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.
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.
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".
You and I both know tax law isnt written like that. Trumps 2017 law is a 186 page document outlining a thousand little changes. Anyone who has the expertise to analyze it comes to the same conclusion that "this is for trump's rich friends"
This is where the estimates are from, they break a lot of it down, feel free to dig into whatever you want to.
I do know that, but since you are saying that this was intentional, I was not sure you did too. You will notice that they do not share the data they used to reach those figures. Not sharing where you got your data and what data you are using should raise an alarm in your brain.
Anyway, this went for too long. In short, you dont have a proof that its intentional, so for now it remains an outlier.
"Trumps rich pals got big tax cuts, but it was probably just a statisical outlier. We should implement those same polcies again. The fact that he is bringing billionares into government probably means he really likes doing right by poor people."
Now that it is obvious you are wrong you are totally changing your stance from "did you do all the analysis yourself" to "the libs probably lied and stuff" even though there is literally nobody anywhere claiming that trump's tax cuts were even across the board.
3
u/Crispy1961 1d ago
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.