Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Marginal tax rates are relatively meaningless except for financial planning purposes, i.e. to determine the hurdle rate for financial modeling. In 2009, when the marginal federal income tax rate in the U.S. was 35 per cent of adjusted gross income, the average effective tax rate for a median income family was 7.71 per cent. The average effective federal income tax rate for those with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million to $10 million was 24.95 per cent.  Those over $10 million had a somewhat lower effective tax rate, all of which proves very little. The effective tax rate as a per cent of GDP for the U.S. in 2010 was 24.8 per cent, vs. 24.1 per cent in 2009. From 1975 through 2010 the average rate was 27.3 per cent, with a median of 27.4 per cent and a standard deviation of 1.4 per cent.  A Z score analysis suggests there were no outlier years.  So what? The other side of the equation is expenditures.  At the federal level, in FY11, revenues were 15.4 per cent of GDP and expenditures were 24.1 per cent of GDP.  For FY12 the number are 15.8 and 24.3.  Again, so what? Cross boarder comparisons are dicy.  Australia has a two tier third party medical payment scheme.  Basic medical services are paid for by Medicare, which is funded through general taxes.  Since Australian Medicare does not cover all expenses, Aussies are given an incentive to buy supplemental third part coverage.  In fact, if they don't buy it, they have to pay a Medicare surtax.  In America most people are covered by so-called health insurance; it is really a third party payment system irrespective of the magnitude of the service received, which is a part of their compensation package.  If the cost of third party medical coverage in the U.S. was added to the tax base, the tax revenue to GDP ratio would change.  Which brings me to a key point.  It does not matter what they do in other countries, other than they may have some best practices worth looking at.  At the end of the day the trains issue should be what works for America.  Not what works someplace else!  What works someplace else may not work very well here.   If Amtrak were run like a business, the key question for investors is whether they (private for profit, private for non-profit, government, etc.) can retrieve the cost of their investment through the fare box or whether it requires on-going operating subsidies.  All of the numbers that I have seen suggest that no matter what format the organization takes, passenger rail in the U.S. cannot cover its costs through the users.  Thus, one way or the other it becomes a ward of the state.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag