and give it away recklessly. I wouldn’t put Congress in charge of running a car wash, let alone our country.

      If you look at what the Constitution says the Federal Govt. is allowed to do, a 5% flat tax on finished goods should be plenty. Think what good you could do to help your fellow man, if you got to use that “extra” money instead of the US Govt.

      Report Post » hallkbrdz  
    • jzs
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 9:26pm

      “In fact, the U.S. is ranked 23rd in terms of the top marginal tax rate among 96 countries surveyed by KPMG in 2011,” CNBC reports.

      And still we are communists. When Reagan was President the the highest tax rate was around 50% as I recall. Tell me if I’m wrong. He was definitely a Communist. George Bush substantially cut taxes twice in order to make America not so communist. And Romney would further cut taxes for the richest, who are already paying less than you and me.

      Only when the tax burden is placed solely on middle class and poor, can we Americans declare that we are not communists and that we are true capitalists where the rich get what they deserve. Only when we rid ourselves of programs that provide free breakfast to the poorest among us, or low cost health care for the poor – which is definitely communism – can we declare ourselves free of the last vestiges of the communist idea that we are a country that takes care of our own people. Most of the country will live in slums and work in sweatshops to support the very richest, who will pay no taxes and live like the kings they actually are. At that moment, we will have shaken off the shackles of communism and truly be free. Praise God!

      Report Post » jzs  
    • 1947
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 9:28pm

      Obama’s tax is going to be for EVERYONE not just RICH. Tax % will be 62%

      Report Post »  
    • hallkbrdz
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 9:33pm

      BTW, as best as I can tell personal income is about 10 Trillion dollars a year. If everyone spent only 1/2 of what they earned on finished goods, a 5% Federal tax is still 250 BILLION a year.

      Do we really seriously think that the Federal Govt. can’t live on 250 BILLION a year? With 313 Million people in the US (excluding illegals who would also pay tax this way), that’s still about $800 per every man woman and child – per year. Seems like enough to me for the few things they are legally in charge of.

      What do you think?

      Report Post » hallkbrdz  
    • silentwatcher
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 1:30am

      Socialism. High taxes. High gas prices. But medical is taken care of. And queens have a high standard of living to expect. Socialism. Want it??? Obama does.

      Report Post »  
    • EP46
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 7:38am

      @soybomb315…the Ron Paul group was taken over by obama infiltrators a long time ago..to divide the vote …or prevent votes…for the Republican party.

      Report Post »  
    • ferggie
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 8:49am

      JZS
      You are truly one stupid MF. In a Capitalist, Socialist, Marxist, Communist & any other system YOU HAVE THE RICH CLASS and a POOR CLASS. The difference is in a Capitalist system EVERYONE has the SAME OPPORTUNITY to become RICH if they choose to put in the hard work to do so. In the other systems it is determined by your birth or connections to those that have. The problem is YOU and the other DA’s like yourself are too stupid to look at the FACTS that prove this to be true. Wake up or shut up.

      Report Post »  
    • AZRACISTBIGOT
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 10:31am

      @ JZS
      Did you forget to take your meds this morning?

      Report Post »  
    • drphil69
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 11:03am

      @JZS – “When Reagan was President the the highest tax rate was around 50% as I recall. Tell me if I’m wrong.”

      YOU ARE WRONG. LOOK IT UP YOU IDIOT. OR ARE YOU TOO LAZY TO GOOGLE IT?

      Report Post »  
    • WakingSheep
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 11:51am

      @EP46
      Did you even read the article he posted? Do you even read what Ron Paul is all about?
      I believe you are just dishing out the same BS the MSM like to.
      Ron Paul is the same guy that our founders were. He isn‘t Obama and he isn’t Romney.
      He is the true champion of the Constitution. I‘m not saying this just because I’m blind.
      I’m saying this because he actually has followed the Constitution in every decision he makes.
      He doesn’t take the same positions as Romney and the other elitists like Obama; making the decisions they believe are best for us. Follow the Constitution and everybody is happy. That was the whole point of it in the first place.
      Read into Romney and you will find he is no different than Obama, Bush, Clinton, Pelosi, or many of the others that have only referenced the Constitution when it fits their agenda.
      Romney supported NDAA. That in and of itself shows his following of the Constitution.

      Report Post »  
    • WakingSheep
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 11:57am

      Also,
      How is he splitting the vote? Some of us don’t believe Romney is the inevitable as MSM would put it.
      We still have a contest going on all the way to Tampa. Has Ron Paul said anything about running third party? Well yes he has but he specifically said he would not run third party.
      Where is the split vote against Obama?

      Report Post »  
  • ByzantineAngel
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:45pm

    One aspect that has not been expressed in this article, is that because of the incredibly high taxes in these countries, like the UK (Where I have lived for a large portion of my life.) is the existence of the Black market. The black market cost the government billions and billions of pounds every year.

    But, to be honest, it is the governments own fault due to the absurd taxes they place on the items. The British government hides behind a false sense of duty and care, that higher taxation is seen as an attempt to discourage the end user, to improve their health, lower their alcohol intake, and save the environment. The big three for avoidance are alcohol, cigarettes and petrol.

    All the while wasting millions and billions of taxpayers money, on dummy projects that go nowhere and are never used, or simply abandoned. Or using the tax payers money to supplement politicians lifestyles paying for second homes, duck pounds, tampons and groceries-See Parliamentary Expense Scandal.

    Report Post »  
  • huskerman723
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:21pm

    A 75% tax on $1.3M means you take home $325,000. That is robbery. A flat tax is the only way to go. Whatever the right number is fair is fair. Liberals are always talking about being fair…taxing me at a higher rate than my neighbor is not fair. Tax everyone the same. Every corporation the same. Get rid of double taxation for corporate America, the estate tax, capital gains, and all of the envy taxes we have. Flat tax is the only right way to do it. Make government smaller and we will spend less.

    Report Post »  
    • euragone
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:49pm

      Well Apple Inc. only paid 9.8% last year.. so 75% above $1million would be great…

      Report Post » euragone  
    • Nick84
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:00pm

      I don’t think you understand how the tax system works. The 75% would be the top tax bracket. You wouldn’t be paying 75% on everything you earn, only what you earn past a certain amount. I suggest you look into it before commenting further.

      Report Post »  
    • bumfuzeled
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:09pm

      You are right, flat tax is the ONLY fair tax and if the government can’t survive on 10% tax rate then it is too big. No need for austerity if the ceiling is set and never exceeded. Anything more than 10% tax encourages fraud.

      Report Post » bumfuzeled  
    • hi
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 7:07pm

      Nick
      $388,000 is taxed 35% and below. He will still be taxed 75% on anything over $388,000.

      The only fair tax is a flat tax where everyone pays 10%. You will still get your progressivism because someone making a dollar will only pay a dime and someone making $1000000 will pay $100,000.

      Report Post » hi  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 1:25am

      NO direct taxation by the federal government on citizens of the united states.

      Cut spending.

      Balanced-budget amendment

      appropriate taxes to the states

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
  • von der Recht
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:11pm

    The story is misleading. Germany has a high income tax…..but it also has a high VAT tax. Factor them together and you have an exceedingly high overall tax rate.

    Report Post »  
    • Thatsitivehadenough
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:34pm

      But everyone pays the VAT in Germany, so that part is a flat tax.

      Report Post » Thatsitivehadenough  
    • german_viewer
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 10:36am

      The highest tax bracket in Germany is around 47.5 %. Then there is the VAT of 19 % (except for food, books, newspapers and a few other items it’s 7 %). Then there is the social security tax of about 18 % (plus the same amount for your employer).

      It’s simple math: A German worker earning about €2,000 ($2,600) (which is hardly enough to survive and certainly not enough to feed a family) has to give 70 % of his income away as taxes and other government fees. That’s 70 %!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Report Post » german_viewer  
  • cmonnow
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:02pm

    90%. The top marginal tax rate in the USA during the 1950s – one of the most productive decades in our country’s history – was 90%. The highway system was built, the airline and automotive industries took off. The GDP more than doubled from the 1940s. We rebuilt Europe. There was a housing boom with affordable mortgages (not a sub-prime driven derivative market). The service industry took off. Labor unions were relatively strong. It was the time that the “Greatest Generation” hit its stride. Look it up.

    Report Post »  
    • Fearnone
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:30pm

      Ok, CMON, I looked it up and found that you are slightly misleading and full of sh*t.
      Look it up:
      http://blog.american.com/2011/11/90-percent-or-bust-why-the-u-s-cant-go-back-to-1950s-tax-rates/

      Report Post » Fearnone  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:31pm

      Good comment. The high tax rates people complain about are marginal rates. No one with an income high enough to pay the top marginal rate actually pays the top marginal rate, because the tax code makes it all too easy for them to get tax subsidies, claim deductions or simply hide income. This of course was true in the 1950s too–no one really paid 90%. The posted rates do, however, have a certain symbolic importance. Even if applying the “Buffett rule” would hardly make a dent in the deficit, it would feel good to imagine that the rich were “paying their fair share.”

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
    • cmonnow
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:46pm

      FEARNONE – your link states that “the top effective tax rate was probably somewhere between 50-60 percent.”

      If people had been paying a flat tax rate of say 10%, I imagine that it would have been quite a different decade – and not a better one. That kind of boom can only be propelled by public investment.

      Report Post »  
    • rto
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:56pm

      cmonnow, You talk about doing your homework, after wwII there was only one country that could rebuild the world and that was us. There was a high wage tax but the investment tax was low. There were many financial bennies to invest out side the US.
      Why do you think that a guy like Buffet only pays himself about $250,000.00 a year? That’s how he gets away with saying he pays a lower (income) tax rate than his Secretary that he pays over $400,000.00 a year.
      When it comes to Europe everybody pays that rate, EVERYBODY. If you make $60,000.00 a year and you want to pay $30,000.00 to the government, be my quest it’s legal for you to do that or you could destroy every other country in the world so we can rebuild it, then we can pay high tax’s AND rape the wealthy like you want. Do some real homework kid, not just look at charts. Also Comrade you yearly dues are owed, Commies get really mad when you don’t pay up.

      Report Post »  
    • Fearnone
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:58pm

      CMON, If you would have actually read and comprehended the link you would have learned indeed that is higher than today, but perhaps more tolerable in an era of superlow interest rates, cheap energy, and where the rest of the world is recovering from war. Oh, and the economy grew 5 percent annually for four years after taxes were cut sharply in 1964.

      Report Post » Fearnone  
    • bccrane
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:01pm

      And there were tax loopholes, tax shelters, and ways to dodge taxes (Reagan eliminated many of these when he cut the tax rates in the eighties causing an even greater cash flow to the gov’t), you also didn’t have welfare, public housing, epa, deq, osha, and a myriad of other gov’t entities watching every step with ever growing rules and regulations, there were very few people pulling from SS and many putting in, society and business wasn’t bogged down in litigation, unions weren’t in the gimme gimme mode yet, so yeah you are right gov‘t wasn’t as much of a problem as it is now. Back then you could build a house without a mortgage now you need a mortgage to build a house, I tried to build my housing from my savings and from my wifes and my paychecks but with all the rules and regulations one of them being time I ended up going into debt with a mortgage before I could finish unlike my parents who took as many years as they needed to finish the house I grew up in which was the late 50′s & 60′s

      Report Post »  
    • cmonnow
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:12pm

      Romney pays a lower tax rate than I do, and I make 50k a year. No trickery there.

      Speaking of Buffet, there is no sound argument for taxing capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income. Have a read: http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/taxing-capital-gains-at-ordinary-rates-evidence-says-do-it-so-does-buffet/

      Report Post »  
    • cmonnow
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:20pm

      bccrane – there were tax loopholes then and not today ??

      Reagan eliminated the tax loopholes ?!?? hahaha

      Let me cite some business sources to debunk that bunk:

      http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-08/thirty-top-companies-profited-without-paying-tax-study-finds.html

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2011/12/14/29-companies-that-paid-millions-for-lobbying-and-didnt-pay-taxes/

      http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-03/news/30354085_1_tax-rate-income-tax-federal-income

      People took out mortgages back then too. It’s just that Americans were more patient. Not our fault that you bit off more than you could chew.

      Report Post »  
    • cmonnow
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:27pm

      also, in the 1950s, the economy was driven by speculative, sub-prime issuing derivative dealers. nor were our job creators raiding and pillaging US industry by leveraged buyouts. but by all means, vote Romney.

      Report Post »  
    • cmonnow
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:35pm

      ^ “not driven”

      Report Post »  
    • jocko
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 7:35pm

      @a-feared
      Sorry, but Comon is almost right… if you looked it up at a reputable source. The highest MARGINAL tax rates in this country was 1952 AND 1953 when it was a whopping 92%!!! That is totally unconscionable. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

      We need less government just like the Constitution was written. Government keeps expanding themselves and giving themselves better and better perqs, and buying more votes to stay in with their handouts.

      If 10% is enough for God, then by golly, there is absolutely no reason that we should let these professional politicians steal more than God asks us to give willingly.

      A fair contribution is that everyone pays 10% of their earnings and we cut out all of the silly programs that the feds have taken away from the states as described in the Constitution – our governments bible.

      Fire all of these evil progressives that are destroying our country, including, “the Constitution? are you kidding?” Nancy Peolosi.

      These people should be tried for sedition – high crimes and misdemeanors by not fulfilling their oath of office to uphold the US Constitution.

      Report Post » jocko  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 1:26am

      Ireland: bankrupt
      Finland: One of the top suicide and alcoholism rates
      UK: Bankrupt
      Nippon: Hyper-inflation

      High quality of life, huh?

      I am sure.

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
    • bccrane
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 9:17am

      First off I said “eliminated many” not all loopholes and many loopholes have been added back since. My company pays very little taxes and some years none at all depending on profit, even then when it profits the business doesn’t pay the taxes I do as a Sub. S Corp. and if you start taxing my business via for instance a VAT, I will just like any other business pass it along to you, causing you to make a decision as to whether to use my services at all harming my business. This is what rules and regs do a small business will be hit just like the large business, the big ones will spread the cost out while the little ones can’t, the little ones die out leaving only the big ones. The sub-prime and speculation was driven by gov’t rules and regs. The gov’t trying to rig the market to help “the poor” by trying to push the lenders into making bad loans caused the lenders to find ways to still make money on the bad loans, that’s business, business is in business to make money by adding value to their liabilities, employing people is a necessary liability and is also added to the end product, but now the gov’t trying to add more expense to the hiring and also the existing employees via Obamacare is causing business to sit on their hands.
      BTW why is it you must raise the taxes on the rich to make it fair, why not lower everyone elses taxes wouldn’t that also be fair?

      Report Post »  
    • friedclouds
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 3:34pm

      @fear…..It has been a while since I took a math class, But that article seems fishy….plotting one variable on a Ln scale (natural log, which he then refers to as a log scale) vs. a linear variable? Most people don’t understand the difference. Log-log (ln-ln) would be more informative. Or both linear. His next chart again uses natural log figures, and totally cryptic identifiers that he never defines. I smell a disingenuous Kensyian rat. I don’t buy intellectual gobbedly-****. Explain yourself in terms that the layman can understand.

      Report Post »  
  • Clmsadjman
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:58pm

    The nanny state does not come cheap in Europe. Just let that commie bastard and France raise the rate to 75% you will see wealth and business flee that country like the Nazis are at the border again. And lets say they don’t leave what do you think 75% rates is going to do to people’s incentive to do better in a society that already lacks motivation? Look at some of these rates and the threshold they kick in and that is not the only tax that you pay the time you pay all your taxes a 50K income gets wittled down to 20K or less. There would be an insurrection in this country but the sheep in Europe keep letting these politican abuse them.

    Report Post »  
    • loriann12
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:11pm

      My sister in law is from the Netherlands and says they pay about 40%, but she’s fine with it because they get free medical. I asked what the medical was like, what are the wait times, etc. Her mother was dropped from her blood pressure med that worked and told they quit making it. When she researched it, she discovered that it was just more expensive than one that bacame generic so they switched her without her doctor’s permission. Last I heard, they were going to ask if she could pay the difference and go back on the one that worked. They also have long wait times. But, she said even if I went there and had an accident, the ER would be free for me. yea, all for 40% of what you make. So, if you make $53,000 a year, you pay $21,200 in taxes.

      Report Post »  
    • Joe_2112
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:38pm

      @Loriann12 – So your sister-in-law is fine with 40% tax rate because they get free health insurance in the Netherlands? So now she basically has to get sick, and stay sick, in order to get a fair return on her confiscated earnings. Brilliant!

      Report Post »  
    • Nick84
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:09pm

      loriann12-

      Your post is a bit misleading. I doubt she pays 40% on everything she makes. That’s probably her highest tax bracket. Everyone commenting on here really needs to do some research.

      Report Post »  
  • gr8t2bfree
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:54pm

    Tax is nothing more than legal theft. I smell WWIII.No economy will sustain this kind of taxation. Back to barter!

    Report Post » gr8t2bfree  
    • cmonnow
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:06pm

      No economy will sustain this type of taxation ?? Do some research on the United States during the 1950s. The top marginal tax rate was 90% The most prosperous time our country has ever seen…

      Report Post »  
    • Al J Zira
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 7:01pm

      Prosperous for whom? People paying 90% in taxes are not prosperous, they’re socialists!

      Report Post » Al J Zira  
    • alphalfa
      Posted on May 11, 2012 at 8:44am

      cmonnow is funny. the 50s were prosperous because we paid high marginal rates. hehehe. keynezian to the bitter end. Could it be that we didn’t have all the govt agencies squashing business? no epa, osha, etc etc. Plus the fact that we had blown the brains out of most of the world during wwii. get a grip pal

      Report Post »  
  • sizzler2220
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:52pm

    Supporting the masses socialist style is expensive. As Thatcher said, socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money.

    Report Post »  
  • soybomb315
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:51pm

    the problem is not really taxes – the problem is SPENDING

    Report Post » soybomb315  
  • rokkit
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:48pm

    The tax rates listed in the article apply to those who are single and do not have children.

    Report Post »  
  • TheBurningTruth
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:22pm

    I find it interesting that the article compares the top US FEDERAL bracket of 35% against other countries some of which include city and provence taxes. It’s difficult here in the US where state tax takes are anywhere from 0% (no taxes) through over 10% (CA has a top rate over 10%). Certainly there are cities like NYC that have significant taxes as well. This article even included property taxes for one country! So, if one were to actually compare TOP tax rates, they’d have to find the combination of Fed/State/City/Prop taxes for a reasonable comparison. Here in CA, I retired early when my pay was hit with 52% on every dollar earned not including prop tax.

    Report Post » TheBurningTruth  
  • stogieguy7
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:19pm

    The US looks good until you consider all of our state income and payroll taxes. Throw those in and – depending on where you live – your top tax rate is right up there around #9 or #10. Re elect Obama and it’ll be even higher…..

    Report Post » stogieguy7  
  • jlcook
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:44pm

    How dare the Blaze send me to a CNBC site!

    Report Post » jlcook  
  • Thevoice
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:44pm

    You just have to love these so called journalist today I mean it is amazing. The story should be written how much tax does it take to “TRY” and support “New age progressive Communist” society. Where the citizens believe the government should be responsible for all aspects of their life.Because the reality shows that the tax and revenues are never enough. The big fall we know at some point is coming. As again the trillions printed and given to shear up all the deficiencies in our own quasi commie run state and federal guberments wasn’t enough.

    Report Post » Thevoice  
  • carl_in_ohio
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:42pm

    Ireland and Belgium…so how do you logically compare these two small countries to the US?
    How does their tax situation have anything to do with ours (in comparison?)

    Report Post »  
    • Netsurfer2
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 7:45pm

      That’s a very good point! The US has so many more resources and even more people! So how can you compare taxes to European countries? So true!

      Report Post » Netsurfer2  
  • SCARED
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:41pm

    Everyone should pay taxes period.

    Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:51pm

      What about the home schooled guy living in the woods? Should he have to pay for the roads and government that he doesn’t use? I don’t think so. Taxes are theft and they should not be taken lightly or as arrogantly as you seem to take them. It is attitudes like yours that have allowed us to get to the point where we can take in 2 trillion dollars in taxes every year and spend 4 trillion and say the reason we fell short on payment was because someone wasn’t paying their “fair share”. Well, I’ve got news for you. Two Trillion dollars is over $6,500 per man, woman, and child in this nation. So the national government is spending > $13,000 per year per person. Do you really think that we should be paying more in taxes every year? We already pay enough to buy a decent car for every person every year. OR, a really good motorcycle.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • Sirfoldallot
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:07pm

      Yeah , so u can get a Ipad or a lap-top 4 college, food stamps, free phone, on & on & on. U lazy idiot.

      Report Post » Sirfoldallot  
    • cmonnow
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:04pm

      SgtB – the home schooled guy in the woods should be exempt …as he doesn’t exist. don’t be an idiot.

      Report Post »  
    • Nick84
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:07pm

      That’s a pretty ignorant way of looking at things. If you think about it, the poorest people in America would pay in some money, but get it all back in welfare. They would essentially be paying back into their own pockets. Furthermore, everyone does pay taxes in some form (sales tax).

      Report Post »  
  • YesNdeedie
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:39pm

    I have never objected to paying taxes but I have always (more now than ever) totally objected to our elected all living like a king and paying for all the lazyassPeople who fail to pay taxes.

    Report Post »  
    • Go Glenn
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:14pm

      I will gladly pay my taxes too……..as soon as EVERYONE pays something and NO ONE gets a “Refund” that is greater than the amount they paid in!!!!!

      I am tired of the IRS being a Welfare Dept. for about 40% of our citizens and 90% of the illegal immigrants.

      FairTax is the only chance.

      Report Post »  
  • westtitus
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:37pm

    To Nick84: God with a capital G does not need money but he asks for obedience in what he asks us to do and that is to tithe 10%. The more you make the harder it is but in order for the Church to pay electric, gas, water and many other bills the parishoners that are using the facility should do as God has asked out of LOVE and obedience.

    Report Post » westtitus  
  • RepubliCorp
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:24pm

    Cash underground works …….

    Report Post » RepubliCorp  
  • 321481
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:22pm

    Give Obama a chance he will have the USA #1 in this category, he needs another term to do it you know when he has more fexibility.

    Report Post »  
  • Ravings of a lunatic planet
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:17pm

    I’m assuming WE are suppose to feel good about our tax rate? This is a CNBC report…..I guess Obama wanted them to post this so we stop our bit@hing about how much we are being taxed here………………Well our POS President is trying to get us up in those tax percentages……..and if he gets re-elected…hold on to your wallets folks….

    Report Post » Ravings of a lunatic planet  
    • JRook
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:45pm

      If you stopped and looked at it from an economic perspective you would see that a tax on the wealthy that is earmarked for the deficit would be a net boom to the economy. The wealthy are not job creators, they are job enablers. Job creation only occurs when there is increased demand for products and services. The wealthy, pension funds, mutual funds, banks, SBA etc. provide capital which enables businesses to expand to meet the increase in demand. If anything higher concentration of wealth lowers consumption and reduces demand for products and services.

      Report Post »  
    • Puddle Duck
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:02pm

      Spare us the kindergarten level economics lesson JROOK….no one with even a 101 level of financial understanding is buying your Keynesian BS.

      Report Post » Puddle Duck  
    • selfgov1st
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:09pm

      @JROOK

      Thanks for regurgitating Keynesian Economics for us. Experience and common sense tell us it’s bogus…but ultimately it’s bogus at a theoretical level as well. Hopefully I can illustrate for you

      First, let’s not get confused by Money. All money is, is a claim check on the good and services (Supply) that exists or will exist. If you have money then you own a portion of future actual good and services. You own a portion of the “global supply” so to speak.
      Second, we need to understand what actually constitutes this demand that you say will create jobs. Actually, Supply and demand are simply the opposite sides of the same coin. My demand is exactly proportionate to what I produce (supply). If I produce a good or service, then I have the goods with which to acquire what I desire (demand). In order to create or increase demand, therefore, I have to create or increase my supply. Having supply of goods is what gives me demand. Again, to increase demand, we have to increase supply first.

      Third, what you are talking about isn’t an increase in demand (total demand is equal to total supply of goods); it is a Shifting of demand, shifting Wealth/Money (ownership of supply) from one person to another. There is no net increase demand. There is no net increase in the goods that a person can use to get what they want from another person. You are taking one person’s demand and giving it to another.

      Report Post »  
    • selfgov1st
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:13pm

      @JROOK Continuation

      A poor person now has a larger percentage of the ownership of future good and services and buys a TV. A rich person now has less percentage of the ownership of future good and services and doesn’t buy a fourth TV. There was no increase in demand and thus no “stimulus” to the economy. Maybe the poor person needs one TV more than a rich man needs a fourth, but there was no additional TV purchased.
      Fourth, there is actually a retarding of the economy that is occurring here. When the demand is transferred to an individual, that individual does not have to produce anything to create his demand. The rich person is creating (and having his creation stolen from him) and the poor person is not creating. With the exception of people who cannot create (due to disability) , the overall economy will do better when both people have to create their own demand. There will be more overall goods created, which constitute more overall demand.

      Fifth, your Keynesian economics is based on the false idea that rich people do not spend their money, while poor people of course have to in order to survive. In Keynesian though, when rich people can keep their own money, they save it and it doesn’t get put back into the economy spurring the creation of goods. And of course, poor people don’t have that luxury to save.

      Report Post »  
    • selfgov1st
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:14pm

      More Continuation

      It gets put back into the economy…demand that is used rather than the potential demand of the rich that is sitting on the sidelines. This is simply not true. Rich people do not become rich by putting their money under a mattress. They may keep a small portion in their safe for emergencies, but it’s such a small percentage it isn’t even worth noting. They do one of several things with that money. First, they buy something (zero difference from the dollar spent by the poor), 2nd they save it in a bank…which loans it out to someone who buys something (no difference from the dollar spent by the poor) or third they re-invest it because they want to create more demand for themselves. This re-investment doesn’t just create more goods, which is more demand, but it also itself requires the purchase of machinery, good, and services, that have to be created…stimulating the economy. There is no “acceleration” of money that occurs by transferring the demand from the rich to the poor. In fact, there is deceleration as the government takes time to transfer it from the rich, who immediately spend/save in banks who spend/invest to the poor

      Finally, and trust me there are more issues with your Keynesian theories, someone else’ demand for my good does not make me create the good. In fact, your analysis might be exactly backwards. You see, I don’t create something because you want it.

      Report Post »  
    • selfgov1st
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 6:14pm

      Lastly…

      I create something because I want what you already have. In order to get what you have, I have to create something that you want, so that you’ll give it to me. You’re whole theory is based on an altruistic falsehood. Business (collection of people) does not create goods because their customers want the good. Businesses (people) create things because they want what their customers have and have to create something to get it. The point is that the first thing in the economic chain has to be the good or service that is desired, not the desire itself. This then forces people themselves to create other things of value to acquire what they want…this stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
      Summary – Taking “demand” (money…which represents stuff) and shifting it from one person to another does not create more stuff, and thus doesn’t create more demand. Overall demand is only increased when more overall useful stuff is created. On the flip side, taking demand from one person and shifting it to another decreases the first guys desire to create stuff (since it is going to be stolen from him)…less stuff, less overall demand, less jobs…and it also eliminates the need of the 2nd guy to create anything to acquire his “demand.” The first guy creates less; the second guy creates nothing…not going to stimulate demand…not going to stimulate jobs.

      Report Post »  
  • Individualism
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:53pm

    I am with Ron Paul how about no income tax and taxes based on consumption Fair Tax plz although a Flat Tax would be acceptable until than.

    Report Post » Individualism  
    • encinom
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:22pm

      a consumption based “Fair Tax” is a tax on the poor. Those living pay check to pay check would be paying more as a percentage in income of taxes than the rich.

      Report Post »  
    • frust@ted
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:24pm

      I like the flat tax idea, my biggest concern is a large blackmarket forming so people can avoid paying these taxes. How do you think we could avoid the eventual blackmarket?

      Report Post »  
    • SCARED
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:38pm

      What constitutes poor in our country these days?

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:41pm

      A tiered flat tax based on income would make the most sense and have everyone pay something. The flat tax should be based on gross income. While everyone likes to wine about US income tax rates they constantly forget that the effective tax rate is much much lower. And there are countless tax deductions and tax credits that are available to the wealthy. At the end of the day when everyone cuts everything they don‘t want and seeks increased spending on the stuff they don’t, taxes will need to go up. A flat tax, no deductions and credits, and payroll taxes on every $ of payroll and a surcharge on the wealthy earmarked for the deficit is what is needed.

      Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:45pm

      @Encinom, the FairTax has a provision so that NO CITIZEN pays tax on money spent up to the poverty level. This means that if you earned and spent 15k per year, then you pay no taxes. In fact, you would probably make money off of the national prebate system that pays you the amount that you would have paid in taxes for the month if you spent everything you earned up to the poverty line. Furthermore, USED goods are NOT taxed AT ALL! This means that if you are a savvy consumer, you could pay no tax at all. Things that could be bought without any federal tax are pretty much any durable item to include used cars, furniture, houses, etc. So your idea that the Fair Tax is a tax against the poor is the musing of a loon.

      @ Frust@Ted, We already have a flat tax. It is called the FICA tax. What was the FICA tax upon the inception and what is it now? The nature of a flat tax is no different than the nature of the income tax. There is no way for the general public to affect any change in their tax due aside from not working. With the Fair Tax, the individual can buy used, grow a garden, and simply consume less while saving more when they see that the tax rate has gone up and they disagree with it. Of course, raising the rate of the national sales tax would drive down business and hurt the economy because of these effects and so the natural state would be for the federal government to lower the tax rate to stimulate the economy and thus derive more revenue.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • SgtB
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:57pm

      @ JROOK, What is really needed is for this nation to stop coddling its seniors and take back from them the money that they are stealing. Social security and all government welfare programs are draining this nation dry. Essentially, the elderly have found a way to turn the young into their providers, or if you rather, their slaves. The system cannot be fixed by earning more or taxing more. That would be like telling a drunken strip club patron that he needs to work more so that he still has money for rent after spending every night at the club tossing out dollars. We need to stop tossing around our money and then we can pay down on the debt that our mothers and fathers have firmly saddled around our throats.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • guntotinsquaw
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:01pm

      Encinom…That is complete hogwash!! If a “poor” person buys a $2000 car and I buy buy a $60,000 at a 10% tax, I pay more than the “poor”. But we could make this simple, don’t pay tax..don’t get a vote! I‘m tired of the bottom voting for politicians to take more money from me to give to those that don’t pay a dime. The “poor” use more services I do, time for them to have a pony in the race.

      Report Post » guntotinsquaw  
    • soybomb315
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:18pm

      i would rather the feds cut spending in half than tinker with the tax system

      Report Post » soybomb315  
  • Individualism
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:47pm

    I thought Canada would be on there but it also depends on what Provence you live in to. i even thought USA would be close but yet against it depends what state and city you live in.

    Report Post » Individualism  
    • saranda
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:08pm

      29% federal tax in Canada. My friends in Alberta pay a 10% flat tax to the province. My math makes that less than most US locations.

      Report Post »  
    • Puddle Duck
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 5:15pm

      The Province of Ontario is near the top fo that list. It’s ridiculous with recent announcemnts of even more hikes this year (on top propety tax, energy, water, elctricity, gasoline, fees, fines, licensing being hiked for the last 6 years in a row). elctricty and gasoline have risen 150% and around 95% respectively while property taxes have risen 75% since 2004. A Fed tax rate in conjunction with Provincial income tax rate for an income of 50K+is roughly 55%. Add into that a 13% HST on nearly all goods and services sold. This Province pays through the nose to prop up other provinces. in terms of transfer payments (a novel way to call what is in effect redistorbution of wealth) namely Quebec which recives an additional 7.3B in Fed redistro to make sure they have low rates on housing, taxes, tuition, books, tobacco, liquor and even energy. Last week the students were rioting all over Quebec becuase thier tuition was going to be raised 300.00 for the year. They already have the lowest rates in the nation per year (most schooling in Quebec is under 5K per year…often well under 5K). The rest of is in the nation are fed up with this gross inequity.

      Report Post » Puddle Duck  
  • Susan
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:43pm

    God only asks for 10%, why should governments ask for more than God?

    The bible tells me its my job to help where help is needed, no where does it say I can pay the government to do “MY” job.

    Report Post »  
    • Nick84
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:12pm

      Why would a god need money?

      Report Post »  
    • chazmo
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 3:26pm

      @Nick84 God didn’t ask for money.. he asked that you tithe your wealth at 10%. Wealth can mean many different things to many different people. But, you missed her point.

      Report Post » chazmo  
    • cmonnow
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 4:55pm

      I’m sure that we will enjoy great public services – i.e. have great roads, fire forces, police, military, etc. if we all just give what we want.. It’s not a coincidence that most of the countries on this list offer a very high quality of life.

      Report Post »  
  • Mark0331
    Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:37pm

    …and the country with the dumbest leader…US

    Report Post » Mark0331  
    • CatB
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:48pm

      Unless they factored in any deductions and differing kinds of income .. these numbers mean nothing.

      Report Post »  
    • Mark0331
      Posted on May 10, 2012 at 2:53pm

      @CATB…..I was thinking the same thing…deductions, capital gains…etc

      Report Post » Mark0331  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love