The Present Value of Producing Future Taxpayers – Economix Blog – NYTimes.com

Over all, parents pay less in net taxes than nonparents do — until the future net tax contributions of their children are taken into account.  These more than offset the difference, leading the authors to conclude that the average parent contributes far more than the average nonparent to net taxes — a difference of more than $200,000 in 2009 dollars (discounting future contributions at an annual rate of 3 percent).

Just to flag up a potential future data collection and analysis
will the parents’ kids be counted again as parents or nonparents for next generational study?
I read this again and see 1NP (net tax) = or is less than (1P + 1K (net tax))
but that’s fine, the author admits ‘Like all economic models, this one is based on strong assumptions and imperfect data.’
Love yr strong assumptions

Advertisements

John Quiggin » Water, water everywhere

The government has copped some flak (recently in the Fin, for example) because the prices it paid last year were higher than in previous years (when the government was not in the market) or this year, following the rain. I’m surprised to see the Fin ignorant of basic principles of supply and demand. It’s obvious that, once environmental values are taken into account, the demand for water will rise, and therefore so will the price. And it’s equally obvious that plentiful rain is going to reduce the market price of water entitlements. This effect will be biggest for temporary (annual) entitlements, but it will also be present for permanent entitlements.

Buying water is much more cost-effective, in most cases, than public engineering projects aimed at saving water. Given a market price for water, farmers and irrigation suppliers have every incentive to find the cost-effective solutions themselves. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of the Victorian government’s Food Bowl Modernisation project.

A badge of courage –

Until Richard Dawkins exploded onto the scene, I had never heard a man described as strident. It was a put-down reserved exclusively for women with both strong opinions and the nerve and cheek to express them without being the least deferential. Along with the word “militant”, strident had become the automatic descriptor for anyone who publicly proclaimed her feminism.

Germaine Greer is often described as strident and so was Hillary Clinton – particularly in her run to become the first female President of the US. Since she has become the mouthpiece of US foreign policy, however, I notice the epithet is no longer so regularly applied.

Reputation Is Dead: It’s Time To Overlook Our Indiscretions

Our minds haven’t evolved much over the last few thousands of years, but the spread of quick fire opinions is now moving at the speed of light and forever findable on the Internet. We’re still wired to think of gossip as something that spreads quietly behind the scenes, and relatively slowly. But we’re already in a world where it’s all completely public, there are few repercussions to the person spreading it, and it is easily searchable. No wonder people freak out. We’re fish out of water.