Originally Posted by Yvaelle Originally Posted by

Realistically, this happened long ago - but due to structural differences in governance and taxation between the US and other major developed nations - this metric was kept in Americas favour far longer than it would have been if it were an accurate representation of quality of life (Americans like to use 'after-tax income' as a euphemism for quality of life).



The thing is, America has the lowest tax rates of all the major developed nations in the world - but as a result - their after tax income is further cut by higher costs of living (like health insurance, higher education costs, higher debt ratios and interest rates, etc). The Canadian Middle Class pays higher tax than the US Middle Class - which made the US appear to have more 'after tax income' - but Americans then pay out all the additional costs that other governments (like Canada, North European, Scandinavian, Japan, South Korea) cover as part of their governance.



This means that if we were measuring for the overall success (via a metric like... cost of living versus discretionary income versus quality of life) a lot of the more socialist developed nations have probably been well ahead of the US for some time now: perhaps a dozen countries for more than a decade now.





@ The Guy Who Suggested they don't adjust for Purchasing Power Parity



a) Of Course the New York Times adjusted for purchasing power parity.

b) Canada's PPP is at parity with the US right now, and has been artificially kept at parity for trade reasons for the last decade or so.