Great chart (0.00 / 0)

I'm moving this around. It's crazy to me.

---

by: lhuynh @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 17:17:26 PM UTC

The chart is not clear (4.00 / 1)

I mean, it is clear, but it's not an instant visual for someone who doesn't want to study it and figure it out (i.e., some low info voters).

Also, having the change in taxes column be BETTER for you if the number is negative and WORSE if the number is positive is counter-intuitive for non-Chris-Bowers types.

I think it would be more effective as a horizontal graphic, and instead of blue and red lines, have stacks of dollars that extend above and below the axis.  If you save money on your taxes, the dollars should pile up above the axis, and if you pay more they should extend below.

Also, instead of positive and negative numbers, it should be "tax savings" on top and what on the bottom -- "tax increases?"

It would also be good if there were some proportional sizing of the categories (on the horizontal axis) based on the percentages of taxpayers it represented.

Of course, I'm just an armchair quarterback here, and have no intention of creating this graphic because I don't know how to post graphics and I'm too lazy/busy with a 14-month-old to find out.

FWIW, which is probably not a lot ....  :)  

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

---

by: Ms Bluezone @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 17:25:24 PM UTC

Sizing it by the number of taxpayers represented (4.00 / 1)

would make it really hard to read, especially since the bottom bracket contains roughly 200 times as many voters as the top bracket.  But, the effect on the top two brackets is the key to understanding the difference between their two plans.

---

by: Valatan @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 17:29:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True. (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, true.  but wouldn't it be a GREAT graphic though, if it needed a basketball-court-sized graph to do it justice?

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

---

by: Ms Bluezone @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 22:42:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed. Fivethirtyeight.com (0.00 / 0)

seems to be the only place that consistently excels at political graphics. I'd love to hear about the story there (does he really do them himself? If so, he's quite the multi-faceted mega-talent.)

---

by: sb @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 17:36:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also (4.00 / 2)

They should list the median cut, not the average cut.  This makes it look like they typical taxpayer gets a .3% cut from obama and a 2% cut from McCain.  When, in fact, the typical taxpayer is probably more likely getting something like a 3.6% cut from obama and a 0.5% cut from McCain.

---

by: Valatan @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 17:27:39 PM UTC

Good point (0.00 / 0)

The one thing the average does show is that McCain is decreasing revenues (at a time of massive deficits) while Obama's plan is virtually revenue neutral....

---

by: Jim in Chicago @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 19:00:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where do they get these numbers? (0.00 / 0)

I've searched far and wide for Obama's tax plan and so far I've seen nothing with any actual tax tables or numbers.  Just lots of great-sounding promises of tax cuts and credits for large groups of potential voters and vague suggestions of how this will be tax neutral.

I don't see HOW this is an accurate accounting if he plans to let the Bush tax breaks expire and BreitBart http://www.breitbart.com/artic... has Obama making anyone who earns over $250k start paying Social Security payroll taxes again.

I'm all for comparing the tax plans side by side, but these numbers don't look accurate.  They look almost sleazily or intentionally inaccurate unless someone can show me how they are arrived at...

---

by: tsteele93 @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 18:30:28 PM UTC

I totally support Obama's numbers. n.t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: dkmich @ Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 21:48:17 PM UTC