Lucille
Lucille
Post rating:
~
Let's get this started off right, with a striking Graph. This Graph uses the most recent non-forecast data available for all Europe minus the ex-Communist countries.
There is little relation between social spending and the income share of the bottom 10% of households, adjusting for household size.
The same data is available for each income quartile. Each country is divided into quartiles ranked by income. The bottom 25% of is the first quartile, the next 25% is the second quartile, the next 25% is the third quartile, and the top 25% is the fourth quartile.
The results more or less hold. The second and fourth quartiles both gain a little income share from increased social spending. Even the top 1% share has a positive correlation with spending, but this changes from 0.07 to a small negative value, -0.01, after dropping France.
These results surprise even myself. Is it just outliers? No, knocking off the highest and lowest values returns the same mixed results. In fact, if the sample is limited to Scandanavia, the results are much stronger for all quartiles.
Sample limited to Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway:
Are libertarians right, is the liberal state the tool of our oppressors? Is it some statistical artefact? Is it welfare dependency?
Or is it that the welfare state subsidizes childbearing among the poor, increasing household size? The reverse may also occur, with higher taxes causing the upper income brackets to reduce fertility, perpetuating unequal class fertility differentials.
In the last case it would be helpful to look at personal income rather than household income, but EUROSTAT does not have it.
Looking at overall income returns unsurprising results, given these findings.
At the sample average, every $1 of social spending kills $1.10 of economic activity.
The story more or less holds for all the other income quartiles, with the poorest quartile being most adversely affected by social spending.
The welfare state would seem to be successful at reducing the measured poverty rate, which involves bumping personal earnings above some arbitrary, very low income line. But using data on household income shows little gains equality from social programs using the resolution of data we have available.
What to make of this?
There is little relation between social spending and the income share of the bottom 10% of households, adjusting for household size.
The same data is available for each income quartile. Each country is divided into quartiles ranked by income. The bottom 25% of is the first quartile, the next 25% is the second quartile, the next 25% is the third quartile, and the top 25% is the fourth quartile.
The results more or less hold. The second and fourth quartiles both gain a little income share from increased social spending. Even the top 1% share has a positive correlation with spending, but this changes from 0.07 to a small negative value, -0.01, after dropping France.
These results surprise even myself. Is it just outliers? No, knocking off the highest and lowest values returns the same mixed results. In fact, if the sample is limited to Scandanavia, the results are much stronger for all quartiles.
Sample limited to Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway:
Are libertarians right, is the liberal state the tool of our oppressors? Is it some statistical artefact? Is it welfare dependency?
Or is it that the welfare state subsidizes childbearing among the poor, increasing household size? The reverse may also occur, with higher taxes causing the upper income brackets to reduce fertility, perpetuating unequal class fertility differentials.
In the last case it would be helpful to look at personal income rather than household income, but EUROSTAT does not have it.
Looking at overall income returns unsurprising results, given these findings.
At the sample average, every $1 of social spending kills $1.10 of economic activity.
The story more or less holds for all the other income quartiles, with the poorest quartile being most adversely affected by social spending.
The welfare state would seem to be successful at reducing the measured poverty rate, which involves bumping personal earnings above some arbitrary, very low income line. But using data on household income shows little gains equality from social programs using the resolution of data we have available.
What to make of this?
Edited by Lucille ()
dipshit420
dipshit420
political car tune
Post rating:
~
perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle~
Lucille
Lucille
Post rating:
~
I'm sure it does. Beyond 20-30% GDP it's impossible to fund spending through progressive taxes. Beneath that taxes may be inequality reducing. This may be why the relation is weaker in the full sample than in the high spending countries.
What amuses me about the results is that they imply the goal of extreme Swedentard welfarism isn't to reduce inequality per se, it's to give poor people free money so they don't have to work.
What amuses me about the results is that they imply the goal of extreme Swedentard welfarism isn't to reduce inequality per se, it's to give poor people free money so they don't have to work.
dipshit420
dipshit420
political car tune
Post rating:
~
sZHCVyllnck
Superabound
Superabound
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating:
~
Lucille posted:What amuses me about the results is that they imply the goal of extreme Swedentard welfarism isn't to reduce inequality per se, it's to give poor people free money so they don't have to work.
you say that likes its a bad thing
Superabound
Superabound
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating:
~
Lucille
Lucille
Post rating:
~
No, social-laziness is an entirely noble goal.
I want to see Getfiscal or aspie_muslim_economist make an effortpost in response, but that's too much to hope for.
I want to see Getfiscal or aspie_muslim_economist make an effortpost in response, but that's too much to hope for.
Edited by Lucille ()
Superabound
Superabound
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating:
~
imho welfare benefits should be paid out in ammo and food stamps made redeemable only for rice, dried beans, and MREs
Lucille
Lucille
Post rating:
~
Disposable income doesn't count social security taxes. You've all been trolled. Have a nice day.
Panopticon
Panopticon
Post rating:
~
19/34
Lucille
Lucille
Post rating:
~
Its 20/20, but I can't argue with that!
wasted
wasted
Post rating:
~
your album is nothing but graphs lol. Maybe a lil' earnest posting will do you good
Lucille
Lucille
Post rating:
~
Lucille
Lucille
Post rating:
~
I think I have an idea of what might actually be causing the correlation.
http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/nfaccount/info/data/esa95/en/een00358.htm
Adjusted disposable income (which I think I used) is based on actual household consumption. If welfare transfers cause lower savings, this would impact aggregate savings most at the upper incomes. Therefore welfare programs could actually increase consumption inequality.
http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/nfaccount/info/data/esa95/en/een00358.htm
Adjusted disposable income (which I think I used) is based on actual household consumption. If welfare transfers cause lower savings, this would impact aggregate savings most at the upper incomes. Therefore welfare programs could actually increase consumption inequality.
Superabound
Superabound
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating:
~
subsistence reinforces the status quo? mind=bloan
Lucille
Lucille
Post rating:
~
I love turning socialists into accelerationists, it's one of the most amusing things you can do.