Considering a can drive? Don't.

During the holidays many people feel generous and turn their attention to helping those in need. A popular way to do this is to have people donate unused canned and boxed goods to be donated to the needy. Slate provides a very compelling argument as to why these drives are just a plain bad idea. In brief, people often buy food at a premium price to donate (because they don't have surplus canned goods at home) rather than pooling money and buying in bulk. Thus:

Katherina Rosqueta, executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, explains that food providers can get what they need for “pennies on the dollar.” She estimates that they pay about 10 cents a pound for food that would cost you $2 per pound retail. You’d be doing dramatically more good, in basic dollars and cents terms, by eating that tuna yourself and forking over a check for half the price of a single can of Chicken of the Sea.

Charities, it seems, have known this for a while but are reluctant to turn away people for fear of insulting them.  The best option, it seems, is to donate money to charity. And while you are at it, tell us about your favorite charity.

TED Tuesday: How Economic Inequality Harms Societies

This selection was inspired by my most recent Deconstructing December post.

Many people have a gut feeling that a large gap in wealth between the richest and poorest in a country is bad. However, it's nicer to have data illustrating these negative associations. This talk has lots of interesting graphs demonstrating the associations between economic inequality and various important outcomes. They pass quickly, so I recommend repeatedly pausing. The presentation is rather ho-hum, but I find the content fascinating.

A Free Market Solution for American Sports?

Interesting piece from Freakonomics suggesting that a promotion and regulation system currently in place in European soccer leagues might be a fruitful replacement for the current "central planning" system used by the major American sports leagues:

In a league such as the English Premier League, the bottom three teams in each season are demoted to the Championship League (a lesser league). The top three teams from the Championship League are then promoted to the Premier League. Consequently, losers in the Premier League – as we see in a capitalistic market – are punished financially. And success in the Championship League is clearly rewarded.

This type of system would let the markets in each city determine the placement of teams rather than the central planner. Essentially areas could have a team as long as they had enough fans and the team was successful.

It's a fun thought experiment:

For example, let’s imagine that multiple basketball leagues were created in North America. Currently, beneath the NBA is the NBA Development League (which could be the Championship League equivalent). Beneath the NBADL, one could create another league. Any city or part of a city (i.e. Long Island in New York could have their own team) — could enter a team in a lower league. If that team was successful it could eventually join the NBA. And the teams that fail in the NBA would be removed.

Probably never would happen, but as a person who has a passing interest in sports and economics, I felt it was thought provoking.

(thx to Melissa for bringing this to my attention)

Deconstructing December: The 12 days of Christmas or a song for the 1%

Time recently ran an article on the "Cost of Christmas" and how it is no longer affordable for the average American. And by “Cost of Christmas,” they of course mean the estimated cost of buying all the gifts in the classic song “The Twelve Days of Christmas” – all 364 of them. Apparently PNC wealth considers this such a priority that they have been estimating this cost every year since 1984.

In 2011, it would cost you $101,119.84 to buy your “true love” the gifts ($24,263.18 if you were just paying for day 12). Obviously, this is not your average Christmas gift. In fact, it’s about 155 times more than the average American intends to spend this holiday season ($646 according to the American Research Group, Inc.). Given all that has happened recently, do we really need another reminder of what the 1% can afford and the rest of us can't?

So what are the 99% to do? I propose that they stop defining their wealth by these rich standards and start trying to live within their means. Therefore, I propose to you an amended list for the 99%.

The Psychology of the Flat Tax

Before you read any further, I have two caveats: 

1. I know next to nothing about taxes AND
2. I know even less about human psychology¹. 

The article that follows covers both of these topics. You have been warned.

Lately it seems we have been hearing a lot of talk about taxes. The economy is in the crapper, people are scrambling to make ends meet, and each republican presidential hopeful is touting his or her tax plan as the newest way to "fix" things. Herman Cain’s one-trick pony the “9-9-9 plan” – a plan that only a pizza baron could dream up – got things started. Not wanting to be outdone, Rick Perry just unveiled his plan for a “flat” tax of 20%². In other words, folks the "flat tax" is definitely in fashion this season.

Hold on, what is a flat tax?

I'm glad you asked. Well, in the simplest terms, a flat tax is a set percentage of income that all Americans would be expected to pay to the federal government. Our current system is not a flat tax system and technically, any system with exemptions or deductions cannot be a true flat tax system. 

Okay, I'm listening. Why would a candidate propose such a tax?

Glad you're with me. Flat taxes are intuitively appealing because they are easy for the average person to understand. Some people credit Herman Cain’s recent surge in the polls to his 9-9-9 plan. Most of that can be attributed to how catchy and intuitive it feels. Candidates (on both sides of the isle) often want to take something very complex (like our federal tax code) and reduce it to a soundbite that people can really latch onto and remember, especially on the campaign trail. This builds trust and liking in the voter toward said candidate. Flat taxes are not new. The idea of a flat tax comes up every now and again, usually during an election year  -- perhaps most famously during both of billionaire Steve Forbes failed presidential campaigns (the fact that Forbes endorses Perry should come as no surprise). Turns out there is a reason the flat tax zombie just won't die, and it is rooted deeply in human psychology.

Flat taxes play heavily on our notions of what psychologists call Distributive Justice. You see, humans are a social species and rely on each other to survive. In our evolutionary past it was necessary for us to share resources to get along. Because of this, humans are very concerned with fairness. So much so, that some psychologists argue we have evolved a "cheater detection module" to help us catch others who aren't playing nice. So in other words people want to know that they are getting a fair shake and they are especially attuned to when this is not the case.

So people want fairness - no one disagrees with that - so we should be good at being fair, right?

Not quite. You see, there are many different types of distribution and all of them could be considered "fair" given the right set of circumstances. The three most common types of distribution are equality, equity, and need. These can be easily demonstrated by taking a walk into our evolutionary past…

Let’s imagine a small group of cave people. Their leader, lets call him “Aak,” leads a successful hunting expedition that results  some large game to share with the group. When Aak and the other hunters get back to the cave they must decide how to divide that day’s kill. The following examples illustrate the three different types of distribution:

• everyone gets an equal share of the animal (equality)
• the cave people who helped with the catching, killing, cleaning, and cooking will get more of the animal and those who did not will get less of the animal or nothing to eat at all (equity)
• some cave people, due to their circumstances (e.g., illness, malnourished) get more of the animal while more fortunate others (e.g., the healthy), get less (need)

Yeah, yeah. That makes sense. But what does this have to do with taxes?

Well, in case you haven’t figured this out yet, a flat tax by its nature suggests that equality is the way to go. Everyone, regardless of their personal characteristics or situation pays the same, equal, share. What’s more, proponents of the flat tax argue that it is the only truly equal form of division and progressive taxation, by contrast, is unequal and unfair. Progressive tax pundits (say that five times fast) counter with the argument that progressive taxation does meet criteria for equality when you take into account the fact that all people have to spend a certain amount of money to cover basic necessities. For poor people, most of their income is devoted to these things. For rich people, the surplus money - after the necessities have been taken care of - is often used to make more money in the form of interest gained on savings accounts, retirement accounts, and investments (many of which, have their own associated tax breaks). Therefore, it is unfair to ask poor people to pay the exact same percentage of income because it cuts into money that they need to survive. Which approach truly meets the standard of equality? I don't think there is a right or wrong answer that that question. 

How does knowing about these norms help me?

The great thing about being aware of these norms is knowing how people manipulate them in order to serve their purpose. Let’s use the Occupy Wall Street stuff as an example. The OWS folks argue that currently 1% of the people in this country control a staggering percentage of the wealth and that this is not fair. This calls into question the basis of fairness used on both sides of the argument:

• The liberal argument is that those who are more fortunate should give more back in the form of taxes to be used for programs for those who are less fortunate (the norm of need). 
• The conservative argument is that liberals want to “spread the wealth” Robin Hood style and take money from people who have earned it and give it to those who did not earn it (thereby violating the norm of equity). 

Pretty neat huh? Same behavior, two very different interpretations of what is "fair in this situation".

Okay, but would a flat tax work?

I have no idea. I refer you to point #1 at the top of this article. The consensus does seem to be that Cain's 9-9-9 plan would not work well. Specifically, that such a plan would do the very unrepublican thing of raising taxes on 84% of Americans. But that is not to say that no flat tax plan would work.

Conservatives in the U.S. and in Western Countries (e.g., The UK) believe that a flat tax could result in economic growth. One potential reason for this enthusiasm is that many East Bloc countries have a flat tax system and have experienced considerable economic growth over the past few years (though critics point to the fact that it cannot be determined whether the introduction of capitalism, the flat tax, or both are responsible for growth). Proponents also cite the easy of filing taxes that would come with such a plan as compared to the nightmare that it currently is.

Opponents of the tax say that it unfairly benefits the rich in that it essentially taxes money once and would make earnings on investments essentially tax-free. Essentially, a flat tax would cripple most of the working poor in America and it would be necessary to have certain breaks and deductions in place were it to be instated³.

Others (on both sides of the isle) seem to think there is more merit in modifying the tax code we already have rather than starting from scratch. What do you think? Let us know in the comments.

---

¹ Okay, so I do have a few fancy pieces of paper on my wall that suggest I know more about psychology than taxes, but they say nothing about how much more.

² Apparently Newt Gingrich and John Huntsman also have flat tax plans, but who really cares at this point? 

³ In fact, Perry’s plan isn’t a true flat tax because it allows people to choose to either pay their current income tax rate or the new 20% rate. So by the strictest definition it wouldn't be a flat tax.

Do EU hear the people sing?

Proving that economic journalism can show some vigor on the brink another global meltdown, NPR went musical. During a segment on Morning Edition, the Planet Money team made the case that France and Germany's relationship is similar to an operatic love story. More Rabbit of Seville than Glee, the segment mixed in clips of an actual operetta written and produced for the story and provided the music in it's entirety. Bravo, Planet Money, bravo! I look forward to the follow up, Car-man: A Bailout in Ballad.