The World's Richest Countries And Biggest Economies, In 2 Graphics

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gross Domestic Product — GDP — may have its limits. But it's a useful, broad measure for looking at national economies. It's basically the total dollar value of all of the goods and services a country produces in a year.

Here are all the countries with GDP of over $100 billion:

Having a very large GDP means a country is an important economic player in the world. But it doesn't necessarily mean the country's citizens are rich.

A better measure for looking at the wealth or poverty of a nation's citizens is GDP per capita (adjusted for the fact that $1 buys more in some countries than in others).

Here are all the countries in the world with GDP per capita over $15,000 a year:

Perhaps the most striking difference between the two graphs is China, which has the second biggest economy in the world but is still very poor. China, which has a GDP per capita of $7,599, doesn't even show up on the second graphic.

It's also worth noting that GDP per capita is just an average. So a country with a high level of inequality may have a relatively high GDP per capita, but many poor people.

http://www.npr.org/b...ics?sc=fb&cc=fp

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So when are you moving to Qatar Steven?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So when are you moving to Qatar Steven?

Why Qatar? Luxembourg would be the obvious choice.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[Karee 4,191]

http://www.npr.org/b...ics?sc=fb&cc=fp

Equatorial Guinea is a little misleading. 70% of the people live on less than $2 a day.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So, the Philippines didn't make either graphic?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why Qatar? Luxembourg would be the obvious choice.

For what? Paying taxes?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For what? Paying taxes?

Largest per capita GDP. Plus beer is legal in Luxembourg.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Largest per capita GDP. Plus beer is legal in Luxembourg.

Which country has the largest median disposable income per capita? Those are the kind of figures that mean something.

As far as tax rates, it looks like Luxembourg ranks down there with Ireland and United Kingdom, around 27% for median effective tax rate. Not bad. That kind of blows a hole in the anti-austerity crowds economic theories.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Which country has the largest median disposable income per capita? Those are the kind of figures that mean something.

As far as tax rates, it looks like Luxembourg ranks down there with Ireland and United Kingdom, around 27% for median effective tax rate. Not bad. That kind of blows a hole in the anti-austerity crowds economic theories.

UK government spending is at roughly 50% of GDP, US government spending is at 40%. In Ireland it's 42%. The only country mentioned here that's actually more austere than the US is Luxembourg where government spending is 38% of GDP. What hole does that really blow into what crowd?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

UK government spending is at roughly 50% of GDP, US government spending is at 40%. In Ireland it's 42%. The only country mentioned here that's actually more austere than the US is Luxembourg where government spending is 38% of GDP. What hole does that really blow into what crowd?

Let's see, lower tax rates, less government spending, higher GDP per capita...yes, you are right...nothing to see here.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Let's see, lower tax rates, less government spending, higher GDP per capita...yes, you are right...nothing to see here.

The only country from your list with a lower tax rate is Ireland - last I checked, they're on life support. The UK and Luxembourg both have higher tax rates than the US. The only country out of your list where government spending is lower than in the US is Luxembourg. So the model would be Luxembourg - less government spending but higher taxes. Hence, they don't have much of a deficit and debt problem there. You were saying?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You were saying?

I think my link was showing effective tax rates on page 27, which is comparing apples with apples. Marginal tax rates are misleading.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think my link was showing effective tax rates on page 27, which is comparing apples with apples. Marginal tax rates are misleading.

Riddle me this, then. You're saying the US population and economy is so terribly disadvantaged by an unreasonably high tax burden as compared to the UK, Ireland and Luxembourg. Odd then that the governments of latter three haul in 39%, 31% and 37% of GDP in tax revenues while the US government (combined at all levels) hauls in merely 27% of GDP. If we are supposedly burdened with a heavier tax load, then where exactly is that money going if it doesn't show up in government tax revenues?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Riddle me this, then. You're saying the US population and economy is so terribly disadvantaged by an unreasonably high tax burden as compared to the UK, Ireland and Luxembourg. Odd then that the governments of latter three haul in 39%, 31% and 37% of GDP in tax revenues while the US government (combined at all levels) hauls in merely 27% of GDP. If we are supposedly burdened with a heavier tax load, then where exactly is that money going if it doesn't show up in government tax revenues?

When the US was doing well, and historically, government spending was around 19.5% GDP, and the tax revenues were coming in around 18% of GDP. I would suggest we have past the peak of the Laffer curve at 27% of GDP, with government spending pushing over 40%, and are well into the area of diminishing returns. With the EU on the verge of collapse, perhaps you have the reasons right in front of you, no matter how hard you try to avoid the obvious.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When the US was doing well, and historically, government spending was around 19.5% GDP, and the tax revenues were coming in around 18% of GDP. I would suggest we have past the peak of the Laffer curve at 27% of GDP, with government spending pushing over 40%, and are well into the area of diminishing returns. With the EU on the verge of collapse, perhaps you have the reasons right in front of you, no matter how hard you try to avoid the obvious.

Didn't you just celebrate the alleged lower tax burdens and supposedly lower government spending of these three European countries? Neither is the case. They all have higher tax burdens and - with the exception of Luxembourg - higher government spending than the US. So, now you want to change the subject? Okay, let's do that. The percentage of tax revenues you quote as the historical average are only federal taxes. That pst war average was indeed 18.5%. The federal tax revenue today is more in the range of 15% (not 27%) - or well below the average. Federal spending is indeed somewhat above the historical average - in the low to mid 20's (not 40%) where it historically averaged just below 20%. You know, since you are all about comparing apples to apples...

Edited June 5, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog