Nearly 3/4s of teens have or have access to a smartphone & 30% have a basic phone http://t.co/PT39Owjwi3 pic.twitter.com/TMY1KbKQUy
— Pew Research Center (@pewresearch) April 9, 2015
Low incomes don’t matter much to cell phone and smart phone access for teens
11 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
Who has the smallest Anglo-Saxon welfare state of them all?
02 Apr 2015 1 Comment
in income redistribution, labour economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, welfare reform Tags: social insurance, social safety nets, welfare reform, welfare state
I have reanalysed data published by the Peterson Institute on the true levels of social expenditure across the industrialised countries for the Anglo-Saxon countries.
Figure 1: gross public social expenditures in OECD countries, 2011
Source: POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies.
When you just look at gross public social expenditure, New Zealand is in the middle of the pack with the United Kingdom having the largest spending. There are not particularly large differences across social spending in the Anglo-Saxon welfare states.
Figure 2: Gross public social expenditure and the effects of taxation in OECD countries, 2011
Source: POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies.
There is not much change when you include the effects of taxation on consumption by benefit recipients.
Figure 3: Net after-tax public and private social expenditure in OECD countries, 2011
Source: POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies.
When private mandatory social spending is included, such as employer sponsored health cover, there is considerable change with United States leaping to the front and New Zealand dropping to the bottom. The USA has the largest and most expensive is health sector in the world so they are leaping of the front, either because healthcare is expensive in United States or people in the United States are not constrained by government rationing to spend less than they would prefer on their own healthcare. Let’s leave that war of ideas for another day.
Figure 4: Net after-tax total social expenditures in OECD countries, 2011
Source: POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies.
On the face of it, New Zealand has the smallest Anglo-Saxon welfare state while the United States has the largest. A more accurate measure of the relative sizes of these Anglo-Saxon welfare states would require the wisdom of Solomon in measuring waste and underfunding in the respective systems and more trust than you should have in services sector in purchasing power parity adjustments.
For those that are interested, the OECD-wide gross social spending and net after-tax total social spending are reproduced below in figures 5 and 6.
Figure 5: Net after-tax total social expenditures in OECD countries, 2011
Source: POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies.
The Figure 5 data on the OECD wide welfare state sizes shows that when you add private spending, including social spending mandated by law, the US has the second largest OECD social safety net as Kirkegaard said in his Peterson Institute paper:
Taking the full effects of tax systems and social spending from both private and public sources into account, the United States is seen to be devoting more resources toward social purposes than is generally acknowledged. In fact, only the French spend more than Americans, while the alleged welfare-addicted Scandinavians and Europeans spend less on average.
Figure 6: Gross public social expenditures in OECD countries, 2011
Source: POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies.
Via The US welfare state and safety net are bigger than you think. But who are they helping? – AEI | Pethokoukis Blog » AEIdeas and POLICY BRIEF 15-4: The True Levels of Government and Social Expenditures in Advanced Economies
Gordon Tullock explains his theory of popular revolutions and palace coups
01 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of bureaucracy, Gordon Tullock, income redistribution, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: Arab Spring, autocracy, military coups, palace coups, popular revolutions
[I]n most revolutions, the people who overthrow the existing government were high officials in that government before the revolution.
If they were deeply depressed by the nature of the previous government’s policies, it seems unlikely that they could have given enough cooperation in those policies to have risen to high rank. People who hold high, but not supreme, rank in a despotism are less likely to be unhappy with the policy of that despotism than are people who are outside the government.
Thus, if we believed in the public good motivation of revolutions, we would anticipate that these high officials would be less likely than outsiders to attempt to overthrow the government.
From the private benefit theory of revolutions, however, the contrary deduction would be drawn. The largest profits from revolution are apt to come to those people who are (a) most likely to end up at the head of the government, and (b) most likely to be successful in overthrow of the existing government. They have the highest present discounted gain from the revolution and lowest present discounted cost.
Thus, from the private goods theory of revolution, we would anticipate senior officials who have a particularly good chance of success in overthrowing the government and a fair certainty of being at high rank in the new government, if they are successful, to be the most common type of revolutionaries.
Partisan Politics and the Inequality Gap — Atlantic Mobile
01 Apr 2015 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, income redistribution, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: top 1%
NZ is in the middle of the pack in reducing poverty rates through redistribution
16 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
in income redistribution, labour economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, poverty and inequality, welfare reform Tags: child poverty, welfare state
The figure shows pre-transfer and post-transfer poverty rates among OECD countries (mostly the advanced economies). The former (pre-transfer) are the market-driven poverty rates, before the tax and transfer systems kick in.
Source: OECD, *Poverty thresholds: 50% of median income.
Bias in the bias against inheriting riches
14 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
in income redistribution, sports economics Tags: expressive politics, expressive voting, top 1%
China’s richest lawmakers make America’s look straight up poor
14 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
in income redistribution, politics - USA, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: China
Americans are making a big mistake about health care funding – Vox
02 Mar 2015 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, income redistribution, politics - USA, rentseeking Tags: Obamacare, rational ignorance
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3455906/subsidy_poll_1024.0.png)
Almost everyone who has health insurance in the United States gets help from the government to afford it.
For the elderly, that’s Medicare. For the disabled and the poor, that’s Medicaid. For full-time workers it’s the tax subsidy for employer-provided health insurance.
via Americans are making a big mistake about health care – Vox.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/693784/interest_groups.0.jpg)
Why does the Left in New Zealand support old age pensions for millionaires?
26 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, income redistribution, politics - New Zealand, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: Left-wing hypocrisy, New Zealand superannuation, old age pensions
Michael Littlewood from the Retirement Policy and Research Centre has a commentary on redesigning NZ Superannuation. He says (and I agree) that we should not just look at one issue in isolation or just the cost.
He highlights eight key design features that should be agreed on. They are:
- Universal or means-tested (I favour means-tested if the administrative costs of doing so are not prohibitive)
- Age of entitlement (I favour increasing it and tying it to life expectancy)
- Residency test – how long should someone live here to quality. The current threshold is ten years and I think it should be higher. It used to be 25 years.
- The level. Currently is 43% of the net average wage for a single person. Set at 66% of the after-tax national average wage for a couple.
- How to revalue? Is indexed to both CPI and the average wage.
- How to pay for it? Pay as you go and partially pre-funded. Should it be both? What should the mix be?
- Payments to single people? Why does a married couple get less than two singles living together?
- Overseas pensions? The rules for deducting overseas pensions are inconsistent
via Redesigning NZ Super | Kiwiblog.
I was walking back to the office with a mate who I will call the ecological socialist after a meeting with the government department responsible for income support to old age people in New Zealand.
We were both shaky our heads in utter disbelief. We couldn’t understand their idea of defending an old age pension that is free of any means test been paid to millionaires on the grounds of egalitarianism.
By coincidence, we are both Australians where the old age pension is means tested. We couldn’t understand in any way, shape or form the notion of paying old age pensions to rich people when that money could be used to increase the old age pension for those who we lived in ordinary circumstances all their lives and couldn’t save for their retirement.
The Great Enrichment since 1979 in the USA
22 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in income redistribution, politics - USA, poverty and inequality, welfare reform Tags: capitalism and freedom, poverty and inequality, The Great Enrichment, top 1%
Over the past one-, two-, and three-decade periods, both middle class and poor households have experienced noticeable gains in living standards. Their gains are slower than those experienced by middle-income families in the earlier post-war era, but the gains are well above zero.
In 1980, in-kind benefits and employer and government spending on health insurance accounted for just 6% of the after-tax incomes of households in the middle one-fifth of the distribution. By 2010 these in-kind income sources represented 17% of middle class households’ after-tax income
…The broadest and most accurate measures of household income are published by the CBO. CBO’s newest estimates confirm the long-term trend toward greater inequality, driven mainly by turbo-charged gains in market income at the very top of the distribution. The market incomes of the top 1% are extraordinarily cyclical, however. They soar in economic expansions and plunge in recessions. Income changes since 2007 fit this pattern.
What many observers miss, however, is the success of the nation’s tax and transfer systems in protecting low- and middle-income Americans against the full effects of a depressed economy.
via Gary Burtless
Charts showing everyone is seriously richer after-taxes
19 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in income redistribution, labour economics, poverty and inequality Tags: The Great Enrichment, top 1%
Everyone is 30-50% richer.
![Microsoft PowerPoint - Group C Federal Budget (KF).pptx [Read-Only]](https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/0014_taxes-income-full.gif "Microsoft PowerPoint - Group C Federal Budget (KF).pptx [Read-Only]")
Ordinary Americans do not pay much in taxes.
Low income Americans receive large amounts of government transfers and increases their income by at least 50%
The middle-class is getting seriously smaller because more of them are getting richer
Recent Comments