
Chart shows low tax burden for rich - evo_9
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110316/ts_yblog_thelookout/chart-shows-low-tax-burden-for-rich
======
orijing
Terrible chart. There is no scale or legend to map color to "tax burden." Tax
burden is not specifically defined anywhere (Overall tax rates? Absolute taxes
paid? Taxes paid as fraction of total wealth?), so the chart is basically
meaningless besides as a sensationalist tool to advance the author's political
stance.

Another problem is that naturally one would perceive time as the independent
axis (usually horizontal/X) while the various tax burdens are a function of
that time.

I don't mean to diminish the author's point or disagree with his belief, but
this chart does little service for the author.

------
anigbrowl
It seems to show a rather low tax burden for everyone by historical standards.
I wonder if part of the issue is that income taxes have fallen but various
state and local taxes, and fees for government services, have gone up instead.
I think people might be willing to tolerate a somewhat higher 'headline' rate
if taxation were simpler and didn't involve so many different transactions and
associated administration.

an oldie but goodie - the growth (in pages) of the US tax code:
[http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2005/12/measuring-...](http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2005/12/measuring-
growth-of-us-tax-code.html)

~~~
stellar678
What I see is a slightly high burden by historical standards for most everyone
from part-time-minimum-wagers (~$10k/year) to mid-level professionals
(~$100k/year) and a slightly-to-significantly low burden for everyone else.

~~~
anigbrowl
Apart from the 1980s and the pre-war era (the intensely blue bits), that
$10k$100k area still seems sort of light-colored compared to the rest of the
graph. Of course now we're arguing about exactly what shade of pink translates
to 'slightly' :)

------
TomOfTTB
I'd contrast that with this
chart:[http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?chart=10...](http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?chart=10-total_30-total_40-total_50-total_60-total&year=1902_2015&units=p)

If you look at Federal Tax Revenue from income taxes you see the pct of GDP
stayed remarkably consistent even in times where taxes were much higher. To me
that says people will find ways to hide their revenue when taxes are high
enough to tip the risk/reward equation in that direction.

------
shawnee_
One of the more interesting tidbits I've stumbled across:

[http://books.google.com/books?id=vw7ZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA21...](http://books.google.com/books?id=vw7ZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA21&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U1tmkvZIRyYubg4d-zgkblfFvXf8g&ci=123%2C285%2C793%2C726&edge=0)

Source: _United States Income Tax Law Simplified for Businessmen_ | Ferdinand
Adolphus Wyman | 1895

In other words, the Income Tax -- as it was originally intended -- was for the
wealthy only. The book was published in 1895, and the income threshold in the
1890's was $4000.

$4000 in 1895 dollars would be a rather large amount of money today. So what
happened?

------
hammock
I don't really understand how to read this chart, even after reading the
explanation. Can someone explain how it works? How is "burden" (color)
calculated?

