Originally Posted by mydo
The graph is what it is. The title is correct and the axes are labeled correctly. I might quibble that the y-axis is reused for two different statistics but at least they have the same range, 0-100%. It's only misleading for people that don't know what a marginal tax rate is or a tax revenue normalized to GDP. So it requires something more than typical high school education to understand. But it was published in the WSJ.
Of course. We know that from all the other worthless social science experiments that the economist have done. I'm no flat earth man.
Anyway? Want more money for the government to pay for stuff? Grow the GDP!
Yeah, like right now, with $4/gallon gas, rising food and transportation costs, and increased layoffs, U.S. auto industry cutting back due to high fuel prices, the housing market crisis, lower valuation of the U.S. dollar versus other currencies, etceteras.
And why not plot the actual aggregate tax rate for all
actual taxpayers, since GDP is the aggregate sum of all goods and services (e. g. everyone contributes to GDP).
Or why not plot the lowest tax bracket? Which varied from 22.2% (1952-53) to 10% (2007).
Or why not plot each on separate Y-Axes, such that the range of each covers the same vertical ground.
But in the end who cares if one variable (highest theoretical tax bracket) has no relationship to another variable (GDP), or if any tax bracket bares no relationship to GDP, for that matter. The only thing that does matter is total revenues taken from an aggregate of several incremental tax brackets.
So since no single tax bracket mirrors GDP, I say soak the rich for all they have, rob Peter to pay Paul, better them then me.