interesting point the author makes. Statistics, tables and graphs are all well and good but only if one knows how to interpret them and does so carefully. In this case changing the scale on the bottom of the graph changes the shape quite a lot and can give varying impressions on first glance. As far as the taxes go I agree that it seems like a good idea to lower the thresh-hold even further. I don't know about you guys but I will still be motivated to try and earn over a quarter million dollars even if I move into a higher tax bracket.
"The Journal makes that pot of income appear small by diving it up into seven different lines. See, the $100,000-$200,000 line is tall, and all the other lines to the right of it are short. That tall line must be where the money is!
But if you add up all the lines of income over $200,000, you get around $2 trillion. (I may be off, because I'm eyeballing it, but I'm not off by much.) That obviously far exceeds the nearly $1.4 trillion accruing to the $100-200,000 set."
Should our income tax system become more progressive, specifically for those that make over $380,000 (currently taxed at 35%) a year? Should higher tax brackets be created, for earners who make $500,000+ , $1,000,000+ , $2,000,000 , etc...? Thoughts?
interesting point the author makes. Statistics, tables and graphs are all well and good but only if one knows how to interpret them and does so carefully. In this case changing the scale on the bottom of the graph changes the shape quite a lot and can give varying impressions on first glance.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the taxes go I agree that it seems like a good idea to lower the thresh-hold even further. I don't know about you guys but I will still be motivated to try and earn over a quarter million dollars even if I move into a higher tax bracket.
Great article!!
ReplyDelete"The Journal makes that pot of income appear small by diving it up into seven different lines. See, the $100,000-$200,000 line is tall, and all the other lines to the right of it are short. That tall line must be where the money is!
But if you add up all the lines of income over $200,000, you get around $2 trillion. (I may be off, because I'm eyeballing it, but I'm not off by much.) That obviously far exceeds the nearly $1.4 trillion accruing to the $100-200,000 set."
Should our income tax system become more progressive, specifically for those that make over $380,000 (currently taxed at 35%) a year? Should higher tax brackets be created, for earners who make $500,000+ , $1,000,000+ , $2,000,000 , etc...? Thoughts?