Active Users:291 Time:29/03/2024 07:03:13 AM
Well they are compelling in some ways, but they got you again Isaac Send a noteboard - 25/02/2012 05:21:34 PM
Figure in the table was actually "Adjusted" Gross Income... that's actually entirely reasonable to use but might get you some queer results if you looked at, say, poor students, considering tuition and student loans do play a role in AGI vs GI.

Also, with the 'bottom 50%' <$32,396 was that the bottom 50% of people, adults, income tax payers, households, or what? I mean, if by individual does it include the 16 year old kid who earned $5000 at their summer and weekend job? That's not a small percentage of the population. Nor are people who are mostly home-makers, students, retirees, etc living with someone else who is the principle bread-winner but do some small business or part time job. If it's household income we're talking about, things get really shaky because all else being equal a family of 5 making 50k should be better off than a family of 4 making 40k. There are, also, a lot of households consisting of one person. Jane and Jon were two households at 25, making say 20k a year and doing well, they get married, become one household at 40k, weirding the data, which further gets confused when he gets promoted to 35k and she stay at home tending their two kids and saving them money by cooking from scratch and growing vegetables in the garden and babysitting her sisters kids for free too, who then repays the favor when she gets stir crazy and takes on a part time job paying 5k just to get a few hours out of the house... how's that data looking? We didn't even add in the effect of their child deductions. Or when they get a divorce and Jon deducts his alimony form his gross for his AGI while Jane goes and lives with her sister and brother in law which might not even register as a single household. And it really gets confused if some live in the city where stuff costs more, but some other stuff is free, versus rural, especially because those demographics don't average out. You do have more single people living in the cities by percentage then outside them, Jane and Jon might have lived in the city before they got married and found a nice suburban or rural place, not even factoring in lots of others things, some of which are too politically incorrect for anyone to want to mention in a study, about various demographic differences between urban and rural. Another one in there, what about people who have brand-name obsession or suck at math or chemistry compared to otherwise identical people who don't? Ten bucks says that significantly effects relative standard of living and that generally the latter also earn more too.

I remember doing a grocery run with a good friend before a BBQ we were doing where he was compares 2-liters to cans and asked me which was cheaper because he didn't have a calculator and my friends all use me as one, I tapped that little usually upper-left-corner panel where it listed price per ounce for each and he just stared at me as he realized he'd seen that a million times before and never knew the implications of it, smart guy too. You can't even try to factor crap like that into the analysis and it definitely does not average out by income level, even if one ignored that sort of knowledge is pretty heavily correlated to age too and income is very tied to age. If we're fundamentally talking about trying to raise standard of living, the actual goal, as opposed to income, the very loose metric we try to measure that through, that kind of stuff plays a huge role and you simply can't ignore it if you want actual results as opposed to good talking points.

So the data tends to be a mess and the factors don't generally 'average out', people hand-wave that in to save time or thought or the ruination of their pet theory in much the same way a young lady might say "Yeah he picked me up and bought me dinner and a movie, but I have to spend a lot on clothes and makeup" This is true, but the odds are, whichever way that balance sheet works out, it won't have been zero. It's a hand wave, which is fine in personal affairs but is a damned bad way to make national tax policy :P
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein

King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Reply to message
Why Joel is CRAZY - Nearly Half of All Americans Don't Pay Federal Income Taxes - 23/02/2012 04:43:15 AM 1407 Views
A not so hypothetical situation... - 23/02/2012 05:46:44 AM 832 Views
Your paying more money now than then. Lower rate but more money *NM* - 23/02/2012 07:52:51 AM 508 Views
Accurate statement, but not a justification *NM* - 23/02/2012 03:44:55 PM 397 Views
Re: A not so hypothetical situation... - 23/02/2012 02:39:43 PM 938 Views
I don't know much about that. - 23/02/2012 03:53:27 PM 774 Views
Why the heck do you think the current tax system is skewed to the rich? - 23/02/2012 03:18:43 PM 972 Views
That's a fair question - 23/02/2012 03:52:08 PM 861 Views
Once again, poor people have no money with which to pay taxes. - 23/02/2012 06:23:07 AM 990 Views
50% of America is not "poor" or too poor to pay federal income taxes..... - 23/02/2012 01:01:24 PM 887 Views
It clearly is, if they're not paying taxes. - 23/02/2012 02:32:54 PM 849 Views
Regarding the mortgage deduction..... - 23/02/2012 03:20:37 PM 972 Views
You base that statement on what, exactly? Fervent desire that it be true? - 25/02/2012 12:43:30 AM 1359 Views
2009 (the year cited for this claim) was an outlier because of temporary tax cuts and the economy. - 25/02/2012 01:14:01 AM 1131 Views
Interesting, but lacking the data I consider critical; FICA etc. should not be counted, IMHO. - 25/02/2012 02:10:45 AM 989 Views
It's a phrasing thing, permits more bullshit - 25/02/2012 04:41:06 AM 969 Views
Maybe I am just playing the same game,but I find stats from "the other side" compelling in some ways - 25/02/2012 10:36:40 AM 1407 Views
Well they are compelling in some ways, but they got you again - 25/02/2012 05:21:34 PM 866 Views
They both used AGI, so there has to be something else missing. - 27/02/2012 10:07:58 AM 829 Views
You're operating under the same fallacy he does - that people should pay income taxes. - 23/02/2012 12:05:52 PM 1030 Views
In much the same way - 23/02/2012 01:40:58 PM 983 Views
Same argument re: fallacies - 24/02/2012 02:52:17 PM 813 Views
Was meant as a joke reply - 02/03/2012 06:30:15 PM 1000 Views
Joel is crazy, but I highly doubt that this is "why" - 23/02/2012 01:36:37 PM 1021 Views
HA! HA! Very well played! *NM* - 23/02/2012 03:49:35 PM 355 Views
You mention this statistic all the time. - 23/02/2012 02:16:47 PM 708 Views
Obviously, we are talking about the bottom 50%..... - 23/02/2012 03:22:43 PM 742 Views
How do you account for retired folks? - 23/02/2012 04:18:59 PM 957 Views
social security isn't taxable either *NM* - 24/02/2012 04:21:21 AM 412 Views
Easy... he doesn't. - 25/02/2012 02:56:05 AM 692 Views
I wonder how much of that statistic is students - 23/02/2012 02:22:58 PM 967 Views
Federal taxes - 23/02/2012 04:18:22 PM 831 Views
Your figures are fairly unrealistic - 23/02/2012 04:54:44 PM 1030 Views
Not entirely. - 23/02/2012 06:30:18 PM 779 Views
On exempting SS income: - 25/02/2012 02:30:43 AM 782 Views
Is there any reason why one should exclude the other? - 23/02/2012 07:32:09 PM 830 Views

Reply to Message