Contrary to popular belief, tax and benefit systems in many developed countries have become more progressive since the 1980s. This increased redistribution has successfully counteracted the rise in pre-tax income inequality, meaning post-tax inequality is often no higher than it was in the 1990s.
Related Insights
Deficit spending acts as a hidden tax via inflation. This tax disproportionately harms those without assets while benefiting the small percentage of the population owning assets like stocks and real estate. Therefore, supporting deficit spending is an active choice to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Contrary to popular belief, Nordic countries are not socialist. They operate on a capitalist framework with private markets. Their extensive social safety nets are funded by extremely high taxes on everyone, including the middle and lower classes—a model fundamentally different from socialism's state ownership of production.
Social Security is framed not just as a successful anti-poverty program, but as a system that annually moves over a trillion dollars from the younger, less wealthy working-age population to the most affluent generation in history, who are often asset-rich.
Raising the minimum wage often benefits individuals in higher-income households (e.g., teens with summer jobs) rather than the poorest families. The most vulnerable are often not in work. A more generous welfare state that directly provides money to poor households is a more targeted and effective way to reduce poverty and inequality.
Intended as a safety net, Britain's extensive welfare system now acts as a trap, creating powerful disincentives to work. With over half of households receiving more in benefits than they pay in taxes, the system fosters a dependency that is difficult for anyone, even the ambitious, to escape.
While praised for social safety nets, Nordic countries have higher taxes, slower GDP growth, and far less venture capital funding than the U.S. Their model represents a specific trade-off, not a universally superior system, and struggles with scale and diversity.
The US tax system disproportionately penalizes high-income 'workhorses' (e.g., doctors, lawyers) who earn from labor. In contrast, the super-rich, who derive wealth from capital gains and have mobility, benefit from loopholes that result in dramatically lower effective tax rates.
Immigration policy must account for economic incentives. Unlike in the past, modern welfare states make immigration an economically rational choice for survival, not just opportunity. This shifts the dynamic, attracting individuals based on benefits rather than a desire to contribute without a safety net.
Economist Arthur Laffer explains a core economic principle: transferring wealth reduces incentives for both the producer and the recipient. Taxing productive people disincentivizes work, as do subsidies. The logical conclusion is that the more a society redistributes income, the smaller the total economic pie becomes.
Historically high marginal tax rates in the 1950s-70s were largely ineffective due to widespread loopholes and expense account abuse. Modern tax systems are more progressive primarily because they have been tightened, making it much harder for the wealthy to avoid taxes, rather than simply from headline rate increases.