After accounting for indirect taxes and in-kind transfers, the US redistributes a greater share of national income to low-income groups than any European country

Thursday, February 24th, 2022

After accounting for indirect taxes and in-kind transfers, the US redistributes a greater share of national income to low-income groups than any European country.


  1. Bomag says:

    “…the US redistributes a greater share of national income to low-income groups than any European country.”

    And compared to the rest of the world, I imagine we are off the charts. Thus one reason for our mass immigration; “money on the sidewalk” as one pundit put it.

  2. Altitude Zero says:

    The comments on this are great over at MR; lots of “No, No, it can’t be twoo!” as the late Mr. Limbaugh used to say.

  3. Sam J. says:

    His article is one big ass gas-light. The guy writing this, I get so sick of pointing this stuff out. Even I feel self-conscious about doing so at times but…it can’t be helped that “every single time” we get some sort of garbage data pushed gobbledygook viewpoint, it’s almost always, a Jew doing it. It is what it is. If they would quit pushing mind garbage, I would quit noticing. I point this out continuously because it should be common knowledge that you can not as general rule depend on a damn thing they say.

    The link to the page of

    has an article on it, ““context is that which is scarce,”.

    Now this article goes on and on about context being everything. I think this is a subtle lie. I believe that some things just are. The value or the significance of things “does” have some underlying significant value NOT related to who observes it. It’s my opinion, and bet I’m right, is that he is trying to gaslight by pretending that all value is “relative”. I say, hell, no it’s not.

    Some examples he notes are modern art,

    He says,”I use “modern art” or “contemporary art” (both bad terms, by the way) as good benchmarks for whether a person understands “context is that which is scarce.” …”

    He’s pushing an agenda here. A lot of modern art is total shit. It’s of no value at all except for, likely, it’s value as a tool to launder money.

    Use some common sense. Most anyone, unless they are Jewish or mentally ill, when asked about the value of this art.

    Banana ‘Artwork’ Taped to Gallery Wall

    compared to this Rembrandt,

    will say the Rembrandt is art and the other is…a farce.

    And what really made me search to find if he was Jewish was he said,”…Many attributions of bad motives to people, or attributions of conspiracy, spring from a lack of understanding of context. It is easy enough for someone to seem like he or she is “operating in bad faith.” But usually a deeper and better understanding is available…”

    Immediately when you say some sort of nonsense like this I start looking to see if they are Jewish and, surprise, surprise, he is.

    This is a straightforward attempt to pretend that when people see a bunch of people doing things concurrently and it’s evil and is disruptive, AND they are Jews and they say,”…why you just don’t understand the context…”, they are trying to gas-light you.

    Why is this even important? Because he is subtly lying to you about money transfers in relation to Europe vs. USA. The way he says this, the structure of his sentences, appear to lead one to believe that the complaints about the differences between Europe and USA money transfers are false. With Europe traditionally being seen as being better overall for an average citizen.

    So what has he done? Like many times, the Jew leaves out very important parts of a statement to distort the meaning of the paper he liked here,

    He said,”…the US redistributes a greater share of national income to low-income groups …”

    but the whole statement in the paper is,

    “…the fact that we account for indirect taxes and in-kind transfers…”

    Bingo! When you account for “indirect taxes” it changes.

    Let me make it easy on you. In the US the rich pay less taxes and the rest of the “greater share of national income” comes from indirect taxes. This means they are taxing the living hell out of the middle class. Where else would they get all this cash? They already told you it didn’t come from the poor, and giving to the poor while NOT taxing the top income earners at the same rate.

    Changes the whole perspective on things, doesn’t it?

    They are collapsing the middle class while enriching the already rich and giving it to the poor, which they use as clients to control the middle class. Another deadly aspect of this “control” mechanism of the middle class is the releasing of criminals, and at the same time throwing the legal book at anyone trying to stop the criminals from imposing themselves on the average citizen.

    This sort of gas-lighting nonsense permeates our entire society.

    Another current one is all these constant lies about Russia being such a threat. Russia is only a threat in the sense that Americans might catch some sort of blow back, collateral damage, from the Jews using our country to launch attacks on them. As a “base level” threat, Russia is no threat at all to the US.

    If we could only get Putin to invade the US and get rid of our dictator Jew administration like Ukraine, we would put him on Mt. Rushmore.

    I was looking for some old comments I made and found this story I wrote. I was arguing with some Jew about whether Jews did any good for us or not or some such Hasbara nonsense he was spewing about to discombobulate people minds and came up with this story. It amused me greatly maybe some will be amused by it also.

    There was a Man who lived in a little village in the valley of an area with towering peaks. Every so often he would have to carry a big sack of potatoes over a small twisting mountain trail lined with rocks and thorny branches. Unfortunately the Man was a huge bumbling fool. Frequently he would trip and go crashing into the thorny bushes off the trail. It was tragic to see him so but in the end he would always prevail and sell his potatoes at the market in the valley next to his. Now imagine the same bumbling fool with the same sack of potatoes but with a little Jew perched on top of the sack and every so often whacking the shit out of the fool about the head with a stick. With such thrashing he of course fell off the path much more frequently and was a mess of bruises, whelts and scrapes by the time he got to the next village market. And even worse at the end the the little Jew stole 20% of his potatoes and the market chief refused him any relief to do anything about it.

    Now the Man is a bumbling fool. We all know that but I suspect he could do a lot better if he got rid of the little Jew whacking the shit out of him with the stick. In all and every case we would be better off without the Jew.

    I suspect that we Whites, or any other race for that matter, could be the worst people on the planet, fools, knaves, why we could be perverts that smeared our naked children with peanut butter, crammed them in big paper bags and sprayed them with fire hoses in public assemblies and still be better off without the Jews.

    No matter what our problems, what ever we don’t understand, how awful we are or what we do wrong we will always be better off if we just get rid of the damn Jews.

  4. Jim says:

    I love you, Sam.

  5. Harry Jones says:

    I’m starting to appreciate the posting length limit on Twitter. Forces people to be concise.

    Those who can be pithy are pithy. Those who have nothing new to say are at least brief.

    Of course, it’s hard to get away with antisemitic rants there, but there are other forms of bigotry to choose from. You can even go Russia denialist there. You can be as stupid or venal or irrational as you like on Twitter, until the mods randomly – and temporarily – decide to care.

    The only consistently enforced rule there is that you have to be brief.

    There are of course thoughts that cannot be compressed. For that, there’s blogs. Blogs are also good for the verbose and repetitive screeds of the unhinged and obsessed. Serve up as much word salad as you like, but only as a side dish.

  6. Sam J. says:

    Harry Jones says, “I’m starting to appreciate the posting length limit on Twitter.”

    “Of course, it’s hard to get away with antisemitic rants there.”

    It’s not the posting length that keeps people from talking about Jews on Twatter, it’s the censorship.

    “Serve up as much word salad…”

    The length is directly proportional to the density of lies. A “honesty” function you might call it.

    Oh and by the way it’s a “canard” that anything said the Jews don’t like is anti-Semitic.

  7. Harry Jones says:

    Not supporting censorship, but it’s only free speech to the extent that you’re actually saying something.

    Spend some quality time with Strunk & White.

    “The length is directly proportional to the density of lies.”

    That’s either very clever of you or not clever at all depending whether you did it on purpose.

  8. Arminius says:


    You are completely wrong about taxes in the U.S. and Europe. From the paper:

    “Two results clearly stand out. First, while taxes paid are lower in the US than in Europe for most pretax income groups, the taxation profile is unambiguously more progressive in the United States. The top 1% face a tax rate higher than 30% in the US, which is relatively comparable to what we observe in Western and Northern Europe. Meanwhile, bottom income groups are taxed at an average rate that is nearly twice as small in the US as in Europe. Second, the difference in tax progressivity between the two regions is mainly driven by indirect taxes, which represent a significantly larger share of national income in Europe than in the US. These taxes tend to be regressive, because they are paid proportionally to consumption.”

  9. Sam J. says:

    Harry Jones says,”Not supporting censorship, but it’s only free speech to the extent that you’re actually saying something…”

    Look at the Jew mind discombobulation in that statement.

    “…it’s only free speech to the extent that you’re actually saying something.”

    And who does Harry think needs to choose if it’s “something” or not. The Jews of course.

    “That’s either very clever of you or not clever at all depending whether you did it on purpose.”

    More discombobulation. It’s mine. It didn’t appear by magic and I didn’t copy it. It’s obvious.

    One of the reasons I’m so long is Jews like to do the little kid word wiggle. Like little kids saying,”you have cooties” and the other replies,”no I don’t”. There’s no real end to this, which is why Jews like it so much. It has no inherent meaning or value. Jews love that. Enormous amounts of babble about nothing going nowhere. It’s what you are doing now. Don’t think I don’t notice.

    My goal is to point this out. Over time people will see this and soon begin to recognize it for what it is. Discombobulated mind warp.

    I wonder on a severe tangent, if this love of little kid word wiggle is related to the enormous psychopathy present in Jewish populations. As kids are a bit psychopathic because they have not learned empathy yet???

    The length, sometimes, ends the endless “cootie” Jew response. You can tell it’s working when they constantly change the subject.

    Don’t flatter yourself that you’re only one that can do it.

    How about,” Jewish freedom is Gentile slavery”.

    Or even better, I’ll lay some Bob Whitaker on you. Who could defeat any one of you with verbs tied behind his back.

    “Political Correctness is a religion of “tolerance” in the same way that Islam is a religion of “peace”.

    Taste is a matter of taste.

    The whole point of free speech is to let people speak unpleasant truths. If you punish people for that, free speech is a joke.

    Can anybody name a single label that the media doesn’t ENCOURAGE people to use against Whites?

    Professors are nasty little tyrants who foist lies on young people under their charge because they’re accountable to no one but themselves.”

    I could go on and on. I have a copy of most of his tweets before they, censored him.

  10. Wang Wei Lin says:

    Sam J… the David French of Isegoria. As a general courtesy comments should be shorter than the story.

  11. Sam J. says:

    Arminius says, “You are completely wrong about taxes in the U.S. and Europe.”

    I don’t see how you have proved that. MY premise is that in Europe they do not tax the middle class as much as they do the rich and that in the States they funnel money away from the middle class. This is true.

    You completely leave out that a large amount of European “spending” is on the middle class in Europe whereas in the States they funnel money to the rich and the poor while leaving out the middle class comparatively.

  12. Sam J. says:

    Wang Wei Lin says, “As a general courtesy comments should be shorter than the story.”

    You have a point. A good one, but are you willing to criticize those that make false statements that they structure in such a way that it takes a lot of words to explain how they are deceiving people? If not then you’re just asking for more disinformation while trying to silence anyone who wants it to stop or at the least wishes to point out how the deception is done.

    And no one has to read anything I write. It’s not that long. You can scroll through.

  13. Arminius says:


    I understand your premise; it is simply factually wrong. The very paper cited in the post has data that shows how the U.S. tax system is more progressive than Europe and in Europe; all those social welfare programs you seem to love are paid for by “indirect taxes” which fall primarily on the poor and middle class.

    This same paper explains that the social welfare benefits mostly goes to the poor in the U.S., not the rich or the middle-class.

    Here is a good simple paper from Heritage explaining this very concept:

    The ‘money’ quote:

    “If Americans want European-style government services, they should be ready for European-style taxes. European welfare states do not rely on overly progressive tax systems. Instead, they use broad-based taxes like the value-added tax (VAT), high payroll taxes, and relatively flat income taxes, which fall primarily on taxpayers in the middle of the income distribution.”

  14. Sam J. says:

    “…all those social welfare programs you seem to love…”

    You’re putting words in my mouth I did not say. Show me where I said that my motivation was love of government services.

    “…are paid for by “indirect taxes” which fall primarily on the poor and middle class…”

    That health care and a lot of other services are paid for out of taxes in Europe means you completely ignore a large amount of transfer payments.

    Quick search shows average 6.7% GDP in the European Union. That’s a shit load of money. Yet to you that’s…nothing. You don’t count that. Please don’t tell me such lies and pretend I should swallow them.

    This being good or bad I will not discuss unless you are going to pay for my time and I expect that’s a non-starter. Too much complication. But there is no way you can wave your hands around and declare European transfer payments of “zero” value.

    In the US the poor get free heath car, the rich can afford it mostly, but the middle class get the bill. Health care cost were raised DRAMATICALLY on the middle class by Obama.

    “…simple paper from Heritage…”

    I don’t believe them. They ignore transfer payments, as I said. They are hacks. I know how they avoid certain payments while adding every tax they can find. They are NOT honest. Nothing but Rhinos.

    Notice these hacks don’t say a word about the trillions given to the banks and businesses to bail them out over decades. Vast sums that all went into the pockets of…anyone but the middle class. Not a word on this.

    Look you can’t blow smoke up my ass on this. Let’s look at some real numbers and see. They got, we know from Rep. Ron Paul’s forced audit of the FED $16 trillion(long time ago). Estimates of the total amounts years ago from looking at financial data by several groups is $29 trillion. I bet it’s more, (I expect the numbers to be over, maybe well over, $40 trillion after all the funds the FED pushed during the Jew covid attack but let’s use the old ones).

    At $29 Trillion and 300 million Americans we could have given a zero interest loan for every family of four of $386,666. Housing crisis solved and the economy would have roared with all that cash going into people’s pockets. Instead the banks got all the money to buy hard assets, and we got the bill. We would be much better off printing money straight up and just giving it to people. There will be gasp at this idea but if printing $29 Trillion and giving it to the banks is not bad then why would bankrupting the banks and giving 29 trillion to the public be worse? This is not even counting the enormous, I mean truly extraordinary, amounts of money missing at all levels of government. They have carted off trillions. Stolen it. It’s missing.

    I fully double down 100% stand behind my reading of the whole looting of the US middle class as being correct.

    If you are right and the middle class it’s getting all this good stuff then answer this. Why is the middle class shrinking, the rich getting richer and there are more people becoming poor? That does not fit your narrative but it does mine. The macroeconomics say I’m right.

  15. Arminius says:


    There are two separate issues:

    1) Who pays for social welfare programs?

    2) Who gets the social welfare programs?

    You say:

    “That health care and a lot of other services are paid for out of taxes in Europe means you completely ignore a large amount of transfer payments.”

    Your original premise was “that in Europe they do not tax the middle class as much as they do the rich”

    Wrong. But this only addressed (1).

    Then you go to say:

    “and that in the States they funnel money away from the middle class. This is true.”

    In Europe, it is definitely true that in addition to paying more taxes, the middle class gets more benefits (mostly in the form of health care.) Should the U.S. follow their model? There are pros and cons. I didn’t say anything about social welfare benefits going to the middle class in the U.S. (they mostly go to the poor.)

    As for the rest of your response regarding the banks, I notice you didn’t provide any links. It could also be argued that rescuing banks helped the overall economy (I’m not convinced this is true, but it is an argument.)

    Finally, I agree there are problems for the middle class. However, it should be noted that this class is shrinking because they are getting richer:

  16. Sam J. says:

    “…There are two separate issues:

    1) Who pays for social welfare programs?

    2) Who gets the social welfare programs?…”

    No they are not. Not for what anyone who is interested in the health of the general population and the middle class financial health.

    You know good and well that you are arguing about little semantics, when my point is in aggregate who pays and where the money goes.

    It’s like counting the vaxed dead and saying they are not getting covid. Well right, they’re dead already.

    People complain about the length of my comments. Well this is why they are so long. You complain about no links, but…this takes words.

    I do not believe this. His statistics may be correct as noted but I suspect strongly that he is cooking the books somehow or the data it draws from is leaving things out. His links to the data do not exist and no I’m not going to dig it up. They pay him to do this.

    I found another link at the FED that shows your view point and it’s the same. I’m not sure how they are cooking the books. Maybe they are leaving out taxes or the cost of expenditures needed for families. It’s possible these have gone up and even if you have more money, taxes and cost have risen faster.

    I look at the crumbling buildings, infrastructure and the closed shops and…is this all fake??? They may have these statistics but they do not seem to correspond to reality. I think they are taking one measure of wealth, income, while ignoring all cost. I would not put it past them to be straight up lying and producing false statistics.

    Looking quickly, I see lots of links if you search for “declining middle class” and one of the reasons they give is,”…The cost of living has risen, wages have not, and debt just keeps on accumulating. …”. So let’s say people are making more money but debt has gone up so fast that all this “income” is really transfer payments to the banks.

    No matter what they say you can’t cram another many, many tens of millions of people into the country, move all the manufacturing out, raise taxes. give trillions and trillions to bankers and still have an increasing middle class. There’s something deeply wrong with their numbers. They are lying with statistics.

    So yes you have won the debate if only income is counted but all other factors are omitted. But I do not yield that overall aggregate wealth of the middle class is getting better.

    “…As for the rest of your response regarding the banks, I notice you didn’t provide any links….”

    As for the missing money you can look up Ron Pauls report on money the FED gave bankers during the bail out. Other below.

    She was at HUD for Bush and when she went to find the books for HUD she found there was none. She also found vast sums of money missing. She drive to to “supposed” developments and find, nothing, Nothing at all.

    She eventually found other government statistics to track the money in, outlays out and found large sums of money gone. This has been 2nded by other college groups checking her work. The same applies to the Defense department.

    Somewhere in her site is lots of reports on this with data and links. You’ll have to find it.

    She also has several YouTube videos where she has given speeches and interviews to various groups and people. Very interesting.

  17. Jim says:

    When thinking about redistribution, this is everything you need to understand:

    1. Poor people: collect more than they “make” thanks to transfer payments from the governments.
    2. Rich people: collect more than they “make” thanks to transfer payments from the corporations.
    3. Middle-class people: ???

    Obviously the middle-class people are working for the corporations, which is to say working for the rich people, and being taxed by the governments, which is to say working for the poor people.

    Sometimes this is obscured by the fiat money system because of the way that the banks redistribute hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars per year. Where does the value come from? Haha…

  18. Jim says:

    Catherine Austin Fitts is a legend, but it doesn’t take a genius to look around and notice that physical infrastructure is falling apart even as the government announces higher production this year than last year and higher production next year than this year. Long live Comrade Stalin!

Leave a Reply