another site
Federal and local governments are taxing our vices…big time. These taxes, known as “sin tax”, generate revenue and affect purchases. So, how much would my smokes cost without all the taxes?
Image source: www.online-accounting-degrees.net
     |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/4VJ3IGujvkE/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Sentiment, according to Citi’s proprietary model, has now reached levels of euphoria not seen since the peak of the bubble in 2007/8, macro-economic data is deteriorating rapidly, and as Tobias Levkovich notes, intra-stock correlation is also posting a worrisome sign.
But perhaps, more than any other indication of just how far ahead of itself the US equity market has gone is the total and utter disconnect the following 8 charts show between aggregate and sector micro-fundamentals and the share price which is supposed to represent their expectations. With net profits being helped by a meaningfully lower effective tax rate and sharply lower interest expense, primarily assisting the Financials sector, expecting these two crucial pillars of support to be sustained is simply folly.
In the interests of plausible deniability, look away… we highly suggest Bullard, the QEeen, and the bulk of the mainstream financial press, look away…
Euphoria is here…
As US macro-fundamentals deteriorate…and are the worst of all global indices year-to-date!!
But – ignoring for a moment the bullshit bloviated day after day by your friendly local commission-taker – bottom-up the picture is even worse…
But apart from that BTFATH!!!
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Sbd5ib9uBRw/story01.htm Tyler Durden
With more people in the world living in cities than ever before, cities’ share of global GDP is rising: 25 cities account for approximately 50% of the world’s GDP. But not all cities can be winners, and not all are destined for greatness. The following smorgasbord of charts highlight how successful cities have typically had natural advantages such as location, time zone and resources; but more importantly, to remain successful they need education, a skilled workforce, strong property rights, a broad base of industries and in some cases, policies aimed at attracting capital and talent. Conversely, As Goldman notes, when cities fail it tends to be either because of an overreliance on an industry that has seen a dramatic shift in its profitability, or as a result of the vested interests of those that control them.
It took 1000 years for Rome to be topples as the world’s largest (by population) city…
The following 12 charts suggest some cities are on the ascent, some are bubbling dangerously, and others have reached ‘peak’ citiness…
Source: Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Mh_iLE6zNCc/story01.htm Tyler Durden
With more people in the world living in cities than ever before, cities’ share of global GDP is rising: 25 cities account for approximately 50% of the world’s GDP. But not all cities can be winners, and not all are destined for greatness. The following smorgasbord of charts highlight how successful cities have typically had natural advantages such as location, time zone and resources; but more importantly, to remain successful they need education, a skilled workforce, strong property rights, a broad base of industries and in some cases, policies aimed at attracting capital and talent. Conversely, As Goldman notes, when cities fail it tends to be either because of an overreliance on an industry that has seen a dramatic shift in its profitability, or as a result of the vested interests of those that control them.
It took 1000 years for Rome to be topples as the world’s largest (by population) city…
The following 12 charts suggest some cities are on the ascent, some are bubbling dangerously, and others have reached ‘peak’ citiness…
Source: Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Mh_iLE6zNCc/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Submitted by Gary Galles of the Ludwig von Mises Institute,
“We paid our Social Security and Medicare taxes; we earned our benefits.” It is that belief among senior citizens that President Obama was pandering to when, in his second inaugural address, he claimed that those programs “strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers.”
If Social Security and Medicare both involved people voluntarily financing their own benefits, an argument could be made for seniors’ “earned benefits” view. But they have not. They have redistributed tens of trillions of dollars of wealth to themselves from those younger.
Social Security and Medicare have transferred those trillions because they have been partial Ponzi schemes.
After Social Security’s creation, those in or near retirement got benefits far exceeding their costs (Ida Mae Fuller, the first Social Security recipient, got 462 times what she and her employer together paid in “contributions”). Those benefits in excess of their taxes paid inherently forced future Americans to pick up the tab for the difference. And the program’s almost unthinkable unfunded liabilities are no less a burden on later generations because earlier generations financed some of their own benefits, or because the government has consistently lied that they have paid their own way.
Since its creation, Social Security has been expanded multiple times. Each expansion meant those already retired paid no added taxes, and those near retirement paid more for only a few years. But both groups received increased benefits throughout retirement, increasing the unfunded benefits whose burdens had to be borne by later generations. Thus, each such expansion started another Ponzi cycle benefiting older Americans at others’ expense.
Social Security benefits have been dramatically increased. They doubled between 1950 and 1952. They were raised 15 percent in 1970, 10 percent in 1971, and 20 percent in 1972, in a heated competition to buy the elderly vote. Benefits were tied to a measure that effectively double-counted inflation and even now, benefits are over-indexed to inflation, raising real benefit levels over time.
Disability and dependents’ benefits were added by 1960. Medicare was added in 1966, and benefits have been expanded (e.g., Medicare Part B, only one-quarter funded by recipients, and Part D’s prescription drug benefit, only one-eighth funded by recipients).
The massive expansion of Social Security is evident from the growing tax burden since its $60 per year initial maximum (for employees and employers combined). Tax rates have risen and been applied to more earnings, with Social Security now taking a combined 12.4 percent of earnings up to $113,700 (and Medicare’s 2.9 percent combined rate applies to all earnings, plus a 0.9 percent surtax beyond $200,000 of earnings).
Those multiple Ponzi giveaways to earlier recipients created Social Security’s 13-digit unfunded liability and Medicare’s far larger hole. And despite politicians’ repeated, heated denials, many studies have confirmed the results.
One recent study of lifetime payroll taxes and benefits comes from the Urban Institute. For Medicare, they calculated that (in 2012 dollars) an average-wage-earning male would get $180,000 in benefits, but pay only $61,000 in taxes — “earning” only about one-third of benefits received. A similarly situated female does even better. The cumulative “excess” benefits equal $105 trillion, with net benefits increasing over time.
The Urban Institute’s calculations revealed a different situation for Social Security. An average-earning male who retired in 2010 will receive $277,000 in lifetime benefits, $23,000 less than his lifetime taxes, while for females, their $302,000 in lifetime benefits approximates their lifetime taxes. And things are getting worse. By 2030, that man will be “shorted” 16 cents (10 cents for women) of every lifetime tax dollar paid.
While those results resoundingly reject “we earned it” rhetoric for Medicare, the Social Security results, with new retirees getting less than they paid in, could be spun as “proving” Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. However, that would be false. The reason is that Medicare is still in its expansion phase, as with Medicare Part D, piling up still bigger future IOUs. However, Social Security has essentially run out of new expansion tricks, although liberal groups are pushing to apply Social Security taxes to far more income as one last means of robbing those younger to delay the day of reckoning. That simply means that we are being forced to start facing the full consequences of the redistribution that was started in 1935. That is, the current bad deal Social Security offers retirees is just the result of the fact that it has been a Ponzi scheme for generations, and someone must get stuck “holding the bag.”
In fact, perhaps the best description of the current Social Security and Medicare situation comes from Henry Hazlitt, long ago, in Economics in One Lesson:
Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore. The long-run consequences of some economic policies may become evident in a few months. Others may not become evident for several years. Still others may not become evident for decades. But in every case those long-run consequences are contained in the policy as surely as the hen was in the egg, the flower in the seed.
Social Security and Medicare’s generational high-jacking has become “the third rail of politics” in large part because seniors want to believe that they paid their own way. But they have not. They have only paid for part of what they have gotten. The rest has indeed been a Ponzi scheme. And as Social Security is already revealing, the future cannot be put off forever, however much wishful thinking is involved. Some are already being forced to confront the exploding pot of IOUs involved, and it will get much worse.
The supposedly “most successful government program in the history of the world,” according to Harry Reid, has turned seniors into serious takers. The fact that some of them are now starting to share the pain caused by those programs does not contradict that fact. It just shows the dark side of the most successful Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/_21wP0-5LlM/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Submitted by Gary Galles of the Ludwig von Mises Institute,
“We paid our Social Security and Medicare taxes; we earned our benefits.” It is that belief among senior citizens that President Obama was pandering to when, in his second inaugural address, he claimed that those programs “strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers.”
If Social Security and Medicare both involved people voluntarily financing their own benefits, an argument could be made for seniors’ “earned benefits” view. But they have not. They have redistributed tens of trillions of dollars of wealth to themselves from those younger.
Social Security and Medicare have transferred those trillions because they have been partial Ponzi schemes.
After Social Security’s creation, those in or near retirement got benefits far exceeding their costs (Ida Mae Fuller, the first Social Security recipient, got 462 times what she and her employer together paid in “contributions”). Those benefits in excess of their taxes paid inherently forced future Americans to pick up the tab for the difference. And the program’s almost unthinkable unfunded liabilities are no less a burden on later generations because earlier generations financed some of their own benefits, or because the government has consistently lied that they have paid their own way.
Since its creation, Social Security has been expanded multiple times. Each expansion meant those already retired paid no added taxes, and those near retirement paid more for only a few years. But both groups received increased benefits throughout retirement, increasing the unfunded benefits whose burdens had to be borne by later generations. Thus, each such expansion started another Ponzi cycle benefiting older Americans at others’ expense.
Social Security benefits have been dramatically increased. They doubled between 1950 and 1952. They were raised 15 percent in 1970, 10 percent in 1971, and 20 percent in 1972, in a heated competition to buy the elderly vote. Benefits were tied to a measure that effectively double-counted inflation and even now, benefits are over-indexed to inflation, raising real benefit levels over time.
Disability and dependents’ benefits were added by 1960. Medicare was added in 1966, and benefits have been expanded (e.g., Medicare Part B, only one-quarter funded by recipients, and Part D’s prescription drug benefit, only one-eighth funded by recipients).
The massive expansion of Social Security is evident from the growing tax burden since its $60 per year initial maximum (for employees and employers combined). Tax rates have risen and been applied to more earnings, with Social Security now taking a combined 12.4 percent of earnings up to $113,700 (and Medicare’s 2.9 percent combined rate applies to all earnings, plus a 0.9 percent surtax beyond $200,000 of earnings).
Those multiple Ponzi giveaways to earlier recipients created Social Security’s 13-digit unfunded liability and Medicare’s far larger hole. And despite politicians’ repeated, heated denials, many studies have confirmed the results.
One recent study of lifetime payroll taxes and benefits comes from the Urban Institute. For Medicare, they calculated that (in 2012 dollars) an average-wage-earning male would get $180,000 in benefits, but pay only $61,000 in taxes — “earning” only about one-third of benefits received. A similarly situated female does even better. The cumulative “excess” benefits equal $105 trillion, with net benefits increasing over time.
The Urban Institute’s calculations revealed a different situation for Social Security. An average-earning male who retired in 2010 will receive $277,000 in lifetime benefits, $23,000 less than his lifetime taxes, while for females, their $302,000 in lifetime benefits approximates their lifetime taxes. And things are getting worse. By 2030, that man will be “shorted” 16 cents (10 cents for women) of every lifetime tax dollar paid.
While those results resoundingly reject “we earned it” rhetoric for Medicare, the Social Security results, with new retirees getting less than they paid in, could be spun as “proving” Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. However, that would be false. The reason is that Medicare is still in its expansion phase, as with Medicare Part D, piling up still bigger future IOUs. However, Social Security has essentially run out of new expansion tricks, although liberal groups are pushing to apply Social Security taxes to far more income as one last means of robbing those younger to delay the day of reckoning. That simply means that we are being forced to start facing the full consequences of the redistribution that was started in 1935. That is, the current bad deal Social Security offers retirees is just the result of the fact that it has been a Ponzi scheme for generations, and someone must get stuck “holding the bag.”
In fact, perhaps the best description of the current Social Security and Medicare situation comes from Henry Hazlitt, long ago, in Economics in One Lesson:
Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore. The long-run consequences of some economic policies may become evident in a few months. Others may not become evident for several years. Still others may not become evident for decades. But in every case those long-run consequences are contained in the policy as surely as the hen was in the egg, the flower in the seed.
Social Security and Medicare’s generational high-jacking has become “the third rail of politics” in large part because seniors want to believe that they paid their own way. But they have not. They have only paid for part of what they have gotten. The rest has indeed been a Ponzi scheme. And as Social Security is already revealing, the future cannot be put off forever, however much wishful thinking is involved. Some are already being forced to confront the exploding pot of IOUs involved, and it will get much worse.
The supposedly “most successful government program in the history of the world,” according to Harry Reid, has turned seniors into serious takers. The fact that some of them are now starting to share the pain caused by those programs does not contradict that fact. It just shows the dark side of the most successful Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/_21wP0-5LlM/story01.htm Tyler Durden
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Pn2CiUgdgNQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Pn2CiUgdgNQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Before it became a conspiracy fact, the traditional response to all suggestions of a massive Libor/FX/commodity/mortgage rigging cartel was a simple if stupid one: too many people are involved and so it can never be contained. As it turns out not only can it be contained, but when the interests of the “conspiracy” participants are alligned, it can continue for decades. Naturally, the same applies for the pinnacle of the global wealth pyramid: the world’s billionaires and their plan of wealth preservation and accumulation.
Not only have the world’s richest been the biggest beneficiaries of the monetary and fiscal policies since 2009, with the current 2170 global billionaires representing a 60% increase since 2009 according to UBS, but their consolidated net worth has more than doubled from $3.1 trillion in 2009 to $6.5 trillion now. At the same time, the net worth of the “bottom 90%” of the world’s not so lucky population, has declined. Yet, somehow, the Fed is still revered.
Naturally, as in global financial conspiracies, the question arises: is it possible that instead of representing the interests of the general population, what the central banks simply do is follow the instructions of a far smaller cabal, that of the world’s uber wealthy?
In case there is any confusion, the above is a rhetorical question. It goes without saying that what the world’s largest wealth accumulators want above all else, is to preserve a status quo that allows their capital-based wealth to increase as fast and as much as possible in a regime of reflating asset prices, while keeping the bulk of the world’s population distracted, entertained, and collecting their daily welfare check.
Consider the downside: according to a new report by Wealth-X and UBS, “the average billionaire is incredibly well connected, with a social circle worth US$15 billion – five times the net worth of the average billionaire. This figure is based on a calculation of the net worth of only the three top connections of billionaires, and so it is likely to be even higher when considering the number of UHNW individuals the average billionaire interacts with while attending various meetings, dinners, and events.” It is during these “meetings, dinners and events” that the real policy defining the future of the world is set – far beyond the theater of a corrupt, dysfunctional Congress or incompetent Executive. And the policy is simple – “more for us, nothing for everyone else.”
The bottom line from Weatlh X: “factoring in all of the connections between the world’s billionaires, this equates to a total social circle worth a combined US$33 trillion” or double the GDP of the US.
The estimated “circle of influence” among the friends of just the US’ richest is shown below.
Source: Wealth-X
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/tAIv-rkTV_k/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Before it became a conspiracy fact, the traditional response to all suggestions of a massive Libor/FX/commodity/mortgage rigging cartel was a simple if stupid one: too many people are involved and so it can never be contained. As it turns out not only can it be contained, but when the interests of the “conspiracy” participants are alligned, it can continue for decades. Naturally, the same applies for the pinnacle of the global wealth pyramid: the world’s billionaires and their plan of wealth preservation and accumulation.
Not only have the world’s richest been the biggest beneficiaries of the monetary and fiscal policies since 2009, with the current 2170 global billionaires representing a 60% increase since 2009 according to UBS, but their consolidated net worth has more than doubled from $3.1 trillion in 2009 to $6.5 trillion now. At the same time, the net worth of the “bottom 90%” of the world’s not so lucky population, has declined. Yet, somehow, the Fed is still revered.
Naturally, as in global financial conspiracies, the question arises: is it possible that instead of representing the interests of the general population, what the central banks simply do is follow the instructions of a far smaller cabal, that of the world’s uber wealthy?
In case there is any confusion, the above is a rhetorical question. It goes without saying that what the world’s largest wealth accumulators want above all else, is to preserve a status quo that allows their capital-based wealth to increase as fast and as much as possible in a regime of reflating asset prices, while keeping the bulk of the world’s population distracted, entertained, and collecting their daily welfare check.
Consider the downside: according to a new report by Wealth-X and UBS, “the average billionaire is incredibly well connected, with a social circle worth US$15 billion – five times the net worth of the average billionaire. This figure is based on a calculation of the net worth of only the three top connections of billionaires, and so it is likely to be even higher when considering the number of UHNW individuals the average billionaire interacts with while attending various meetings, dinners, and events.” It is during these “meetings, dinners and events” that the real policy defining the future of the world is set – far beyond the theater of a corrupt, dysfunctional Congress or incompetent Executive. And the policy is simple – “more for us, nothing for everyone else.”
The bottom line from Weatlh X: “factoring in all of the connections between the world’s billionaires, this equates to a total social circle worth a combined US$33 trillion” or double the GDP of the US.
The estimated “circle of influence” among the friends of just the US’ richest is shown below.
Source: Wealth-X
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/tAIv-rkTV_k/story01.htm Tyler Durden