US Defense spending from Soup to Nuts. No, really, from soup to nuts...

From Mother Jones:  See more on defense spending at the link.

Interesting graphic showing how someone earning $69,000 or $29,000 ends up with the same income (cash and non-cash) after taxes/benefits/subsidies are factored in/out. Enlightening regardless of your politics.

This chart has been bouncing around various blogs. I tried to find something to counter the points made here but could not find anything substantial. I made some edits, just to highlight reference points to make it clearer.

The chart suggests that a single mother (with 2 children and lives in Pennsylvania) earning a gross income of  $69,000 in a year ("D") would have a net income (after taxes and adding in any cash and non-cash benefits) of $57,327 ("C").

IF a different mother earned a gross income of $29,000 ("A") in a year, she would have a net income (after taxes and adding in any cash and non-cash benefits) of $57,045 ("B"). 

Their after tax/after benefits (cash and non-cash) would just about equalize their income.  The mother with the $69,000 income would be a net "loser" of $11,673 and the mother with an income of $29,000 would be a net "gainer" of tax dollars/subsidies of $28,045.


Source: Here

This is interesting BUT there is more!  If this data is correct and this is the system people operate under, there is a GLARING unintentional consequence here.  Can you see it?

Look at the income level and benefit level at point "B", $29,000.  This this mother earns $1.00 more what happens to her level of benefits overall?  Yikes, they decrease by much more than the extra dollar she earned from, perhaps, a raise or a promotion.  This is a significant penalty for someone who is just getting by. 

So, what happens to the incentive to earn more, and by implication to be more productive? Notice the same thing happens to someone when they reach the $45,000 income level. The next dollar earned is VERY costly. 

People trying to get by and do the best they can are going to respond to the real-life, immediate, incentives put in front of them. 

This does not appear to be a system that promotes self-sufficiency as people climb the income ladder. 

Maybe I am looking at it wrong.  What do you think?  Tell me where I am going off the rails.



Nice Infographic showing the decrease in the size of packaging for some of your favorite products. Inflation without an increase in price. I feel ripped-off.

This infographic illustrates "hidden" inflation that may not adequately captured in the governments compilation of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)---what the Federal govt. uses to measure general changes in prices from one time period to another, resulting in a measure of inflation or deflation.

If from one CPI measuring period to another the contents of a good you purchase is sold in a smaller quantity (on a per ounce or per piece basis) BUT the price of the good remains the same, is isn't that an increase in the price of the good without, well, an increase in the price of the good? 

I buy less quantity at the same price as before the "shrinkage"---My purchasing power has decreased.

The increase in the price of one good, or even a whole category of goods, is not considered inflation ("A general rise in prices").   BUT I do FEEL poorer after looking at the chart below and see how I am getting less for more. 

How about you??


Source: Good Morning Inforgraphics

Cool Infographic---US Education vs 12 Other Countries...

Source: Cool Inforgraphics