The least knowledgeable of “Chicago Boyz” asks: The Detroit News’ graphic of the effect of Bush’s tax cuts (via Instapundit) is interesting. Is their observation: “What a victory for compassionate conservatism. Everybody gets an income tax cut, and when it’s all done the rich end up paying proportionately more” accurate, inaccurate, a good thing, a bad one?
7 thoughts on “Taxes”
Comments are closed.
Excuse me Ginny, but on the subject of economics, I proudly claim the title of least knowledgeable. I’m willing to share though.
wow, what a blow.
Accurate. It’s good to the extent tax cuts created incentives that spurred additional wealth creation. It’s good compared to tax increases. It’s good compared to most of the politically likely alternatives.
The graph itself, however, would make Edward Tufte cringe.
Income groups should be listed horizontally, not vertically. Lowest quintile on the left, uppermost brackets on the right. (As it is, they’re listed with the lowest income groups on top, which is seriously counterintuitive.)
The “difference” bars could then be oriented vertically rather than horizontally, emphasizing (in the “burden paid” graph) that upper-income households are paying more, and lower-income households are paying less.
Jay, you just aren’t cut out to be a journalist.
;)
I think that it works well the way it is because it emphasized the gain of less taxation that the bottom percentile had. Gee, can everyone say thanks Bush for taxing us aggregately less?? A small step yes, but one in the right direction ; )
Actually, when it comes to taxes, it is hard to sneak one past Don Luskin. There is more on his blog.