Posts tagged analysis

Tax Consumers, Taxpayers, and the Cox Box

0

 

Source: https://mises.org

By

Tax Consumers, Taxpayers, and the Cox Box

 

6664Years ago I joked that every economist’s highest goal was to have a graph or concept named for him or her. Among the existing ones are the Keynesian Cross Graph, the Edgeworth Box, the Phillip’s Curve, the Laffer Curve, Rothbard’s Law, Buridan’s Ass, Mises’s Butler, Hume’s Specie-Flow Mechanism, Rostow’s Stages of Growth, the Ricardo Effect, Menger’s Law, the Beveridge Curve, and Hayek’s Triangles.

I came up with a way of visually depicting libertarian class analysis in the 1980s but never shared it beyond a friend or two. But now I immodestly present what I have called the Cox Box.

Libertarian class analysis is based on two classes in regard to government: the taxpayers and the tax consumers. It is important to note that libertarian class analysis predates the better known Marxist class analysis of workers and the owners of the means of production (capitalists). Marx published his class analysis in 1848, whereas the libertarian class analysis of J. B. Say and Charles Dunoyer was developed in 1810 and by James Mill in the 1820s and 1830s.

Here is how John Calhoun stated libertarian class analysis in his Disquisition on Government in 1848:

The necessary result … is to divide the community into two great classes: one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes and, of course, bear exclusively the burden of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are recipients of their proceeds through disbursements, who are, in fact, supported by the government; or in fewer words, to divide into tax-payers and tax-consumers. … The effect … is to enrich; and strengthen the one, and impoverish and weaken the other.

So, how to depict the correct libertarian class analysis? Here, I depict it as a box with income levels along the one axis and a division of taxpayers and tax consumers along the other axis wherein half of all income levels are net taxpayers and half are net tax consumers. Figure 1 represents a hypothetical economy in which net tax consumption does not vary by income level:

coxbox

Figure 1: A neutral Cox Box.

We know, however, that tax consumption can very significantly at various income levels. What are some of the specific examples of the ways one is a tax consumer in the modern US? Among the higher incomes these transfers include farm subsidies, mortgage guarantees, bank bailouts, overseas marketing subsidies, and the recent Quantitative Easing to pump up the stock market (to name only a few of the many). At the lower income levels, these transfers include the SNAP program, rent subsidies, unemployment benefits, and Medicaid (again, to name only a few of the many).

Conservatives believe the appropriate depiction is reflected in Figure 2, which features an economy in which higher income earners pay the bulk of all taxes (not just income taxes) while receiving little in return, and the welfare-enabled lower income earners pay very little of all taxes (not just income taxes) while receiving much in unearned payments:

cox_conservative

Figure 2: The conservative view.

Conservatives, however, tend to overlook the money that so many higher-income earners receive from their crony capitalist connections within government. So, firms such as General Motors do earn their revenues from willing customers but also have enjoyed taxpayer-financed bailouts and protection from their potential competitors through various regulations.

Left liberals believe that the appropriate depiction is best explained in Figure 3, as they largely believe that higher income earners don’t pay their “fair share” of all taxes (not just income taxes) while receiving vast benefits in return. Meanwhile, the welfare recipients pay substantial taxes (not just income taxes), while receiving a pittance in return compared to their better-connected higher-income earners. Higher-income earners such as General Motors stockholders and executives are subsidized with resources not bestowed on lower-income earners:

cox_liberal

Figure 3: The left-liberal view.

Libertarians in contrast favor Figure 4 with higher-income earners using their political connections to arrange money flows to themselves. At the same time, ideological pressures result in a political buying off of the desperate lower income groups who have been shut out of opportunities to better their circumstances via licensing costs, minimum wages, regulations and more.

cox_libertarian

Figure 4: The libertarian view of tax consumers.

Libertarians in particular see a troubling drift over time to the left of the diagram as net taxpayers are increasingly outnumbered by net tax consumers. As Mises pointed out in Bureaucracy, this will eventually lead to the destruction of the economic system.

Cox Box analysis will reveal a different mix of taxpayers and consumers at different income and wealth levels in different societies, times, and places. In the modern United States, however, we find an economy in which those at the income extremes appear to most easily take advantage of taxpayer-funded benefits while those at the middle income levels are increasingly called upon to finance the expenditures. Moreover, libertarians see the country as being transformed from a society of free individuals voluntarily interacting with one another into a heavily-politicized society wherein the government is involved — by various means — in virtually every facet of life.

 


About the Author

Jim Cox
Jim Cox is an associate professor of economics and political science at Georgis Perimeter College and the author of The Concise Guide to Economics, Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage, and most recently, The Haiku Economist.

 

Image credit: https://mises.org

 

$3 mln to be spent on ‘internet trolls’ as EU looks to 2014 election

0

Source: https://rt.com

The EU will spend more than $3 million on ‘troll monitors’ to trawl Eurosceptic debates on the internet ahead of European elections in June 2014, UK media reports. It comes amid fears that hostility against the EU is growing.

AFP Photo / Dominique Faget

The EU will spend more than $3 million on ‘troll monitors’ to trawl Eurosceptic debates on the internet ahead of European elections in June 2014, UK media reports. It comes amid fears that hostility against the EU is growing.

The new strategy will include “public opinion monitoring” to “identify at an early stage whether debates of a political nature among followers in social media and blogs have the potential to attract media and citizens’ interest,” according to internal documents reportedly discovered by the Telegraph.

Spending on “qualitative media analysis” will be increased by more than $2.6 million. Most of the money will be found in existing budgets, although an additional $1.2 million will be needed.

“Particular attention needs to be paid to the countries that have experienced a surge in Euroscepticism,” a confidential document said.

The monitors’ roles are clearly laid out in the documents. The controversial plan is designed to promote a stronger Europe, while engaging in conversation with those who hold an anti-EU sentiment.

“Parliament’s institutional communicators must have the ability to monitor public conversation and sentiment on the ground and in real time, to understand ‘trending topics’ and have the capacity to react quickly, in a targeted and relevant manner, to join in and influence the conversation, for example, by providing facts and figures to deconstructing myths.”

“In order to reverse the perception that ‘Europe is the problem’, we need to communicate that the answer to existing challenges… is ‘more Europe’ – not ‘less Europe’.”

But the EU is facing an uphill battle, as it seeks to change the minds of those who associate the bloc with economic crisis and high rates of unemployment.

“It is evident that the EU’s image is suffering,” the document said.

The information has been met with disapproval by many, who say the strategy is a waste of time.

“Spending over a million pounds ($1.5 million) for EU public servants to become Twitter trolls in office hours is wasteful and truly ridiculous,” UK Independent Party Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall told the Telegraph.

Training for the so-called “Twitter trolls” is set to take place later this month.

The news comes as Eurosceptic moods continue to gain momentum in the union.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s EU membership.

Without reform, “Europe will fail and Britain will drift to the exit,” the leader said in a January speech.

Cameron has been dubbed a “trendsetter” by Conservative MP David Campbell Bannerman, who believes many other countries are seeking more flexibility within the EU.

But it’s not just governments looking for a bit more leeway when it comes to EU membership – individual workers in crisis-hit countries are unhappy with the bloc’s leadership and austerity measures, too.

Last Wednesday, anti-austerity protesters in Athens broke into a government building and threatened the labor minister. Riot police then responded with tear gas, batons, and pepper spray.

Even German citizens have expressed interest in leaving the EU – despite German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ongoing support of EU policy.

Last September, a poll conducted by the Bertelsmann Foundation showed that 49 per cent of Germans believed things would be improved by leaving the European Union.

And the Germans aren’t alone – 34 per cent of French citizens also said they would be better off without the EU.

Statistics You Won’t Hear From Piers Morgan and Dianne Feinstein

0

Thanks to: http://www.lewrockwell.com

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image

 

Senate panel: DHS fusion centers produce ‘predominantly useless information’ and ‘a bunch of crap’

0

Source: http://endthelie.com

By Madison Ruppert

Editor of End the Lie

 Senate panel: DHS fusion centers produce ‘predominantly useless information’ and ‘a bunch of crap’  More at EndtheLie.com - http://EndtheLie.com/2012/10/03/senate-panel-dhs-fusion-centers-produce-predominantly-useless-information-and-a-bunch-of-crap/#ixzz29Q8eg28qA newly released report from the Senate’s bipartisan Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reveals that the claims of Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the behemoth Department of Homeland Security (DHS), surrounding the United States’ so-called fusion centers are nothing short of outright lies.This is far from surprising to me since in September of last year a report from the Homeland Security Policy Institute revealed the fact that information received from fusion centers “often lacks value.”

Fusion centers are also involved in rolling out nationwide biometrics systems as well as centralized biometrics databases coordinated by the federal government.

In the past, Napolitano has claimed that fusion centers are “one of the centerpieces of our counterterrorism strategy,” while reality paints a completely different picture.

The Senate panel, which combed over 80,000 fusion center documents, determined that they could not “identify a contribution such fusion center reporting made to disrupt an active terrorist plot.”

Furthermore, unnamed DHS officials told the senate panel that fusion centers put out “predominantly useless information” and “a bunch of crap,” according to Danger Room.

This is somewhat surprising coming from any DHS official given that their official risk assessments have a tendency to wildly underestimate actual risks, but perhaps even DHS employees are beginning to see the absurdity of these fusion centers.

Hilariously, an internal assessment from 2010 – which DHS unsurprisingly did not share with Congress – reveals that a whopping third of all fusion centers do not even have defined procedures for sharing intelligence, which is “one of the prime reasons for their existence.”

Even more troubling is the fact that the Senate has found that at least four fusion centers identified by DHS “do not exist.”

The sad reality is that the Senate’s finding, as noted above, is not in any way shocking. For instance, the Constitution Project (TCP), a national, bipartisan think tank determined, “without effective limits on data collection, storage and use, fusion centers can pose serious risks to civil liberties, including rights of free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, racial and religious equality, privacy and the right to be free from unnecessary government intrusion.”

(more…)

Linguistic analysis of Rand Paul’s endorsement

0

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com

By Mike Adams

Linguistic analysis of Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney contradicts his words: Rand Paul is disgusted with him!

Linguistic analysis of Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney contradicts his words: Rand Paul is disgusted with him!  Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036122_Rand_Paul_Mitt_Romney_endorsement.html#ixzz1xQ0Ys0q5(NaturalNews) In the aftermath of the shock and the overwhelming feeling of betrayal following Sen. Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney for president, most people are trying to understand WHY it happened. But to my knowledge no one has yet analyzed the linguistics, the intonation and the micro-expressionsthat Rand Paul delivered as part of his announcement, because they may provide even more information than his words.Here, I offer a brief linguistic and micro-expressions analysis of Rand Paul’s delivery of his announcement. What you’ll see here is that even Rand Paul is disgusted with his own endorsement.Watch his announcement here:

YouTube Preview Image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c5odNzKVbk

Linguistics and intonation

If you watch Rand Paul deliver his announcement, pay particular attention to the part where he says:

But you know, now that the nominating process is over, tonight I’m uh happy to announce that I’m gonna be supporting Governor Romney.

(more…)

Mandatory ‘Big Brother’ Black Boxes In All New Cars From 2015

0

Source: http://www.blacklistednews.com

Mandatory ‘Big Brother’ Black Boxes In All New Cars From 2015

Source: Economic Policy Journal

The same Senate bill, 1813, known as MAP-21, that calls for the Secretary of State to revoke or deny a passport to any US citizen that the IRS Commissioner deems as having ‘seriously delinquent tax debt’, also calls for, in section 31406 of the bill. the mandatory installation of ‘black box’ event recorders to be installed in every new passenger vehicle starting with model year 2015:

SEC. 31406. VEHICLE EVENT DATA RECORDERS.
(a) Mandatory Event Data Recorders-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part…

(d) Revised Requirements for Event Data Recorders- Based on the findings of the study under subsection (c), the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The rule–

(1) shall require event data recorders to capture and store data related to motor vehicle safety covering a reasonable time period before, during, and after a motor vehicle crash or airbag deployment, including a rollover;

(2) shall require that data stored on such event data recorders be accessible, regardless of vehicle manufacturer or model, with commercially available equipment in a specified data format;

(3) shall establish requirements for preventing unauthorized access to the data stored on an event data recorder in order to protect the security, integrity, and authenticity of the data; and

(4) may require an interoperable data access port to facilitate universal accessibility and analysis.

(e) Disclosure of Existence and Purpose of Event Data Recorder- The rule issued under subsection (d) shall require that any owner’s manual or similar documentation provided to the first purchaser of a passenger motor vehicle for purposes other than resale–

(1) disclose that the vehicle is equipped with such a data recorder…

(f) Access to Event Data Recorders in Agency Investigations- Section 30166(c)(3)(C) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘, including any electronic data contained within the vehicle’s diagnostic system or event data recorder’ after ‘equipment.’

Guess What? SC Primary Results in Question!

0

Source: http://www.dailypaul.com

Submitted by SC Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

I received an e-mail from our meet-up which I’m editing but for to include this statement:

I have some significant information that I need to share with all of you regarding vote fraud in the SCGOP Primary. I have met with SCGOP Chairman already and am meeting again next Wednesday in Columbia. You will want to hear what I have discovered.

I’ve have uploaded the SCGOP Primary Vote Analysis to Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B_wWkfsJPShUMWQxMTc2NzgtM2M…

and would like commentary any of you analytical gurus might like to add here or additional insights. This is very important to us in South Carolina! Thanks!

****Analyst Adds Update****

Hey guys. I just want you all to know that I have graphed in detail all of the counties in NH, SC and Fla that have the precinct information available on the Election Commissions’ website. I have amassed a couple of hundred graphs probably. The most difficult part of this is getting this information into a form that is brief but easy to understand. Please appreciate this.

There are surely exceptions to the following observations, but here are some generalities:

1. In any county where Ron Paul has more votes than Mitt Romney using the low vote total precincts, you get a ridiculous- looking curve like the one in Anderson County. (Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg, and Oconee Counties). Mitt ends up at a vote total that could have been Paul’s projected total and Paul crashes to the ground.

2. In the counties where Romney has more votes than Paul in the low vote total precincts, There is no ridiculous anomaly like the one in Anderson County.

3. In any race where Newt is ahead of Romney and Romney is anywhere close to Gingrich in vote total, Newt gets flipped by Romney (Richland, Charleston, and Beaufort Counties in SC) much like the maneuver in Anderson County where Mitt flips Paul. It appears to me that Newt actually won these counties as well as Polk and Duval Counties in Florida.

4. As I have laid out in my brief, fluctuations should occur in honest elections; however, these “flips” look to me like one candidate is suddenly losing his slope (established vote percentage) and another (Romney) is gaining at precisely the same percentage. My personal constitution screams to me “this phenomenon is not a normal occurrence!”

5. In almost all Counties, Mitt Romney gains hundreds- even more than a thousand- in the very largest precinct(s). Many instances this tail end gain appears to serve the purpose of draining Ron Paul just enough to be last place. (example: Charleston County SC). I’m not saying there isn’t an honest explanation, but I want to hear one… that makes sense. Maybe in every single county Romney supporters turned out in “droves” at the very largest precinct(s)?

6. Most graphs follow a disturbing trend: Mitt Romney’s vote percentage “line” looks more like a parabola curving upward and the other 3 candidates’ lines like a parabola curving in the negative. This might could be explained in some honest way, but it looks like algorithms in voting machines to me. I invite intelligent discussion.

7. Yes- demographics can play a part, of course. I am NOT a Demographics expert. I do like math though.

8. I will release a procedure that will show all of you math analysts how to do this on your own. You will see the same anomalies as I see.

This Hoax Affects Everyone

0

For your consideration and thoughts…

YouTube Preview Image

 

Go to Top