On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:08:06 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

Some data on US tax rates, with graphs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...urden-for-rich
snip
It's clear, then, that across the board, today's tax rates
are low by historical standards--and for the rich they're
very low. If the bottom of the chart showed more red and
less blue, our deficit problem would be a lot more
manageable.

The chart also has implications for another topic we've
written about here before--wealth and income inequality. As
you can see, no one's taxes today are particularly high by
historical standards, but those making $1 million or more
per year--that is, roughly the top 1 percent--enjoy the
lowest burden, relative to past rates.
snip

Interesting chart. It brings up some questions:

I know that Barry's gov't growth is all in the useless sector, but was
gov't grown under Shrub's in only the military sector or did he grow
the useless sector, too?

How are the "burdens" derived? Can I see the inputs? I know that the
vast majority of loopholes are gone these days, but what's being
written off and why?

Does "burden" = "effective percentage of income as tax"?

Why are burdens for the $1M+ folks always lower than those for us, the
unwashed masses, no matter the historical percentage?

And, last, just how liberal are the chartmakers and how does this
affect the data choice? Their use of "Bush tax cuts for the rich"
shows that it does, but how much? As the saying goes, you can use
statistics to show whatever figure you're after.


--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs