Add benefits by occupation; tweaks2format

-- tweaks just to get it on two pages

vignettes/20190206-oped.Rnw

@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
 \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
 \usepackage{lmodern}
+\usepackage{microtype}
 
 \begin{document}
 
@@ -82,6 +83,7 @@ NegativeGearing_by_Occupation <-
        .[, c("variable", "unit") := tstrsplit(variable, split = " (?=(no\\.|[$]))", perl = TRUE)] %>%
        .[, unit := if_else(unit == "$", "dollar", "number")] %>%
        .[] %>%
+       
        .[variable %ein% c("Net rent - loss", "Number of individuals")] %>%  # only need number of negative gearers
        .[] %T>%
        fwrite(NegativeGearing_by_Occupation.csv, na = "NA") %>%
@@ -92,6 +94,20 @@ NegativeGearing_by_Occupation <-
 NegativeGearing_by_Occupation[variable %ein% c("Number of individuals"), unit := "number"]
 @
 
+<<nurse_codes>>=
+nurse_codes <- 
+  c("2540 Midwifery and Nursing Professionals - type not specified", 
+    "2542 Nurse Educators and Researchers",
+    "2543 Nurse Managers", 
+    "2544 Registered Nurses",
+    # "3613 Veterinary Nurses", 
+    # "3624 Nurserypersons", 
+    "4114 Enrolled and Mothercraft Nurses",
+    "4233 Nursing Support and Personal Care Workers", 
+    # "8414 Garden and Nursery Labourers",
+    "9254 Consultant - clinical nurse")
+@
+
 <<prop_nurses_not_NG>>=
 prop_nurses_not_NG <-
   NegativeGearing_by_Occupation %>%
@@ -115,6 +131,20 @@ prop_nurses_not_NG <-
 prop_nurses_not_NG.tex <- grattan_percent(prop_nurses_not_NG, digits = 0, "\\%")
 @
 
+<<teacher_codes>>=
+teacher_codes <-
+  c("2410 School Teacher - type not specified",
+    "2411 Early Childhood (Pre-primary School) Teachers", 
+    "2412 Primary School Teachers",
+    "2413 Middle School Teachers (Aus) / Intermediate School Teachers (NZ)", 
+    "2414 Secondary School Teachers",
+    "2415 Special Education Teachers", 
+    "2419 Teacher - other school",
+    "2422 Vocational Education Teachers (Aus) / Polytechnic Teachers (NZ)", 
+    # "2492 Private Tutors and Teachers",
+    "2493 Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages")
+@
+
 <<prop_teachers_not_NG>>=
 prop_teachers_not_NG <-
   NegativeGearing_by_Occupation %>%
@@ -242,6 +272,81 @@ if (prop_benefits_NG_top_decile_adj[["prop_benefit_due_NG"]] %between% c(0.475,
 
 @
 
+<<benefit_due_NG_by_Occupation>>=
+
+# Idea: net rent loss times marginal rate is benefit
+avgMarginalRate_vs_TaxBracket <-
+  sample_file_1516 %>%
+  copy %>%
+  .[, tax := income_tax(Taxable_Income, "2015-16", .dots.ATO = copy(sample_file_1516))] %>%
+  .[, tax_p100 := income_tax(Taxable_Income + 100, "2015-16", .dots.ATO = copy(sample_file_1516))] %>%
+  .[, marginal_rate := (tax_p100 - tax) / 100] %>% 
+  .[, .(avgMarginalRate = mean(marginal_rate)),
+    keyby = .(TaxBracket = cut(Taxable_Income, 
+                               breaks = c(-Inf, 18200, 37000, 80000, 180e3, Inf), 
+                               labels = letters[1:5],
+                               include.lowest = TRUE))] %>%
+  .[]
+
+NG_Benefit_vs_Occupation <- 
+  NegativeGearing_by_Occupation %>%
+  .[, .(Occupation, TaxBracket, Gender, variable, value, unit)] %>%
+  dcast.data.table(... ~ variable + unit) %>%
+  setnames("Net rent - loss_dollar", "NetRentDollar") %>%
+  setnames("Number of individuals_number", "nIndividuals") %>%
+  .[TaxBracket %enotin% "All"] %>% # some small occupations have 'all' rather than brackets
+  .[, TaxBracket := sub("^([a-e]).*$", "\\1", TaxBracket)] %>%
+  .[avgMarginalRate_vs_TaxBracket, on = "TaxBracket"] %>%
+  # minus because losses are reported as negatives
+  .[, benefit := -avgMarginalRate * NetRentDollar] %>%
+  .[] %>%
+  .[, .(totBenefit = sum(benefit),
+        nIndividuals =  sum(nIndividuals)), 
+    keyby = "Occupation"] 
+@
+
+<<avgBenefit_by_occupation>>=
+avgBenefit_by_occupation <- function(occupation) {
+  if (length(occupation) == 1L && !grepl("^[0-9]{4}", occupation)) {
+    switch(occupation, 
+           "teachers" = {
+             .occupation <- teacher_codes
+           },
+           "nurses" = {
+             .occupation <- nurse_codes
+           },
+           "anaesthetists" = {
+             .occupation <- "2532 Anaesthetists"
+           },
+           "surgeons" = {
+             .occupation <- "2535 Surgeons"
+           },
+           stop("Unexpected occupation: provide a code or a supported shorthand."))
+  } else {
+    .occupation <- occupation
+    
+    if (any(.occupation %notin% NG_Benefit_vs_Occupation[, unique(NG_Benefit_vs_Occupation)])) {
+      stop("occupation provided was not present in lookup table.")
+    }
+  }
+  # is keyed
+  NG_Benefit_vs_Occupation[.(.occupation), on = "Occupation",
+                           # nomatch=0L in case an occupation has
+                           # been dropped because the tax bracket was
+                           # not available (i.e. just 'All')
+                           nomatch = 0L] %>%
+    .[, .(totBenefit = sum(totBenefit),
+          nIndividuals = sum(nIndividuals))] %>%
+    .[, totBenefit / nIndividuals]
+}
+@
+
+<<ratio_NG_benefit_surgeons_to_teachers>>=
+ratio_NG_benefit_surgeons_to_teachers <-
+  avgBenefit_by_occupation("surgeons") /
+  avgBenefit_by_occupation("teachers")
+@
+
 
 
 Don't have a negatively geared investment property? You're in good
@@ -261,11 +366,11 @@ significantly in value so you'll make a decent capital gain when you
 sell.
 
 The negatively geared investor gets a good deal on tax -- they write off
-their losses in full as they occur but they are only taxed on 50 per
-cent of their gains at the time they sell. Labor's policy makes the tax
+their losses in full as they occur but they are only taxed on 50\%
+of their gains at the time they sell. Labor's policy makes the tax
 deal a little less sweet -- losses can only be written off against other
 investment income, including the proceeds from the property when it is
-sold. And they will pay tax on 75 per cent of their gains, at their
+sold. And they will pay tax on 75\% of their gains, at their
 marginal tax rate.
 
 Future property speculators are unlikely to be popping the champagne
@@ -275,7 +380,7 @@ lot of potential upsides from winding back these concessions.
 Limiting negative gearing and reducing the capital gains tax discount
 will substantially boost the budget bottom line. The independent
 Parliamentary Budget Office estimates Labor's policy will raise around
-\$32.1 billion over a decade. Ultimately the winners from the change are
+\$32~billion over a decade. Ultimately the winners from the change are
 the \Sexpr{prop_nurses_not_NG.tex} of nurses, \Sexpr{prop_teachers_not_NG.tex} of teachers and all the other
 hard-working taxpayers that don't negatively gear. Winding back tax
 concessions that do not have a strong economic justification means the
@@ -284,9 +389,9 @@ budget bottom line.
 
 Labor's plan will reduce house prices, a little. By reducing investor
 tax breaks, it will reduce investor demand for existing houses. Assuming
-the value of the \$6.6 trillion dollar property market falls by the
+the value of the \$6.6~trillion dollar property market falls by the
 entire value of the future stream of tax benefits, there would be price
-falls in the range of 1-2 per cent. Any reduction in competition from
+falls of about~1-2\%. Any reduction in competition from
 investors is a win for first home buyers. Existing home owners may be
 less pleased especially in light of recent price reductions in Sydney
 and Melbourne. But if they bought their house more than a couple of
@@ -296,7 +401,7 @@ And renters need not fear Labor's policy. Fewer investors means fewer
 rental properties, but those properties don't disappear, home buyers
 move in and so there are also fewer renters. Negative gearing would only
 affect rents if it reduced new housing supply. Any effects will be
-small: more than 90 per cent of property lending is for existing housing
+small: more than 90\% of property lending is for existing housing
 and Labor's policy leaves in place negative gearing tax write offs for
 new builds.
 
@@ -312,14 +417,15 @@ effects of the current tax arrangements on financial stability.
 And for those worried about equity? Both negative gearing and capital
 gains are skewed towards the better off. More than \Sexpr{prop_CG_top_decile.tex} of
 capital gains accrue to those with taxable incomes of more than \Sexpr{min_income_top_decile.tex},
-putting them in the top ten percent of income earners. For negative
+putting them in the top 10\% of income earners. For negative
 gearing \Sexpr{prop_benefits_NG_top_decile.tex} of the tax benefits flow to this group. But people
 who negatively gear have lower taxable incomes \emph{because} they are
 negatively gearing. If we adjust to look at people's taxable incomes
-before rental deductions, the top 10 per cent of income earners receive
+before rental deductions, the top 10\% of income earners receive
 \Sexpr{prop_benefits_NG_top_decile_adj.tex} of the tax benefit from negative gearing. So, you
 shouldn't be surprised to learn that the share of anesthetists negatively gearing is almost
-triple that for nurses.
+triple that for nurses and the average tax benefits they receive are around
+\Sexpr{floor(ratio_NG_benefit_surgeons_to_teachers)}~times higher.
 
 Josh Frydenberg says aspirational voters should fear Labor's proposed
 changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax. But for those of

vignettes/20190206-oped.tex

@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@
 \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
 \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
 \usepackage{lmodern}
+\usepackage{microtype}
 \IfFileExists{upquote.sty}{\usepackage{upquote}}{}
 \begin{document}
 
@@ -76,6 +77,16 @@
 
 
 
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
 
 
 
@@ -104,11 +115,11 @@
 sell.
 
 The negatively geared investor gets a good deal on tax -- they write off
-their losses in full as they occur but they are only taxed on 50 per
-cent of their gains at the time they sell. Labor's policy makes the tax
+their losses in full as they occur but they are only taxed on 50\%
+of their gains at the time they sell. Labor's policy makes the tax
 deal a little less sweet -- losses can only be written off against other
 investment income, including the proceeds from the property when it is
-sold. And they will pay tax on 75 per cent of their gains, at their
+sold. And they will pay tax on 75\% of their gains, at their
 marginal tax rate.
 
 Future property speculators are unlikely to be popping the champagne
@@ -118,7 +129,7 @@
 Limiting negative gearing and reducing the capital gains tax discount
 will substantially boost the budget bottom line. The independent
 Parliamentary Budget Office estimates Labor's policy will raise around
-\$32.1 billion over a decade. Ultimately the winners from the change are
+\$32~billion over a decade. Ultimately the winners from the change are
 the \textcolor{red}{\textbf{89\%}} of nurses, \textcolor{red}{\textbf{87\%}} of teachers and all the other
 hard-working taxpayers that don't negatively gear. Winding back tax
 concessions that do not have a strong economic justification means the
@@ -127,9 +138,9 @@
 
 Labor's plan will reduce house prices, a little. By reducing investor
 tax breaks, it will reduce investor demand for existing houses. Assuming
-the value of the \$6.6 trillion dollar property market falls by the
+the value of the \$6.6~trillion dollar property market falls by the
 entire value of the future stream of tax benefits, there would be price
-falls in the range of 1-2 per cent. Any reduction in competition from
+falls of about~1-2\%. Any reduction in competition from
 investors is a win for first home buyers. Existing home owners may be
 less pleased especially in light of recent price reductions in Sydney
 and Melbourne. But if they bought their house more than a couple of
@@ -139,7 +150,7 @@
 rental properties, but those properties don't disappear, home buyers
 move in and so there are also fewer renters. Negative gearing would only
 affect rents if it reduced new housing supply. Any effects will be
-small: more than 90 per cent of property lending is for existing housing
+small: more than 90\% of property lending is for existing housing
 and Labor's policy leaves in place negative gearing tax write offs for
 new builds.
 
@@ -155,14 +166,15 @@
 And for those worried about equity? Both negative gearing and capital
 gains are skewed towards the better off. More than \textcolor{red}{\textbf{69\%}} of
 capital gains accrue to those with taxable incomes of more than \textcolor{red}{\textbf{\$130,000}},
-putting them in the top ten percent of income earners. For negative
+putting them in the top 10\% of income earners. For negative
 gearing \textcolor{red}{\textbf{38\%}} of the tax benefits flow to this group. But people
 who negatively gear have lower taxable incomes \emph{because} they are
 negatively gearing. If we adjust to look at people's taxable incomes
-before rental deductions, the top 10 per cent of income earners receive
+before rental deductions, the top 10\% of income earners receive
 \textcolor{red}{\textbf{almost 50\%}} of the tax benefit from negative gearing. So, you
 shouldn't be surprised to learn that the share of anesthetists negatively gearing is almost
-triple that for nurses.
+triple that for nurses and the average tax benefits they receive are around
+\textcolor{red}{\textbf{11}}~times higher.
 
 Josh Frydenberg says aspirational voters should fear Labor's proposed
 changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax. But for those of

vignettes/CHUNKTIMINGS.txt

@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
   0.0	prop_not_NG
   0.2	NegativeGearing_by_Occupation
+  0.0	nurse_codes
   0.0	prop_nurses_not_NG
+  0.0	teacher_codes
   0.0	prop_teachers_not_NG
   0.0	prop_surgeons_NG
   0.0	prop_anaesthetists_not_NG
@@ -9,3 +11,6 @@
   0.0	prop_CG_top_decile
   0.3	prop_benefits_NG_top_decile
   0.5	prop_benefits_NG_top_decile_adj
+  0.3	benefit_due_NG_by_Occupation
+  0.0	avgBenefit_by_occupation
+  0.0	ratio_NG_benefit_surgeons_to_teachers