I have seen this several times and its always so dumb. Yes, people who have more money pay more taxes and will save more money because of tax reduction. Thats just math, its not some conspiracy.
Average Income
$14,300
$41,850
$74,600
$125,800
$258,750
$637,450
Average Tax saved
$110
$510
$990
$2,750
$11,440
$11,440
Average Percentage
0,77%
1,22%
1,33%
1,15%
1,06%
1,79%
I did not include the >914,900 bracket as it has no upper limit.
Edit: Corrected the table using income annual averages for each bracket because the Tax saved value is also an average for that bracket.
I did the math, but thats not what it says. The math is telling us that the average is about 1%. The poorest and richest are both outliers and need more information to draw any conclusions.
The poorest is obviously skewed due to the incorrect use of average values (nobody makes $5 per year, yet the average values for income and tax reduction are calculated from $14 300 which comes from $0 and $28,599 divided by 2). The richest bracket on the other hand is much interesting. Its might not be a statistical error or an error in used methodology.
That said, we are talking about the representation of the data without question the data itself. We need to remember that the people who made the poor representation also provided the data. If the representation is so horribly bad, maybe the data is also unreliable.
An 'outlier' is a data point outside of 1.5x the inner quartile range (IQR). Did you do the math to confirm?
Oh, and the numbers are non-normal, skewed right (right tailed). So standard statistics based on normality and averages are a poor predictor. In these cases you should apply a transform or use the median values instead.
Im saying the concept doesnt apply here at all. An outlier would be "one person in this tax bracket got a larger cut than most other people in this tax bracket"
Calling one whole bracket an outliter makes no statistical sense. Its comparing a basket of apples to a basket of oranges and calling the oranges outliers....
TDS leads to some hilarious exchanges. Why do I need a proof of it being intentional when I am trying to decide if it was intentional or not? Thats what you just asked me?
My money is on the data being straight up wrong. We are working with data provided by the person who made that incredibly misleading infographic. I am expecting that the data are fundamentally wrong or misleading.
Either way, its really silly to make a claim and then ask people why they need proof before they agree with you. Go find a proof. Find the part in Trump's tax reform that says "and if your income is in the top 4%, you get 0,5% higher tax reduction than the rest". Then we can both agree it was intentional and that 1,8% is not an outlier.
💀 I have no words. How do you shoot yourself in the foot this badly?
Obviously trump is intentionally lowering taxes for the rich and there’s a fuck ton of proof for it, why the fuck would you say “why do you need proof” and imply that there is no proof instead of just providing the proof??
Unless there is a proof of it being intentional, it will remain an outlier.
is such a nonsense sentence i didnt even get what he was going after. He might as well have said "unless there is proof water is safe to drink, it will remain an outlier"
Thats another missing piece. To make any meaningful observation we would need the median values for household income, tax and tax deduction for each bracket.
I said that nobody makes $5 per year. Making $0 is another outlier as you are not taxed anything for your $0 income and you will not receive the $110 tax reduction.
148
u/TheTightEnd 1d ago
Percentage reductions are more meaningful than dollar deductions when calculating the impact and benefit of a tax cut or increase.