Europe outperforms US in academic test scores, US trounces Europe in wealth creation

BabyBoomer50s

Capitalist
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Posts
13,512
Smart editorial in today’s WSJ. Excerpts below. Risk taking culture coupled with growth oriented taxation and immigration policies matter. The last paragraph is really important. The importance of merit-based immigration cannot be understated.

Why the U.S. Economy Is Trouncing Europe’s
Americans do worse in education scores, but the Continent lacks the U.S. risk-taking culture.
——————-

According to data released last week by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only about 12% of Americans score at the highest levels on internationally administered academic tests, while 34% score at the lowest levels—nearly three low scorers for every high scorer. Germany’s figures are nearly even: 18% score at the highest levels and 20% at the lowest. Put another way, Germany’s ratio of high to low scorers is almost three times America’s. Scandinavia’s is five times; Japan’s, seven.

Yet America excels relative to Europe despite these enormous differences. While Europe has created 14 companies worth more than $10 billion in the past 50 years, with about $400 billion of market value in total, Americans have created nearly 250 such companies, worth $30 trillion.

That success has driven up America’s middle-class incomes. The median disposable U.S. household income, according to the OECD, is now 25% greater than the median German household and 60% greater than the median household in Italy.

Europeans’ incomes would be even lower if they weren’t free-riding on American innovation, defense spending and higher drug prices, which incentivize research. America’s median incomes would be higher if we had more talent devoted to supervising and creating jobs for blue-collar workers or Northern Europe-like distribution of test scores.

The outsize success of America’s talented entrepreneurs doesn’t stem from their superior intelligence. It comes from working at companies such as Google and Microsoft , which mine the technological frontier and expose employees to valuable knowledge, insights and opportunities. Apple is worth more than the 30 largest German companies combined. Apple’s employees and its alumni use their knowledge and training to create more value than their counterparts in Europe.

Unlike Europe, the enormous success of American entrepreneurs motivated an army of talented Americans to get valuable on-the-job training, work longer hours, take risks and succeed. A small amount of success bubbles up from a large pool of failure.

The belief that taxing success more heavily will scarcely slow inevitable progress ignores the importance of being first to market and founding successful companies in America rather than the rest of the world, the enormous difference in the training and expected payoffs for successful risk-taking that it creates for America’s talented workers, and the motivational effect higher expected payoffs for successful risk-taking have on our talented workers.


Studies of short-term tax elasticity laughably miss the enormous difference between the success of the U.S. and Europe. Even if Europe cut its tax rates, it would have a trivial short-term effect on the expected returns to risk-taking, because without companies such as Google, entrepreneurs wouldn’t come up with ideas worthy of investment regardless of the tax rate. It takes decades of successful risk-taking to create companies and workers who can spawn the next generation of success.

The argument that we can heavily tax the tail of the distribution of payoffs without discouraging prudent risk-taking—since entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs took risks without expecting the enormous success they achieved—fails to recognize that outsize payoffs at the tail of the distribution critically drive overall expected risk-adjusted returns above break-even. Even with these successes, the returns to venture capital over the last 20 years have been mediocre at best.

When entrepreneurs capture as little as 5% of the value they create for others, it makes little sense to encourage successful risk-takers to quit working long before they achieve outsize success. With the effect technological success has on the productivity of talented American workers, who are our constraint to growth, and the effect of their productivity on the growth of middle-class incomes relative to Europe, that’s not a “policy failure.”

The fastest way to accelerate America’s growth and increase tax revenues is to let high-skilled immigration expand our talent pool. Forty percent of America’s billion-dollar startups were founded by high-skilled immigrants—roughly the same percentage of STEM doctorates held by foreign-born American workers.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-us-...55c7a?st=Q8xtDZ&reflink=article_copyURL_share
 
If a low top marginal tax rate is the key to risk-taking and wealth creation, why did the US prosper when the top marginal rate was up to 90%?

The slant of the article is very simple-minded.

I do agree that immigration reform to encourage legal immigration would be a good thing.
 
Meanwhile the UK's chancellor's recent ultra-high-tax budget was a "massive act of self harm" that has made the UK "uninvestable" according to business leaders like James Dyson.
 
If a low top marginal tax rate is the key to risk-taking and wealth creation, why did the US prosper when the top marginal rate was up to 90%?

The slant of the article is very simple-minded.

I do agree that immigration reform to encourage legal immigration would be a good thing.
Because there is a big difference between marginal tax rates and effective tax rates. You need to take into account tax rates on different types of income (wages, capital gains, dividends, individual vs corporate, etc) as well as what constitutes taxable income and what is exempt, and of course allowable deductions, tax credits and other tax code provisions. Effective rates for the richest 1% were never 90%. In the mid 1940s, the top rates were about 50% and began declining from there. By 1965, they dipped below 30% and have hovered a bit above and below ever since. The US tax code today is highly progressive. Despite the cuts under JFK, Reagan, and Bush, the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans is higher than ever.
 
BabyBoobs is a lying, gaslighting, intellectually dishonest POS.

The only numbers anyone needs to consider are these:

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-has-wealth-distribution-in-the-us-changed-over-time/

From the report:

Whose wealth has grown the most?​

The top 20% of Americans by income have seen their share of wealth increase the most between 1990 and 2022. In the final quarter of 2022, this group held 71% of the nation’s wealth – up from 61% in 1990.

The highest-earning 1% of Americans drove this growth: at the end of 2022, their share of the country’s wealth grew to 26% from 17% in 1990 — nine percentage points. Across those 32 years, the rest of the top quintile saw their share of wealth grow to 45% from 44% — a one percentage point gain.

How has the wealth of the American middle class changed?​

The 60% of income earners between the top and bottom quintiles — commonly referred to as America’s middle class — have seen their share of wealth diminish since 1990. Over the past three decades, this group’s share of total wealth fell to 26% from 37%.

😳

That ^ is all you need to know.

Hope that ^ helps.

👍

👉 BabyBoobs 🤣

🇺🇸
 
BabyBoobs is a lying, gaslighting, intellectually dishonest POS.

The only numbers anyone needs to consider are these:

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-has-wealth-distribution-in-the-us-changed-over-time/

From the report:

Whose wealth has grown the most?​

The top 20% of Americans by income have seen their share of wealth increase the most between 1990 and 2022. In the final quarter of 2022, this group held 71% of the nation’s wealth – up from 61% in 1990.

The highest-earning 1% of Americans drove this growth: at the end of 2022, their share of the country’s wealth grew to 26% from 17% in 1990 — nine percentage points. Across those 32 years, the rest of the top quintile saw their share of wealth grow to 45% from 44% — a one percentage point gain.

How has the wealth of the American middle class changed?​

The 60% of income earners between the top and bottom quintiles — commonly referred to as America’s middle class — have seen their share of wealth diminish since 1990. Over the past three decades, this group’s share of total wealth fell to 26% from 37%.

😳

That ^ is all you need to know.

Hope that ^ helps.

👍

👉 BabyBoobs 🤣

🇺🇸
Middle class improved during the Trump admin. More cherry picking by LAZ :oops:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/articles/inco
mes-hit-record-high-poverty-reached-record-low-2019/#:~:text=Real median household income increased,in median income on record.

Median income reaches all-time high after largest one-year increase on record

Real median household income increased by $4,400 in 2019, reaching an all-time record high of $68,700. This represents a 6.8 percent one-year increase, which is the largest one-year increase in median income on record. Since 2016, real median household income has increased by 9.7 percent (after adjusting for a Census survey redesign in 2017).

Income gains in 2019 were largest for minority groups. Real median income grew by 7.9 percent for black Americans, 7.1 percent for Hispanic Americans, and 10.6 percent for Asian Americans (see Figure 1). These one-year increases were all record highs, and the new income levels reached in 2019 were all record highs, as well.
 
BabyBoobs is a lying, gaslighting, intellectually dishonest POS.

The only numbers anyone needs to consider are these:

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-has-wealth-distribution-in-the-us-changed-over-time/

From the report:

Whose wealth has grown the most?​

The top 20% of Americans by income have seen their share of wealth increase the most between 1990 and 2022. In the final quarter of 2022, this group held 71% of the nation’s wealth – up from 61% in 1990.

The highest-earning 1% of Americans drove this growth: at the end of 2022, their share of the country’s wealth grew to 26% from 17% in 1990 — nine percentage points. Across those 32 years, the rest of the top quintile saw their share of wealth grow to 45% from 44% — a one percentage point gain.

How has the wealth of the American middle class changed?​

The 60% of income earners between the top and bottom quintiles — commonly referred to as America’s middle class — have seen their share of wealth diminish since 1990. Over the past three decades, this group’s share of total wealth fell to 26% from 37%.

😳

That ^ is all you need to know.

Hope that ^ helps.

👍

👉 BabyBoobs 🤣

🇺🇸
The subject of this thread is not about wealth distribution, and neither are my comments about marginal tax rates. Try to follow along and if you want to express your concerns about wealth distribution, either find an existing thread on the topic or start a new one.
 
The subject of this thread is not about wealth distribution, and neither are my comments about marginal tax rates. Try to follow along and if you want to express your concerns about wealth distribution, either find an existing thread on the topic or start a new one.
Good luck with LAZ, ORANGE MAN BAD! BAD! BAD!.... BIDEN GOOD! GOOD! GOOD! :D

The progressive Marxist left loves to punish success.
 
The subject of this thread is not about wealth distribution, and neither are my comments about marginal tax rates. Try to follow along and if you want to express your concerns about wealth distribution, either find an existing thread on the topic or start a new one.

🙄

BabyBoobs "thinks" they can stop decent, intelligent individuals from posting information that completely DESTROYS BabyBoobs’ bullshit gaslighting narrative.

😑

Meanwhile:

BabyBoobs is a lying, gaslighting, intellectually dishonest POS.

The only numbers anyone needs to consider are these:

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-has-wealth-distribution-in-the-us-changed-over-time/

From the report:

Whose wealth has grown the most?​

The top 20% of Americans by income have seen their share of wealth increase the most between 1990 and 2022. In the final quarter of 2022, this group held 71% of the nation’s wealth – up from 61% in 1990.

The highest-earning 1% of Americans drove this growth: at the end of 2022, their share of the country’s wealth grew to 26% from 17% in 1990 — nine percentage points. Across those 32 years, the rest of the top quintile saw their share of wealth grow to 45% from 44% — a one percentage point gain.

How has the wealth of the American middle class changed?​

The 60% of income earners between the top and bottom quintiles — commonly referred to as America’s middle class — have seen their share of wealth diminish since 1990. Over the past three decades, this group’s share of total wealth fell to 26% from 37%.

😳

That ^ is all you need to know.

Hope that ^ helps.

👍

👉 BabyBoobs 🤣

🇺🇸

😳

👉 BabyBoobs 🤣

🇺🇸
 
The subject of this thread is not about wealth distribution, and neither are my comments about marginal tax rates. Try to follow along and if you want to express your concerns about wealth distribution, either find an existing thread on the topic or start a new one.
Seems to indicate street smarts, hard work and common sense are more productive than a PHDs in basket weaving, gender fluidity studies or trans assimilation into normal society.
 
BabyBoobs is a lying, gaslighting, intellectually dishonest POS.

The only numbers anyone needs to consider are these:

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-has-wealth-distribution-in-the-us-changed-over-time/

From the report:

Whose wealth has grown the most?​

The top 20% of Americans by income have seen their share of wealth increase the most between 1990 and 2022. In the final quarter of 2022, this group held 71% of the nation’s wealth – up from 61% in 1990.

The highest-earning 1% of Americans drove this growth: at the end of 2022, their share of the country’s wealth grew to 26% from 17% in 1990 — nine percentage points. Across those 32 years, the rest of the top quintile saw their share of wealth grow to 45% from 44% — a one percentage point gain.

How has the wealth of the American middle class changed?​

The 60% of income earners between the top and bottom quintiles — commonly referred to as America’s middle class — have seen their share of wealth diminish since 1990. Over the past three decades, this group’s share of total wealth fell to 26% from 37%.

😳

That ^ is all you need to know.

Hope that ^ helps.

👍

👉 BabyBoobs 🤣

🇺🇸

😳

😑

🤬
 
The answer to POSs is Lactolose: two tablespoons daily, which may be doubled to achieve optimal results. (y):nana:
 
Meanwhile the UK's chancellor's recent ultra-high-tax budget was a "massive act of self harm" that has made the UK "uninvestable" according to business leaders like James Dyson.

There is no “ultra-high-tax budget”. You are a delusional paranoiac. 👍
 
Seems to indicate street smarts, hard work and common sense are more productive than a PHDs in basket weaving, gender fluidity studies or trans assimilation into normal society.

I wonder if it's all those black daddies living by the 4 fs ( find them, feel them, fuck them, forget them ).

Post in thread 'The real badbabysitter finally revealed..' https://forum.literotica.com/threads/the-real-badbabysitter-finally-revealed.1504564/post-90980000

blacks have a higher propensity of violence than all races combined.

Post in thread 'If America Is Racist, Why Have Millions of Blacks Emigrated Here?' https://forum.literotica.com/thread...f-blacks-emigrated-here.1547263/post-93907526

I wouldn’t even think of walking a predominately black neighborhood, wouldn’t end well.

Post in thread 'White Officers in Minority Communities' https://forum.literotica.com/threads/white-officers-in-minority-communities.1525284/post-92435953
 
Because there is a big difference between marginal tax rates and effective tax rates. You need to take into account tax rates on different types of income (wages, capital gains, dividends, individual vs corporate, etc) as well as what constitutes taxable income and what is exempt, and of course allowable deductions, tax credits and other tax code provisions. Effective rates for the richest 1% were never 90%. In the mid 1940s, the top rates were about 50% and began declining from there. By 1965, they dipped below 30% and have hovered a bit above and below ever since. The US tax code today is highly progressive. Despite the cuts under JFK, Reagan, and Bush, the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans is higher than ever.

Dear stupid person,

The article specifically is about marginal tax rates (the “tail of the distribution of payoffs”)

The argument that we can heavily tax the tail of the distribution of payoffs without discouraging prudent risk-taking …”

👍
 
Is Europe more or less restrictive on immigration of skilled workers? Any actual facts about that would be interesting.

Otherwise, this final statement doesn’t actually relate to the rest of the article:

The fastest way to accelerate America’s growth and increase tax revenues is to let high-skilled immigration expand our talent pool. Forty percent of America’s billion-dollar startups were founded by high-skilled immigrants—roughly the same percentage of STEM doctorates held by foreign-born American workers.
 
Risk taking culture coupled with growth oriented taxation and immigration policies matter. The last paragraph is really important. The importance of merit-based immigration cannot be understated.

Why are high-skilled immigrants so important? Are Americans not smart enough to start and grow businesses? Would a better education like you say other nations have be useful in getting Americans up to speed so they could create the businesses that you’re relying on immigrants to create? Why do you denigrate American ingenuity? 😄
 
If taxes are a major determining factor in entrepreneurship and innovation, why is high-tax California the birthplace of so many high-growth companies while red states like West Virginia and Mississippi lag behind in every way?

So many questions.
 
Dear stupid person,

The article specifically is about marginal tax rates (the “tail of the distribution of payoffs”)

The argument that we can heavily tax the tail of the distribution of payoffs without discouraging prudent risk-taking …”
Dear MajorRetard,
The point is few the 90% marginal tax rates of the last century were not the actual rates high earners paid.
 
Why are high-skilled immigrants so important? Are Americans not smart enough to start and grow businesses? Would a better education like you say other nations have be useful in getting Americans up to speed so they could create the businesses that you’re relying on immigrants to create? Why do you denigrate American ingenuity? 😄
Skilled immigrants have always been important contributors to the growth, wealth, and greatness of America. It might surprise you to learn that this fact dates back to our founding.
 
Dear MajorRetard,
The point is few the 90% marginal tax rates of the last century were not the actual rates high earners paid.

Dear stupid person,

The article specifically is about the marginal tax rates “taxing the tail of the distribution of payoffs”.

Regardless, please explain why high tax California spawns high-growth businesses while low tax red states Mississippi and West Virginia do not.

And if high-skill immigrants are important, what is the data on the number of high-skill immigrants entering Europe vs the US?
 
Back
Top