Don’t Quit Your Day Job – Personal Finance, Economics and Investing

The incidence of a tax (who truly pays for it) is very significant in welfare analysis. Cameron Daniels analyzes this concept using the real life example of gas prices.

I recently posted on the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’, however, as Dr. Mark Perry points out, another way of looking at the Bush tax law is the ‘Bush tax hike’! Compared to the top marginal rate under Bush I and Reagan, the Bush II tax ‘cuts’ had a higher marginal tax rate on the highest bracket. In fact, as one of Dr. Perry’s commentators points out, the 2011 retirement of the Bush tax law could be considered another ‘Bush Tax Hike’ – as President Bush was the one who put an expiration date on the law.

Fresh off of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s classic quote to the Brookings Institute, “The rich are not paying their fair share”, it’s nice to see a few publications with proof that thought may be a little wacky. The Congressional Budget Office released a timely report they named “Average Federal Taxes by Income Group”. What does that report show? Strangely, that the share of the burden of taxation for the rich in this country has actually been increasing. Shocking, I know, with all of the quotes you can find to the contrary. Let’s take a look…

What’s grown faster than inflation the last 40 years? No, not medical expenses. What’s grown faster than that? You guessed it (from the title of this post) – education costs increased almost 1000% from 1978 to 2008, compared to about 300% in the generally price level as measured by consumer inflation. Yes, inflation is one of the categories of spending which is increasing at an off-the-chart-rate.

There’s been a lot of talk about the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP for short) as of late. The TARP, as you may know, authorizes the Department of the Treasury to purchase (or repurchase!) up to $700 billion of so-called “Troubled Assets” in order to shore up bank and bank-like company (somehow including the auto industry) finances. The Treasury has kept the TARP in the news by deciding it is time to sell its stake in Citibank.

A popular topic in the blogosphere, given new life after comments by Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman, is the relative success of the United States vs. the states that make up the European Union. The European Union is a loose confederation of 27 countries in Europe, ranging from Spain to Estonia. Krugman goes so far to suggest that “[y]ou should always bear in mind that when the question is which to believe — official economic statistics or your own lying eyes — the eyes have it.”

Inspired by Ironman’s Political Calculations post on Many Eyes and a visualization on that site, I decided to try to visualize the 2010 Senate election in Massachusetts. Using the tools at the site and data from the Boston Globe, I present four visualizations (by town): the voter turnout decrease in 2010 from the 2008 Presidential elections, the Republican margin of victory by town in 2008 and 2010, and the Republican vote swing from 2008 to 2010.

The results are counted, and it’s an upset in Massachusetts. Republican Scott Brown because the first Republican elected in a Massachusetts Senate seat since 1972. He defeated the state Attorney General, Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, 52% to 47% (the remaining 1% went to Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy). A whopping 2,249,026 votes were cast out of a registered voter base of 4,220,488 for a very high (53.3%) special election turnout in the light snow.

We’re a week closer to a potential upset in the special Massachusetts senate race (scheduled for voting tomorrow). The last 4 polling companies that have weighed in (according to Real Clear Politics data) come in at +10, +5, +10 and +3 Brown, and were all conducted since 1/14. These polls generally estimate a larger than normal turnout for a special election; only two candidates are on the ballot and there aren’t any initiatives to vote on. They also suggest slightly positive ratings for President Obama among likely voters, although potentially under 50 percent.

From the twilight zone department: various polls put Scott Brown, Republican challenger for the special election for Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat in Massachusetts, within striking distance of the Democratic favorite, Martha Coakley. Public Policy Polling yesterday released a poll suggesting a statistical dead heat in the race, while Rasmussen released poll results on January 4th showing Coakley with a 50% – 41% edge. The Boston Globe, however, counters with a poll showing likely voters leaning 53% to 36% towards Coakley – more in line with historical results in Massachusetts.