Comments on: Historical Tax Rates by Income Group [NYTimes]

By: Robert Jacobs

Robert Jacobs — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:03:26 +0000

Was searching for taxes paid by income and this link came up.

The NYT is a source of misinformation. Of course tax RATES have come down, Kennedy and
Reagan both did that, as did Bush II. The issue is NEVER just the rates, but how much money is raised at the various rates. Just because a taxpayer is at rate X does not mean he will pay rate X. Deductions make big differences.

The only true concern over tax policy is “WHAT RATES MAXIMIZE REVENUE?”. The NYT knows that as the top rate declined, MORE income tax revenue was received from the “rich”. But, of course, it does not want to discuss this. The reader has to go to other places like the following links:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
http://www.thepolicyreport.net/2009/01/05/californias-lopsided-income-tax-system/

to find out what the effect of tax rates is upon tax revenue. Apparently, some of the comments here figured that out.

The NYT is worse than bigoted, it is a source of MISinformation.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:25:14 +0000

Thanks for this Catherine..

@AM, yes it would be helpful to consider effective tax rates paid after adjustments and credits.

What exactly is the y-axis measuring? A summation of all taxes paid -or- a weighted summation of applicable rates -or- what?

Less on economic charts and graphs, more about financial literacy of the masses, please promote this visual explanation of income taxes (http://www.seeingfinance.com/?p=88) and get in touch if you would like to contribute.

By: AM

AM — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:18:02 +0000

What this doesn’t show and which renders this chart useless is that effective (the real rates paid) tax rates for all US households have declined 50% for the lowest quintile wage earners from 1979-2005 while only 7% for the highest quintile from 27.5% to 25.5%. The impact of standard deduction and personal exemption have a significant effect on the real income taxed at lower wage levels which must be considered when understanding who pays and how much.

By: The Republican created Myth about Raising Taxes during a recession - Page 14 - Political Forum

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:29:08 +0000

[...] earners, risen for relatively high earners and fallen significantly for very high earners." http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/…-income-group/ While the bubble was growing and the people at the top were raking it in, the standard of living [...]

By: The Republican created Myth about Raising Taxes during a recession - Page 13 - Political Forum

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 04:41:38 +0000

By: The Phony “War On Wealth” « blog.lob.ws

The Phony “War On Wealth” « blog.lob.ws — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:25:27 +0000

[...] http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/ [...]

By: Gramatan

Gramatan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:07:12 +0000

The question that I beleive is where the recent trend of responsability for tax burden is moving. Is the proportional burden proportionate to the proportional income and weather should it be based upon various groups productivity. It is disengenuous to posit about the trend from 1900’s original tax structure was created because it was as we all know only to effect the super rich. However, it highlightes the tax creep that all groups are chafing about.

By: Minor Heresies » Blog Archive » Livable Wage vs. Standard Deduction

Minor Heresies » Blog Archive » Livable Wage vs. Standard Deduction — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:55:25 +0000

[...] Make up the difference by rolling the tax rates on wealthy individuals and corporations back up to the levels of the 1950’s and 60’s. Corporations used to pay a quarter of federal income taxes. Now they pay about 8%, and some of the [...]

By: jsowers

jsowers — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:57:29 +0000

the newyork times is the aberation

By: P Henry

P Henry — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:20:40 +0000

vs GDP AND starting in 1900.
Now that would tell us something.
Me thinks starting in the 1960s gives the impression that the more modern tax rates are a aberration, whereas I think the 1960 tax rate was the aberration.