PDA

View Full Version : Taxes



Buzz
03-18-2011, 05:27 PM
I thought this was an interesting graphic. A little strange looking, but reading the description makes it pretty easy to understand. I don't know what "average" is.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/03/17/tax_burden_custom.jpg?t=1300387358&s=3



That's a line for every year from 1913 onward, sized and colored by the tax burden: the amount of tax due relative to the long-term average at each income level. Above-average burdens appear thick and red and below-average thin and blue.

So, for example, if you want to look at the present day, look at the line along the very bottom of the graphic.

You see that the tax burden for people with very low incomes is lower than it's been over the past century. The burden for people with middle incomes is slightly higher. And the burden for people with high incomes is significantly lower.

As you move up the graph, you go back in time. You see that taxes for everyone were significantly higher than average in the '40s, '50s and '60s. Go back further in time, and you see that taxes were lower for almost everyone before World War II.

Franco
03-18-2011, 06:48 PM
He ain't pretty but, he sure says the right things!

RP on taxes...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/index.html#/v/4545124/ron-paul-on-benefits-of-flat-tax/?playlist_id=87530

Buzz
03-18-2011, 08:30 PM
Jebus, I started watching that clip and my wife started talking to me. So I put it on pause and it crashed my iPod HARD. I thought it was a goner!

Franco
03-18-2011, 10:09 PM
With RP running the show, you could afford an Ipad2;-)

He is the only one with the guts to make the cuts needed.

Just when the Reps in Congress have a real opportuntiy to shrink the size of government by going after entire departments like Education and Energy, the Ethanol prok, instead the Reps are going after PBS!!!

dnf777
03-19-2011, 07:24 AM
Cool graph.
Very few of us probably remember, but we were NOT a world superpower prior to WWII, either. Don't know where we stood in terms of GDP rankings.
WWII harkened a quantum change in our character, and we're going through another one now with demographics and economics.

caryalsobrook
03-24-2011, 12:01 AM
I thought this was an interesting graphic. A little strange looking, but reading the description makes it pretty easy to understand. I don't know what "average" is.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/03/17/tax_burden_custom.jpg?t=1300387358&s=3



That's a line for every year from 1913 onward, sized and colored by the tax burden: the amount of tax due relative to the long-term average at each income level. Above-average burdens appear thick and red and below-average thin and blue.

So, for example, if you want to look at the present day, look at the line along the very bottom of the graphic.

You see that the tax burden for people with very low incomes is lower than it's been over the past century. The burden for people with middle incomes is slightly higher. And the burden for people with high incomes is significantly lower.

As you move up the graph, you go back in time. You see that taxes for everyone were significantly higher than average in the '40s, '50s and '60s. Go back further in time, and you see that taxes were lower for almost everyone before World War II.

I see that you didn't include the description of the graph much less define the meaning of the term "TAX BURDEN". The "burden" of buying tongue and nose rings, tattoos, ipods(not even sure of exactly what these are since I don't have one), or drugs. I'm sure that to "burden" of the rich buying yachts has also increased.

If you look at the hard numbers, you will see that the top 1% pay a tax burden equal to that of the bottom 90%(I certainly have never been in that group), and the top 4% pay a burden equal to that of the remaining 96%. Looking at the bottom 50%. the pay less that 3% of the total tax burden. These are the haard numbers.
You appear to contend that the rich should pay more of the tax burden than tell me how much more of the tax burden they should pay.

The graph does have pretty colors ndis quite effective as modern art. My choice would be to rotate it 90 degrees and have the blue on the bottom. I might even frame it as a work of art.

caryalsobrook
03-24-2011, 12:03 AM
I see that you didn't include the description of the graph much less define the meaning of the term "TAX BURDEN". The "burden" of buying tongue and nose rings, tattoos, ipods(not even sure of exactly what these are since I don't have one), or drugs. I'm sure that to "burden" of the rich buying yachts has also increased.

If you look at the hard numbers, you will see that the top 1% pay a tax burden equal to that of the bottom 90%(I certainly have never been in that group), and the top 4% pay a burden equal to that of the remaining 96%. Looking at the bottom 50%. the pay less that 3% of the total tax burden. These are the haard numbers.
You appear to contend that the rich should pay more of the tax burden than tell me how much more of the tax burden they should pay.

The graph does have pretty colors ndis quite effective as modern art. My choice would be to rotate it 90 degrees and have the blue on the bottom. I might even frame it as a work of art.

Sry rotate it 180 degrees:)

Buzz
03-24-2011, 09:40 AM
I posted everything I had about the graph when I posted the first time. But since you didn't think it was enough I went out and found the text that went with the original posting to the internets. It is at: http://www.datapointed.net/2011/03/relative-us-income-taxes-1913-2011/



That’s a line for every year from 1913 onward, sized and colored by the tax burden: the amount of tax due relative to the long-term average at each income level. Above-average burdens appear thick and red and below-average thin and blue. We adjusted everything for inflation to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison, with the caveat that the effects of Social Security, Medicare, and other taxes are not included. The underlying data comes from The Tax Foundation, IRS, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is the same information we used in last year’s bracket graph, updated for 2011.

ur graph shows a series of tax regimes. Overall, taxes stayed low until 1940, spiked during World War II, remained high through the Korean conflict, and eased slightly in the mid ’60s. From there, they held steady, until President Carter emancipated poverty-level wagemakers with his tax-free under-$8000 bracket, creating the blue wedge in our graph. Three years later, Reagan entered office and began turning the tables, finishing in 1988 with his retrograde 28% upper rate. The rich were now on tax vacation, at the expense of the poor and middle class.

A modified Reagan-era tax system lingers to this day. To his credit, Dubya did reduce taxes on very low earners, so they’re no longer getting hammered. But, the people at our economy’s core – the full-time workers earning between $20,000 and $150,000 a year – still pay at up to double the rate of the ultra-wealthy, relative to what history suggests they should.

About this, I’ve got mixed feelings. More than a few of my friends have hit the dot-com-Web-2.0 jackpot, and every spring, they enjoy a fresh tax windfall. And why not? They worked hard, created value, got paid, and dadgummit, isn’t that what capitalism is all about?

On the other hand, so that the American Dream doesn’t degenerate further into a have-or-have-not nightmare, perhaps some social pragmatism is in order. Via a small dose of fiscal self-sacrifice, the fat cats can maintain their grip on the reins. Or, they can stay the course – and keep on partying like it’s 1999 – until an angry mob bursts through the front door, drags them down to the town square, and lops their wealth off.

More about the Datapoint website. I'm sure you're probably in the group of 1 in 5 dentists... ;-)


Hello there, and welcome to Data Pointed, which four out of five dentists agree is the best damn data and visualization site on the Internets!

First, a few bits about me. My full name is Stephen Von Worley, but I respond best to von or Steve. My parents raised me right, and in standardized tests of moral fiber, I consistently rank in the top one-percent. To me, nothing quite tops the drama of a high desert thunderstorm – except, perhaps, a raging blizzard. With an assist from my wonderful wife, I’ve propagated my Y-chromosome. Years ago, those Berkeley hippies gave me an advanced degree in Computer Junk, and since then, from time to time, my business card has included the word Chief. A native of the Land Of Fruits And Nuts and currently a denizen of its central coast, I’ve lived in a cornucopia of other places – within figurative spitting distance of the Mariana Trench, Smithsonian Institution, Kennedy Space Center, National Atomic Museum, and Gateway Arch, consecutively.

For the sheer fun of it, I like to fill the swimming pool with data, dive deep, emerge clutching a fresh insight, and then use it to tell a story. Sometimes, an itch must be scratched, like the need to know how far one can get from modern consumer culture, which resulted in our very popular, no-holds-barred investigation “Where The Buffalo Roamed.” That article, and several others in Data Pointed’s bedrock, originally appeared on my experimental blog Weather Sealed.

The Data Pointed recipe? One part magazine, with original, longer-format articles that document our in-house research endeavors, and two parts blog, chronicling interesting developments from elsewhere within the field of data art and visualization. Combine, add a pinch of comedy and half a thesaurus, pressure cook until tender, and bon appétit. To receive updates fresh-and-hot, please do subscribe to the RSS feed, follow on Twitter, or fan on Facebook.

He has one other graph about taxes that I'll post later when I have time. I happen to be in the camp that believes that a picture is worth a 1000 words.

caryalsobrook
03-24-2011, 05:15 PM
I posted everything I had about the graph when I posted the first time. But since you didn't think it was enough I went out and found the text that went with the original posting to the internets. It is at: http://www.datapointed.net/2011/03/relative-us-income-taxes-1913-2011/




More about the Datapoint website. I'm sure you're probably in the group of 1 in 5 dentists... ;-)



He has one other graph about taxes that I'll post later when I have time. I happen to be in the camp that believes that a picture is worth a 1000 words.

First of all, the web site you refer to is NOT Datapoint but DATA POINTED. Big difference, but your only mistake. I strongly suspect that far over 20% of the dentists never heard of Data Pointed. I am certainly in that group that never heard of it.
There is some truth that a picture is worth a 1000 words. Take for examplethose of GWB and Bov Walker pictured to resemble Hitler or of BHO to look like a monkey, better yet the man beheaded by that Iraqie. All worth 1000 words but all insane.

As for the history of the income tax, this country has existed longer with NO INCOME TAX that it has with one.

That was the 2nd time I asked you how much greater percent to the total income tax should the upper income pay and you still don't answer. I suspect that those who see these threads are well aware why you don't answer.
I don't know whether MarvinS is correct but the circunstantial evidence sure is significant.

Buzz
03-24-2011, 09:32 PM
Gosh, I know it would be really radical to consider going back to rates we had the last time we had a budget surplus.

Oh, and the datapoint/datapointed thing. Yea, I guess it must be time to go get a new pair of glasses. I've been putting that off for over a year now.

caryalsobrook
03-25-2011, 10:16 AM
Gosh, I know it would be really radical to consider going back to rates we had the last time we had a budget surplus.

Oh, and the datapoint/datapointed thing. Yea, I guess it must be time to go get a new pair of glasses. I've been putting that off for over a year now.

How about going back to the time we had NO DEBT?? Oh that would be the time we had NO INCOME TAX!!!

At least you didn't blame the Data Pointer thing on GWB, but I wonder how many other misstatements you have made because of your poor glasses.

Maybe you are not continually avoiding the question of how much more of a percentage of income taxes you want the wealthy to pay because you can't read it. I bet not.

I suspect most will ignore your assertions as long as you won't answer the questions. So much for your credibility.

Buzz
03-25-2011, 10:13 PM
How about going back to the time we had NO DEBT?? Oh that would be the time we had NO INCOME TAX!!!

At least you didn't blame the Data Pointer thing on GWB, but I wonder how many other misstatements you have made because of your poor glasses.

Maybe you are not continually avoiding the question of how much more of a percentage of income taxes you want the wealthy to pay because you can't read it. I bet not.

I suspect most will ignore your assertions as long as you won't answer the questions. So much for your credibility.

My glasses are actually pretty nice glasses, so I wouldn't describe them as poor. I would say that they just aren't right for where my eyes are at this particular point in time.

I thought I did answer your question in my last post on this thread when I made a comment about the last time we had a surplus budget. I didn't post this graph or the other one on tax brackets to try and make a statement about the amount of taxes the rich pay. I posted them because I just get so tired of hearing about how oppressive taxes are these days when it's clear as a bell, or at least it should be from looking at those curves, that these days we have a relatively light tax burden compared to any other time over the last 70 years.

caryalsobrook
03-25-2011, 10:24 PM
My glasses are actually pretty nice glasses, so I wouldn't describe them as poor. I would say that they just aren't right for where my eyes are at this particular point in time.

I thought I did answer your question in my last post on this thread when I made a comment about the last time we had a surplus budget. I didn't post this graph or the other one on tax brackets to try and make a statement about the amount of taxes the rich pay. I posted them because I just get so tired of hearing about how oppressive taxes are these days when it's clear as a bell, or at least it should be from looking at those curves, that these days we have a relatively light tax burden compared to any other time over the last 70 years.

You have got to be joking if you think you answered the question.

caryalsobrook
03-25-2011, 10:38 PM
My glasses are actually pretty nice glasses, so I wouldn't describe them as poor. I would say that they just aren't right for where my eyes are at this particular point in time.

I thought I did answer your question in my last post on this thread when I made a comment about the last time we had a surplus budget. I didn't post this graph or the other one on tax brackets to try and make a statement about the amount of taxes the rich pay. I posted them because I just get so tired of hearing about how oppressive taxes are these days when it's clear as a bell, or at least it should be from looking at those curves, that these days we have a relatively light tax burden compared to any other time over the last 70 years.

By the way, one definition or the word "poor" is LACKING IN QUALITY. No wonder you like them. For your own satisfacction you probably keep using them.