Comparing U.S. Tax Revenues To Other G-7 Countries

For the Fiscal Year 2012, the total U.S. Federal Spending was about $3.8 Trillion and the Tax Revenue was about $2.5 Trillion resulting in a deficit of about $1.3 Trillion. For many years now, the U.S. has been running deficits as revenues were lower than expenditures. In fact, expenditures have been soaring due to rising medicare costs and other programs but revenues have barely moved up in pace.

From January 1, 2013 thirteen tax increases went into effect as part of the deal struck between the Obama administration and Congress according to The Heritage Foundation. These include the social security tax component of payroll taxes rising to 6.2% from 4.2% for all Americans, top marginal tax rate jumping to 39.6% from 35.0%, taxes on capital gains and dividends rising from 15 to 20% for taxable incomes over $450,000 for joint filers,  a 3.8% surcharge on investment income for taxpayers with taxable income of over $250,000 for married filers, etc.

Though all these tax increases seem high and thousands of hours were wasted by politicians debating the issues as part of the Fiscal Cliff negotiations late last year, they are actually lower compared to taxes paid by citizens of other G-7 countries.

The following chart shows the U.S. government taxes by revenue source as a measure of GDP in 2010 relative to other G-7 countries:

Click to enlarge

US-Tax-Revenues-vs-G-7-Countries

Source: US in Debtors’ Prison: A Life Sentence? by Emanuella Enenajor and Andrew Grantham, Economic Insights, January 29, 2013, CIBC World Markets

The total U.S. tax revenue was at at least 10% lower than the average of other G-7 countries. Except corporate taxes, the U.S. collected lower taxes in the other sources noted above compared to other G-7 countries.

According to the CIBC research report, Japan plans to implement a new sales tax in the years ahead to increase tax revenues. However in the U.S. sales taxes on goods and services are controlled and collected by the individual states and no national sales tax such as Value Added Tax(VAT) exists in the country. In  fact, the U.S. is the only developed country which does not have a national-level sales tax. As a result of this archaic tax system, each state behaves like a separate country constantly manipulating the tax rates mostly to finance all types of local boondoggles such as tax subsidies for casinos, stadiums, construction of parking garages, park renovations, etc.

Equity Investing for the Very Long Term Will Yield Spectacular Returns

I wrote an article last week discussing about the strategy of investing in stocks during a crisis for great returns. This post is a follow up to that article but takes on the benefits of investing in equities for the very long-term. Very long-term can be defined as   a time period measured in decades.

From Reasons to Avoid Buying Stocks, and Why You Should Ignore Them in The New York Times:

THERE are always reasons not to buy stocks. Investors may think the Dow Jones industrial average is too high, as was the case in 1954 when the index topped 360. In 1941, there was Pearl Harbor. In 1962, the Cuban missile crisis. In 1997, the Asian financial crisis.

The list, adding up to 78 for each of the years from 1934 to 2012, was compiled by Bel Air Investment Advisors.

But the punch line to this list was that stocks went up by an annual compounded rate of 10.59 percent over those 78 years, with occasional plateaus, and that $1 million invested in 1934 was worth $2.4 billion in 2012.

Click to Enlarge

Growth-of-1-Million-in-Stocks-from-1934-to-2011

78-Years-of-Equity-Crises

Source: Reasons to Avoid Buying Stocks, and Why You Should Ignore Them, The New York Times

Data Source: Bel Air Investment advisors

The return calculated in this study based on the S&P 500 is indeed astonishing. Similar studies in the past have shown great returns as well. Here is one chart from the fourth edition of famous book Stocks for the Long Run by Professor Jeremy Siegel of The Wharton School.

Stocks-vs-Bond-Very-Long-Term

A $1 invested in 1801 would have been worth $12.7 million according to his analysis.  So investing in equities for the very long-term will yield spectacular returns.

However for most investors this strategy will not work for many reasons. For example, most investors do not hold stocks for many decades. Since very few of us live past the age 100, the idea of investing for centuries is ruled out. Despite these flaws, reviews of the benefits of long-term investing are interesting to follow. While investing for the very long-term is not feasible for most investors, it is a wise idea to hold equity investments for at least five years. One way to do this would be to build a diversified portfolio of  dividend-paying well-established companies and reinvesting dividends and other earnings to take advantage of compounding.

Related ETFs:

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index (EEM
Vanguard Emerging Markets ETF (VWO)
SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY)
SPDR STOXX Europe 50 ETF (FEU)
SPDR DJ Euro STOXX 50 ETF (FEZ)

Disclosure: No Positions

A Review of Bloomberg BusinessWeek 50

Bloomberg BusinessWeek recently published its annual ranking of the top 50 U.S. companies. From the article:

The Bloomberg Businessweek 50 ranks companies on how well they’ve done and how well analysts expect them to do. Half of the ranking is based on past performance: their stocks’ risk-adjusted returns over one and five years. The other half is based on outlook: analysts’ recommendations and forecasts for earnings growth. Companies at the top of the list have both strong track records and high expectations from Wall Street for growth ahead.

Here is the chart showing the BBW50 for 2013:

Click to enlarge

BusinessWeek-50-for-2013

Source: Breaking Down the BBW50, Bloomberg BusinessWeek

A cool interactive chart can be found here.

The top 3 firms in terms of revenues are Apple(APPL), McKesson(MCK) and CVS CareMark(CVS) in descending order. However the top 3 firms based on market caps are Apple(APPL), Amazon(AMZN) and Comcase(CMCSA). In terms of Earnings Per Share the top 3 firms are Apple(APPL), Priceline.com(PCLN) and Mastercard(MA).

Five interesting names investors can consider for further research are:

1.Company: Airgas Inc (ARG)
Current Dividend Yield: 1.66%
Sector: Chemical Manufacturing

2.Company: Mastercard(MA)
Current Dividend Yield: 0.46%
Sector: Consumer Financial Services

3.Company: McKesson(MCK)
Current Dividend Yield: 0.78%
Sector: Biotechnology & Drugs

4.Company: Union Pacific Corp (UNP)
Current Dividend Yield: 2.06%
Sector: Railroads

5.Company:Ecolab Inc (ECL)
Current Dividend Yield: 1.24%
Sector: Personal & Household Products

Note: Dividend yields noted are as of Feb 22, 2013

Disclosure: No Positions

Knowledge is Power: Fossil Fuel Subsidy, Asia Growth, Robot Revolution Edition

Why the free market fundamentalists think 2013 will be the best year ever (The Guardian)

Fossil fuel subsidies: billions up in smoke? (OECD Insights)

Why US winks at illegal migration (The Hindu Business Line)

The 40 most unusual economic indicators (Financial Post)

Gold stocks’ time to shine (Canadian Business)

Fired America (Economic Populist)

HSBC: Asia’s ‘worrying’ debt-led growth (Beyond Brics)

Why the Canadian dollar’s decline isn’t over yet (The Globe and Mail)

Investing in the Robot Revolution: Part 1 (AllianceBernstein blog)

Investing in the Robot Revolution: Part 2 (AllianceBernstein blog)

Malaysia-Trip-1

War Memorial, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

S&P 500 vs. FTSE 100 Returns

Reinvestment of dividends can enhance the return of an equity investment. Instead of simply focusing on price returns only investors should focus on the total return of an investment which includes price return plus dividend reinvestment return.

Over the past decade, UK’s FTSE 100 has consistently beaten the S&P 500. The FTSE 100 has had a total return of 171.87% compared to just 89.12% for the S&P 500 in British Pound terms according to a report in FE Trustnet.

However just looking at price charts will give misleading results. In the 10-year and 5 year charts below, the S&P 500(in blue) was ahead of FTSE 100 in US $ terms. But this is only based on price return. When reinvestment of dividends is included the charts will look entirely different with the FTSE beating the S&P by a wide margin. This is because the dividend yield on the S&P 500 is around 2% whereas the FTSE 100 has a much higher yield as British firms traditionally have higher payouts than US firms.

S&P 500 vs. FTSE 100 – 5 Year Return:

Click to enlagre

SP500-vs-FTSE100-5-Years-1

Source: Yahoo Finance

S&P 500 vs. FTSE 100 – 10 Year Return:

SP500-vs-FTSE100-10-Years-2

Source: Google Finance

 

Source:  “Lost decade” a myth for equity income investors,  FE Trustnet

Related ETFs:

iShares MSCI United Kingdom Index (EWU)
SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY)

Disclosure: No Positions