The same reason we suck at soccer. It's just not as popular here as other places.
Now start a thread asking why these things aren't more popular. I bet everyone says "Because Americans suck at it!"
Love when folks play those games with cause/effect.
hmmm...."Financial Times," using "the BKR tax index shows the level of disposable after-tax income available to an individual in different countries as a percentage of their total income" shows the USA not among the lowest in the world, but actually pretty in the middle, roughly even with Canada, Argentina, Spain, Australia, South Africa, Turkey, Mexico ; considerably worse off than Russia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia ; condierably better off than Brazil, Germany, UK, Ireland, Japan, China, Italy.
Well.....the average statistic is only 72% accurate anyway. So who knows?
Were in the middle of the world (as a whole), but towards the low(er) end of the rich (OECD) countries, regarding taxes.
Don't compare us with Russia, their tax (evasion) money is funnelled through Cyprus. (Some) of our big corporate cash piles are also "sitting" offshore, just not in Cyprus.
And yes, "average" statistics are usually only about 72 percent accurate. Not unlike the average number of years it takes to break into the USCF A Class.
But transfer pricing "legalities," and algorithmns, are (perhaps) just a bit too complex to fathom, even by the @BatGirl. 
Quite an ignorant statement.
There's going to be a lot of arrogance in this thread. What a shame :(
...based on my avatar. Keep going, the foot is almost all the way in.
Thanks for the graph. I'd be curious to know what basis the compilers used to determine that data. They show USA paying 18% tax. I'm middle-icome and my actual federal tax alone is around 21%, my actual state tax around 6%. That's already 27% of my income, not 18%. Property tax is about 2% of my income. Sales tax, I can't determine but it's 7% of everything I spend. Heath insurance takes another 12% of my income (as opposed to countries with national health care included in their tax). So, I find those statisitcs misleading.
It's true that it's difficult to compare taxes across different countries, because the tax systems may vary. But believe me that the concrete numbers you give for yourself appear very low to a European.
The claim that America in anti-intellectual by citing the name of a book doesn't cut it either. I couldn't come up with a single objective measurement that supports such a claim.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/14/science/sciencespecial2/20050815_EVO_GRAPHIC.html
I wouldn't put much stock in anything cited by the NY Times. They are politically biased, and they will print anything that suggests we have too many "ignorant bible-thumpers" that must be eradicated.
You offer a blanket attack on the source without addressing the specific data. There's a word for such dismissal: ignorant. Illogical is a kinder version of the same.
Even FOX, which has proven a success in making its viewers more ignorant than those who consume no news at all, cannot be dismissed with such a blanket assertion. Attack the data.
We need to work to pay for our taxes, etc. We pay high and work hard, we don't have time for hobbies.
Gimmie a break.
The U.S.A. is, practically, a tax haven. I don't think they have ever been lower, either.
Edit: I replied after only reading the first page. I didn't know, "If zborg and I are on the same side, then the other side really has no place to stand."
Hell, that's all you had to say.
Even FOX, which has proven a success in making its viewers more ignorant than those who consume no news at all, cannot be dismissed with such a blanket assertion. Attack the data.
And that comment makes you completely irrelevant in any intelligent conversation. Your bias is incredible. You say that "even Fox ... cannot be dismissed with such a blanket assertion" and yet that is exactly what you have done. Show the proof that I am ignorant because I watch Fox. You cannot do it. Therefore you are just as guilty as the one you attack.
But lets look at the CNN crowd, whose anchor Deborah Feyeric actually asked Bill Nye if the coming asteroid was casued by global warming. Yup, that CNN makes geniuses out of their viewers. Talk about ignorance.
Oh, and illogical and ignorant are two COMPETELY different words. One can be extremely knowledgeable and be still illogical. You do know the definitons (and synonyms) of both of those words, right?
You mean, the asteroid wasn't caused by global warming?!
In that case, it must have been fabricated by intergalactic terrorists!
You mean, the asteroid wasn't caused by global warming?!
In that case, it must have been fabricated by intergalactic terrorists!
No, it was Obama's fault. Didn't you know, all Foxnews viewers think it is Obama's fault, we are that ignorant. At least according to Ziryab.
http://topekasnews.com/asteroid-2012-da14-almost-hits-earth-barack-obama-is-to-blame/
Even FOX, which has proven a success in making its viewers more ignorant than those who consume no news at all, cannot be dismissed with such a blanket assertion. Attack the data.
And that comment makes you completely irrelevant in any intelligent conversation. Your bias is incredible. You say that "even Fox ... cannot be dismissed with such a blanket assertion" and yet that is exactly what you have done. Show the proof that I am ignorant because I watch Fox. You cannot do it. Therefore you are just as guilty as the one you attack.
I was arguing against the dismissal of FOX, despite a widely disseminated study to which I referred. Your comment suggests that in addition to needing a reading lesson (you found in my remarks the opposite of what they said), you appear ignorant of the study. Here's one link: http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
I repeat for those who need remedial reading instruction:
1) attack the facts, not the source
2) even a source proven to lack credibility cannot be dismissed wholesale
3) each story stands or falls on its own
Even FOX, which has proven a success in making its viewers more ignorant than those who consume no news at all, cannot be dismissed with such a blanket assertion. Attack the data.
And that comment makes you completely irrelevant in any intelligent conversation. Your bias is incredible. You say that "even Fox ... cannot be dismissed with such a blanket assertion" and yet that is exactly what you have done. Show the proof that I am ignorant because I watch Fox. You cannot do it. Therefore you are just as guilty as the one you attack.
But lets look at the CNN crowd, whose anchor Deborah Feyeric actually asked Bill Nye if the coming asteroid was casued by global warming. Yup, that CNN makes geniuses out of their viewers. Talk about ignorance.
Oh, and illogical and ignorant are two COMPETELY different words. One can be extremely knowledgeable and be still illogical. You do know the definitons (and synonyms) of both of those words, right?
Of course they are different terms. But, your agaility with the dictionary runs beyond your skills in attending to the conversation. The ad hominem attack under discussion was a failure in logic grounded in ignorance made manifest. Sometimes more than one label fits.
The facts presented in the NYT graph remain beyond dispute. If they are wrong, provide evidence.
Speaking of taxes, you geeks better file your W2's soon!