[_edo]

That has to be the worst x-axis on a graph I've seen in a long time. The grid lines measure 0-10th, 20-30th, 40-50th, 60-70th, 80-90th, 95-99th, 99.99th, Top 400? That's atrocious, not only is it non-linear, not only does it have a line with regularly spaced dots giving the impression of continuity, but it skips from percent groups to absolute numbers?

If we're talking about historical taxes why are we looking at tax rates and not taxes paid? Taxes paid by percentage income would be a huge improvement, and absolute taxes seems like an essential number for this conversation.

I'm stunned when I see things like this associated with major universities and newspapers.

edit: The y-axis also goes from 10-70% instead of 0-100%. So both axes are suspicious and the numbers being presented are known for their inaccuracy.

[rczhang]

This is missing what the graph is trying to convey.

Playing with the y-axis in this case, doesn't change the shape of the data. It only makes the graph more readable. For example, would you start the y-axis on a graph of global temperature at –273.15°C (absolute zero)?

Second, why should the graph use evenly sized groups? The whole point is to show an outlier in tax data among a small group of people. Using evenly sized groups obscures this point. If a graph of global temperature only displayed in increments of 1000 years, it would likewise obscure the recent impact of human industry on temperature.

Finally, as the article notes, the graph is of actual taxes paid not historical taxes.

If there is any legitimate criticism, it's that the graph probably should have been a bar graph instead so the "top 400" (likely for ergonomics) is less jarring. Also, just saying that the numbers are known for inaccuracy? This is a lazy statement that needs to be backed up.

[_edo]

> For example, would you start the y-axis on a graph of global temperature at –273.15°C (absolute zero)

> This is a lazy statement

Yes it is.

> This is missing what the graph is trying to convey.....It only makes the graph more readable.

The problem is that so many decisions are made trying to tell the right story that eventually the underlying data barely matters at all. If top 400 doesn't work maybe top 100 will, or top 10, or top 1000. If going back to 1950 doesn't work then maybe 1960 or 1940.

If you don't care about things like best practices you can simply choose the shape of the graph you want and go from there. Maybe this time they did it with effective tax rates. It doesn't matter.

[c1505]

The graph does a good job at giving a visual for the data and the point of how much the tax rate has gone down for the super wealthy. Showing a percentage for that very top value would be less informative than saying the top 400.

[jm_l]

I don't understand your complaint, isn't average tax rate a percentage of income?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rate

[thisisbrians]

I think OP's point is that due to the complexity of tax laws, especially for the wealthy who have more non-wage income, the tax rate doesn't capture as useful a picture as actual dollars of taxes paid.

[_edo]

There's your tax bracket and then there's what you actually pay after deductions, loopholes, etc.

The common argument is that the 70% rate of the 1950's was never actually paid by anybody and the effective tax rate was much lower. By looking at actual taxes paid that entire argument can be skipped.

Anybody who studies historical taxes professionally should know this, so when they use a worse measure it looks like they're doing so because it fits their narrative.