Is sexual Violence increasing in Australia - Doesn't look like it

Started reading Steven Pinker's book "The Better Angels of Our Nature", which is a bit of a monster. Claims that violence of all kinds has actually been decreasing. This includes all violence including sexual assault and rape.


Now, this is an interesting premise, as from how the feminists speak, you would think that there is an epidemic of sexual violence currently underway in the western world. And even some crime statistics seem to indicate sexual crimes are actually increasing.


So I figured, I would go to the stats and see what is happening in Australia.


So the earliest ABS record I can find about experiences of sexual violence would be "Women's safety survey 1996". The other relevant release is the "Personal safety survey, 2016" which has replaced it. So they are our two bookends to determine if sexual violence has increased.


First, in 1996, from the women's safety survey, the amount of women who have experienced sexual violence in the last 12 months = 133,100.


Population of females in 1996, according to the census = 50.5% of total population (17892423) = 9035674.


Therefore, incidence of sexual violence (includes threats) per 10,000 females = 133,100/9035674 * 10,000 =  147.3


In comparison, if we go to 2016,  the amount of women who have experienced sexual violence in the last 12 months = 171600
Population of females in 2016, according to the census = 50.7% of total population (23401892) = 11864759.
Therefore, incidence of sexual violence (includes threats) per 10,000 females = 171,600/11864759 * 10,000 =  144.63




So it does appear in 20 years, there has been a slight decrease (1.8%) in the women experiencing sexual violence in Australia. Surely a positive thing and does fit into Steven Pinker's broad theory.


Would be interesting to see what the improvement had been like if we could go back to the 1970's.

Affect of Labor's Negative Gearing change = A loss of approx $3,000 a year per investor

Been doing some modelling on the negative gearing changes proposed by Labor. This has caused some controversy in property investment circles due to the impact. It's funny though. On this very blog, I proposed the same policy, way back in March 2015. wonder if Chris Bowan (shadow Treasurer) is trolling my site.

http://economicrigor.blogspot.com/2015/03/new-policy-option-for-government.html


Anyway, lots of talk about the impact...doom and gloom etc, so I figured I would do some analysis to see what the effect was.

Anyway, lets start with some assumptions.

1. House price of $1,000,000
2. Interest only loan of $800,000 at 4%
3. Rents of $600 a week
4. Occupancy of 80%
4. Rental Expences of $5000 a year
5. Other Income of Investor = $80,000
6. Effective Tax rate of investor = 27%
7. No capital appreciation for property

OK.

So @600 a week@80% occupancy for 52 weeks, it means that Income from housing = $24960
 
Interest paid = 0.04*800,000 = $32,000 a year

As Interest is deducable, along with the $5,000 expense, means we have a total loss of $12,040 that i can take away from my $80K income

So without negative gearing, I would be paying $80,000*0.27 = $21,600. With negative gearing, I would be paying $80,000-12,040 = $67960*0.27 = $18,349

That is a saving of $3250 a year.

At a rate of return of 3%, that represents $108333, or 10% of the Purchase price. So either 10% would need to come off the Sale price, 10% added to the rents, or 5% for both.

Not the end of days, but there is an impact.