logo
Are People in Mississippi Really Richer Than People in Europe?

Are People in Mississippi Really Richer Than People in Europe?

Newsweek30-04-2025

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Many are feeling the brunt of inflation and larger economic turmoil as economists debate whether the U.S. is in a recession.
However, income levels reveal a surprising trend among Americans and their European counterparts. Even some of the poorest Americans might be technically richer than the average European.
Looking at 2022 data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis on states' average disposable income and European countries' average disposable income per household for the same year, according to the World Population Review, the United States' average was higher than even the wealthiest European country, Luxembourg.
While the U.S. average disposable income for 2022 was $51,147, per the World Population Review, Luxembourg, the most well-off European country, brought in an average of just $44,773. All other European countries had an average far below that.
Water floods a road near the marina hours before Hurricane Sally makes landfall on the U.S. Gulf Coast in Pascagoula, Mississippi, on September 15, 2020.
Water floods a road near the marina hours before Hurricane Sally makes landfall on the U.S. Gulf Coast in Pascagoula, Mississippi, on September 15, 2020.
CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images
Why It Matters
Americans are up against some major financial hurdles as inflation is at 2.4 percent and the housing market remains out of reach for many.
Federal student loan borrowers will see their default payments reported to creditors once again starting in May, and average salaries for some of the most common college majors like social science are declining, according to recent reports.
Disposable income by state and European country reveals Americans could theoretically have more purchasing power even amid these financial concerns, but experts say this is misleading for the greater economic conditions at work in the U.S. and in Europe.
What To Know
The average U.S. disposable income for 2022 was $51,147, almost $10,000 higher than the top European country, Luxembourg, at $44,773, according to World Population Review.
Other countries, like Germany and Belgium, saw lower average disposable income of between $34,000 and $38,000.
Even some of the poorest states in the U.S., like Mississippi, had higher average disposable income than Europeans, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Mississippi, the poorest state, had an average of $42,762, still higher than the majority of European countries, expect Luxembourg.
Richer states like Massachusetts saw a whopping average disposable income of $69,047, far exceeding any European country reviewed by World Population.
However, experts say these statistics may be misleading because of the extent of the government-provided social services that Europeans rely on, while Americans pay higher premiums on health care and car transportation on average.
Ryan McMaken, an executive editor at the Mises Institute who wrote a piece on U.S. states with a higher income than all European countries in 2018, acknowledged that income "isn't the only measure of prosperity," but "it is an important one."
"Although some interventionists would like to portray the US as an economic basket case where only the super-wealthy prosper," McMaken wrote in his 2018 article, "the numbers simply don't bear this out. This doesn't prove the US and other wealthy relatively libertarian countries [such as Switzerland] as flawless. But the data hardly supports crude theories that a little more government spending will pave the way to economic prosperity."
The numerical value of Americans' disposable income does not reflect the full picture of what Americans are up against financially, Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor at the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek.
"The social services of many of our European nation counterparts are vastly wider and paid prior to take-home pay," Beene said. "While on paper the dollar amount may be higher, many Americans are having to use that disposable income for charges those living in other countries may not have to contend with."
What People Are Saying
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "It's almost impossible to meaningfully compare a country like Japan, with 124 million people, to a small state like Mississippi with just 3 million people. There's no logical way to square that, but plenty of people still try....
"The 'perception' of higher disposable income comes from the way Americans are forced to spend money out-of-pocket on things those other countries fund through taxes and social programs. If I'm paying 50 percent in taxes elsewhere but get real benefits like public transportation through infrastructure spending, pensions for retirement and universal healthcare, then sure, it looks like taxes are higher, but the costs are bundled differently."
Ryan McMaken, an executive editor at the Mises Institute, told Newsweek: "Contrary to what Europeans think, the United States is home to a huge welfare state and many millions of Americans receive income through social benefits programs. When we look at total spending on social benefits as a percentage of GDP, the US is comparable to many other European-style welfare states....
"When Europeans see numbers and comparisons like these, they often claim that there can be no comparison because in the European mind, the US is a land of terrible inequality and social Darwinism fueled by a lack of any social benefits. They're wrong about the social benefits—which also include huge income transfers through programs like Medicare and Medicaid."
Catherine Wilson, CEO of United Way of Greater Newark, told Newsweek: "In the states, where it may appear that Americans have more disposable income, they actually have less assets because in those same states, the cost of housing, child care, etc., is more.
"Americans might have more liquidity on hand, but they are using that cash for the same services at higher costs. That's why people earning six figures in cities like New York or San Francisco still feel like they're barely getting by—their income is absorbed by systems that don't support basic affordability."
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor at the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Often, the comparison of states to European countries is made to demonstrate for political arguments either how great America has it or how far it is behind its Western peers in different areas. The reality is these comparisons aren't always fair. Yes, even some of the poorest American states rival or exceed the disposable income levels of other countries."
What Happens Next
While in America, people tend to take home more on paper, they also pay directly for health care, retirement savings and cars, which often brings along significant debt, Thompson said. That debt is likely to remain higher than Europeans on average in the coming years.
"When you factor in those real-world costs, the "disposable income" advantage all but disappears," Thompson said. "Higher disposable income doesn't feel real when your paycheck has to cover things others receive through public programs. In the U.S., much of what Europeans fund through taxes, we fund through personal debt."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Country That Exports The Most Candy Is Smaller Than Montana
The Country That Exports The Most Candy Is Smaller Than Montana

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

The Country That Exports The Most Candy Is Smaller Than Montana

Candy is a beloved and widely popular treat in nearly every part of the world, but some countries contribute far more sugary confections to the global market than others. Germany is the country that exports the most candy by a significant margin. In 2023, Germany exported over $2 billion worth of sugar confectionery, followed by China at just shy of $1.5 billion and Mexico rounding out the top three at nearly $1.1 billion, according to data from the World Bank. Interestingly, China exported slightly more candy by weight (467.5 million kilograms) than Germany, which exported 428.5 million kilograms. However, when it comes to dollar value, Germany is the clear winner, accounting for nearly 13% of total global candy exports in 2022, according to research from Tendata. Candy might not be the first culinary delight that comes to mind when you think of Germany (perhaps that would be Oktoberfest beer or Volkswagen's bestselling sausages), but the country is home to several of the world's largest candy manufacturers, including Haribo and Storck, the company behind Werther's Original. Quite impressive for a country smaller than Montana and three other U.S. states. Read more: 6 Nuts To Stop Eating And 8 To Choose Instead It may seem surprising that a country nearly 28 times smaller than the United States exports such an impressive quantity of candy, but it turns out Germany's exporting power extends far beyond sugar confectionery. Although Germany is hardly a giant when it comes to size, it's the world's third-largest exporter of goods and services behind only China and the United States, according to the World Population Review. Germany's principal exports are motor vehicles, chemicals, and machinery. In fact, the World Population Review reports that Germany was also the top exporter of cars by value in 2023, but we still think the country's domination of the international candy market is more impressive. Oh, and in case you were wondering where all that candy is going, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC), the United States is the top destination for Germany's candy exports, receiving $290 million worth of gummies, caramels, and other sugary treats in 2023. Germany exports plenty of candy to other parts of the world, but Germans also have an impressive sweet tooth in their own right. Statista found that Germans consume nearly 29 pounds of candy per capita annually, more than any other country. Some favorites include Haribo gummies (which we've ranked from worst to best), marzipan, and caramels like Toffifee, Riesen, and Werther's Original. For more food and drink goodness, join The Takeout's newsletter. Get taste tests, food & drink news, deals from your favorite chains, recipes, cooking tips, and more! Read the original article on The Takeout.

Opinion - Fix the wealth gap by changing the corporate tax code
Opinion - Fix the wealth gap by changing the corporate tax code

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Fix the wealth gap by changing the corporate tax code

As Congress crafts yet another budget, it is time to confront a quiet enabler of America's growing wealth gap: the way we tax corporate profits. The U.S. corporate tax system is a maze of complexity, distortion and avoidance. At the same time, the richest Americans — who own the lion's share of corporate stock — see their wealth balloon not from income, but from capital appreciation fueled by retained corporate earnings. They pay little or nothing in taxes until they choose to sell — if ever. Here is a simple idea that could transform that system: Replace the corporate income tax with a flat tax on retained earnings. Instead of taxing corporate profits on paper, tax the portion that companies choose not to distribute — those retained earnings that quietly accumulate on balance sheets, inflate stock values and end up driving inequality. The logic is straightforward. Retained earnings represent profits that aren't reinvested in capital or returned to shareholders. They sit — often offshore and untaxed — fueling stock buybacks or simply increasing book value. Meanwhile, shareholders can borrow against those unrealized gains, grow richer by the year and legally avoid income tax altogether. Under the current system, corporations face a 21 percent statutory income tax rate. But due to loopholes and global tax arbitrage, the effective rate is often much lower — closer to between 9 percent and 15 percent. At the same time, the top 1 percent of Americans own more than 90 percent of stocks and mutual fund wealth, much of which compounds through retained earnings without triggering taxable events. A 20 percent flat tax on retained earnings, applied at the corporate level, would be lower than the statutory income tax but much harder to evade. It would simplify the tax code, eliminate gamesmanship and ensure that profits benefit society, whether distributed or not. Companies could avoid the tax by issuing dividends — thereby transferring the tax burden to shareholders, who would then pay ordinary dividend taxes. Or companies could reinvest in productive capital expenditures or research and development, which could be exempted from the tax base. People often complain that the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes. A retained earnings tax addresses this directly, since the wealthy are by far the largest shareholders. By inducing higher dividend payouts, the tax would convert more untaxed wealth into taxable income — ensuring the rich pay more, proportionally and predictably. This plan is fair. Wealth would no longer accumulate tax-free inside corporations. Ultra-wealthy shareholders would see more of their income flow to dividends, triggering taxes like ordinary Americans face on wages. In 2024, S&P 500 companies earned approximately $1.9 trillion in pre-tax profits. Of that, they paid only about $248 billion in corporate taxes — just 13 percent of total profits — and distributed around $650 billion in dividends to shareholders. That left well over $1 trillion in earnings to be retained or used for stock buybacks. A 20 percent tax on just the retained portion — estimated near $870 billion — would yield $174 billion annually. More importantly, it would encourage companies to issue more dividends — triggering personal income tax obligations at rates of 15 percent to 23.8 percent. For the first time in decades, untaxed paper wealth held by the ultra-rich would convert into real, taxable income. This plan is earnings are already reported as a line item on corporate financial statements, so no need for armies of tax accountants. This plan also encourages efficiency. Corporations would be nudged to either distribute profits or reinvest productively — reducing hoarding, stock buybacks and financial manipulation. The scale of profit hoarding is not theoretical. As of late 2024, Apple held over $65 billion in cash and equivalents. Microsoft held more than $71 billion. Alphabet, parent company of Google, sat on over $95 billion and Amazon was at $100 billion. These figures represent retained capital sitting in balance sheets — largely untouched by taxation. In many cases, this hoarded cash fuels share repurchases or simply adds to paper valuations, thus benefiting the wealthiest shareholders while contributing nothing to public coffers. Of course, this idea has precedents. President Franklin D. Roosevelt experimented with an undistributed profits tax in the 1930s. Today, a version survives as the Accumulated Earnings Tax, but it's rarely enforced and easy to circumvent. This proposal is simpler, bolder and broader. Critics may worry this plan would discourage reinvestment or burden growth. But a well-designed system can exempt reinvested earnings tied to clear capital investment or innovation. What this proposal targets is not growth but excessive hoarding of profits that serves only the wealthy few. Others may fear that such a tax would prompt corporations to switch to alternative structures or shift operations abroad. But a retained earnings tax can be applied based on financial disclosures for U.S.-based public companies and expanded to large LLCs or partnerships. In fact, it may reduce incentives to move profits offshore, since it targets where wealth stays, not where it's reported. The politics are promising. A retained earnings tax is lower than the current corporate income tax — yet may raise more consistent, sustainable revenue. It eliminates the need to police every deduction, credit and carve-out. It also aligns with populist sentiments on both the left and right: no more tax-free stockpiling, no more billionaires (referred to by some today as 'oligarchs') borrowing off their gains while avoiding taxes. Congress has a chance to reset how we think about taxing wealth — not by chasing every dollar of income, but by targeting the retained profits that silently fuel inequality and sidestep the tax system. Fixing the corporate tax code is essential not just for raising revenue but for restoring fairness, transparency and trust in the American economic compact. Peter D. Wells is principal at Ancient Wisdom Consulting. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Sen. Cory Booker says he won't accept campaign donations from Elon Musk
Sen. Cory Booker says he won't accept campaign donations from Elon Musk

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Sen. Cory Booker says he won't accept campaign donations from Elon Musk

Sen. Cory Booker on Sunday said he would not accept campaign donations from tech mogul Elon Musk but urged the former Trump adviser to 'get involved right now in a more substantive way' in Democrats' push against the sweeping GOP-backed spending bill. 'This bill is disastrous for our long-term economy,' Booker told NBC News' 'Meet the Press.' 'This is an American issue, and I welcome Elon Musk not to my campaign. I welcome him right now, not to sit back and just fire off tweets, get involved right now in a more substantive way in putting pressure on Congress people and senators to not do this.' Asked directly whether he would ever accept campaign funding from Musk, Booker said, 'I would not accept money from Elon Musk for my campaign, but I would be supportive of anybody, including Elon Musk, putting resources forward right now to let more Americans know' about the bill. Booker's remarks come as other Democrats, like Rep. Ro Khanna of California, have floated welcoming Musk into the Democratic Party after a feud between President Donald Trump and the Tesla and SpaceX CEO exploded into public view last week. 'We should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with,' Khanna told Politico last week after Musk and Trump fired off a series of social media posts criticizing each other. The falling out started after Musk called the budget bill a 'disgusting abomination' in a post on X. In subsequent posts on Truth Social, the president accused Musk of 'wearing thin' and said 'he just went crazy.' Musk later accused Trump of 'ingratitude' in another post on X after he spent $250 million boosting Trump's campaign in 2024 and accused Trump of links to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a now-deleted post. On Saturday, in a phone call with NBC News, Trump said he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk after their public spat. The president also responded to a direct question about what might happen if Musk decided to financially support Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections, days after Musk wrote in a post on X, 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,' appearing to refer to Republicans who voted for the GOP-backed spending bill in the House. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC News, adding that there could be 'serious consequences.' In May, House Republicans passed a sweeping domestic policy bill called the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that would extend tax cuts passed in the first Trump administration, increase funding for border security and eliminate federal taxes on tips and overtime pay. The bill has also drawn scrutiny from Democrats for slashing funding for Medicaid and some food stamps while adding work requirements for Medicaid, which provides health care for low-income Americans. Musk and some Senate Republicans have blasted the bill for estimated effects it could have on the federal debt and deficit, though Trump and House Republicans have downplayed those concerns. 'More Americans have to understand that if this bill passes, average Americans are going to see their costs skyrocket as this president again pushes legislation that is indicative of his chaos, corruption and cruelty towards Americans,' Booker said on Sunday. This article was originally published on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store