Harvey

@harveyfischer99.bsky.social

Usual disclaimers

Basically, recessions are caused by "everyone trying to save money at the same time". This is a problem because at an aggregate level, everyone's income is the same as everyone's spending.

The people at the bottom in retirement are those who have a lifetime of low earnings. This can't be solved by little tinkers to compulsory savings. An earnings-linked scheme can't fix low lifetime earnings. That's why a government benefit floor is the effective anti-poverty mechanism. Basic stuff

Difficult to overstate how misleading this is. Any % tax on capital gains (sale price less purchase price) will by mathematical construction result in differing rates relative to sale price. Including the existing regime! That’s not a “profound oversight”, that’s what CGT *is*.

David Sligar@davidsligar.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Strange piece. Prof Holden thunders about a "productivity tax" that "punishes high productivity businesses" by imposing "vastly different effective capital gains tax rates". Except it's not true. His numbers rely on the wrong denominator and money illusion.

Reading a bunch of books this year has really solidified for me how awful the internet is in comparison nowadays. Obviously in terms of general hostility but more generally in terms of lack of depth, insight, reading comprehension, base of knowledge, etc

For decades Aus has cut marginal tax rates, largely on high earners, based on exaggerated claims about work disincentives. Meanwhile, over the same period, we've set up *genuinely* punitive (at times > 100%) effective marginal tax rates on low-middle income earners. www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...

The Australians getting hit with up to 122 per cent tax

Some Australians who are eager to take on more work are being held back by the prospect of giving up most of their additional income – and in some cases, even paying to work.

smh.com.au

What happens when you combine growth in spending on older Australians (pensions, health, aged care) with significant growth in their concessionally taxed super + housing? A big shift in relative generosity of net transfers and final incomes for different age cohorts Interesting paper

BildBildBildBild

people on the other site are doing "is living in denmark better than living in the us" discourse based on that one paper about wealth and mortality and all reasonable interpretations aside, if your metric of wellbeing says that living in mississippi is better than denmark then it's a stupid metric

fun quirk of the discourse: giving $x to everyone *except the poorest* via the tax system is called "targeted" and "progressive" giving $x to everyone *including the poorest* via the payments system is called "untargeted", "regressive" and "middle class welfare"

I really like this 2021 paper from Norway showing the elegance of universal child benefits compared to kludgy income-tested ones Clear wins for achieving horizontal equity, boosting labour supply, smoothing consumption, reducing exclusion errors

BildBildBild

"This tax-and-transfer insurance effect—or the role of the state in reducing adult disadvantages that stem from childhood poverty—matters more than other oft-studied characteristics, such as parental education or marital status, in shaping the U.S. disadvantage compared with peer nations."

Zach Parolin@zparolin.bsky.social · 2y ago

Child poverty in the U.S. is four times as likely to lead to adult poverty than in Denmark and Germany, and twice as likely than in the UK and Australia. Why? I write about our findings on "the intergenerational persistence of poverty" today in The Atlantic: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...

2024 tax expenditure statement showing super concessions estimated to reach an eye-watering $55 billion in 2024-25, billions higher than the previous estimate Even bigger difference for the forwards too - $63 billion by 2026-27!

Bild

Incredible chart showing how age influences the amount of tax you pay for a given level of income. Difference driven in large part by super concessions/investment earnings Regressive, expensive and without any compelling equity justification

Bild

Australia's once universalist family payments system has gradually wound down to a more residualist one through changes to indexation and eligibility. From ~100% coverage in the 1970s to below 50% coverage in the 2020s 😬

Bild