The median of a set of numbers is the mid-most number or point, such that there are equally many numbers above and below it. The median is more appropriate than the average in this case because averages are easily distorted by big numbers of low frequency. Here's an example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10000. The median of this series is 4. The average is 1431.57. If applied to incomes, the average would be similarly distorted by the extremes. The median tells us the income with half the population earning more and half earning less. That's why the Census Bureau reported medians. And Dave, I taught statistics at university. You're not going to win an argument with me about this.

Individual income makes for a more accurate comparison because households and families often have more than one income earner today; this is a trend that developed over recent years; households and families in 1947 or 1957 often had only one income, so comparing these figures to those of later decades would create a distortion. Actually, my case would be strengthened by using household or family figures, because the increase since the 1940s would be all the greater because of the shift to multiple incomes. But objectivity requires comparable data.

Well, Duh... I'm not arguing the statistics. The MEAN and the MEDIAN are defined numbers.

What is unconvincing is not the use of the Mean or the Median but the alleged correlation with Tax Rates?

Again, I"ll put these three sets of numbers and let's say they represent income in the tens of thousands:

Dave (imported) wrote: Sat May 07, 2011 3:29 am Set 1: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7

Set 2: 1,1,1,4,7,8,9

Set 3: 2,2,1,4,23,25,26

How does the mean or the median vary with nominal tax rates for those income levels? That's the unclear part of the argument you are making.

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri May 06, 2011 8:53 pm Losethem, perhaps you're mistaking these individual figures for household or family income, which is what usually appears in the press. Those figures, of course, are much higher, which is why they're used. I invite you to examine the source data.

Since the figures are in constant 1997 dollars, figures from earlier years such as 1947 have been adjusted upward for inflation by the Census Bureau. The median income in 1947 was not $11,852, rather, it bought what $11,852 did in 1997.

On this point, I'm not making any comments for or against your position, I'm just saying that the numbers you're using are WAY off for 1997 dollars. Even individual incomes would be higher in 1997 than what you quoted as an average or median. Your numbers, no matter how they are viewed, are WAY TOO LOW for 1997, and much too high for 1947.

I don't have to go back and look, I worked with this kind of data for 10 years. I can tell at a glance that something is wrong structurally with the data you're providing.

Again, I'm making no comment about correlation or anything else other than the numbers seem off for the years presented. I don't know if it's the incomes themselves, if the base year should be different, or something else.

I did not say that "

Losethem (imported) wrote: Fri May 06, 2011 3:30 pm l

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri May 06, 2011 8:53 pm ower nominal tax rates = higher median income.

" I said the data show a signifi

cant correlation, making it difficult to cla

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri May 06, 2011 8:53 pm im that high

Losethem (imported) wrote: Fri May 06, 2011 3:30 pm er nominal tax rates = higher median income.

Also, the discussion is only about the top marginal tax rate, not all marginal tax rates. This is relevant to the debate about

the effects of taxing the rich.

Which Table shows the data you cite comparing men's incomes to their father's?

OK, even if you didn't say that, you implied that.

All I said was that I can go further into the data and find something that shows the exact opposite is true. One of the great things about statistics that I learned in 10 years working with data such as this is how easy it is to lie, or twist data to fit your own view. That is true for conservatives or liberals.

As for where I found my data, the Tax Policy Center link you provided is self-explanatory, but in the census data you can find it in the PDF file at page 29 (PDF/Acrobat notation) or Page 19 as noted at the bottom of the slide page. It's in the sidebar at the right.

Since you want to use correlation to show that when tax rates are low, incomes go up, this data using a similar correlation shows that when tax rates are high, income is up, and when they are dropped income goes down. In this case during the Reagan administration the top nominal tax rate was decreased 70% in 1980 to nearly half that (28%) in 1988, with the first significant drop taking place in 1982. Sometime in that decade from 1977 to 1987 marked the first time that Sons did not make as much or more money than their fathers did at the same age.

So that correlation says, "top nominal rates dropped significantly in the 1980's and it caused incomes to go down..."

I'm not saying that this is correct, I'm just saying it is similar to the rationale you used when you said that as taxes went down incomes went up.

These are shaky rationales for both our arguments, at best.

--LT

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Thu May 05, 2011 11:45 pm When I enter this data in a spreadsheet and calculate the correlation coefficient between median income and top marginal tax rate for these years, the result is -0.914. This is statistically significant.

Cher just does it for me. That women just plain gives me a woodie. She has my permission to quality me for the EA if I could just have her for one night.

I once did a humorous speech about my unrequited lust. I used statistics applied to my age in each succeeding year and the age of the guys she dated in those years. With the correct assumptions, I showed that she would be ready to date somebody of my age in 464 years. The title of the speech was 'Hang In There.'

Of course, with the incorrect statistical assumptions, she'll never boff me.

Life experience and what is before our eyes today trumps (small "T") any statistics. And the misery index is too high. That simple.

Now ask, where is the misery index not high because of continuing profits.



ID "them" and you know who is responsible for the recession.

Exxon profits are up, up, up. A profit reduction should be offered or a tax to redistribute such ill bred wealth. And on to the other cake eaters.

Numbers are horrible compared to experience. When statistics demonstrate the unemployment rate is down, they do not express if that is because people have given up or accepted McDonald's jobs as cannot support a family. If new job growth were expressed with a per capita value, they would make more sense.

Moi

Still a Populist

Moi

Still a Populist

Question for you there Populist? which convention, 1970, 1984, 2004, 1995, 2002, or the one founded by Bruce Braley of Iowa? and if so would you also like or approve of the Congressional Progressive Caucus? or is it something more basic like the one started in the 19th century???

River

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Sat May 07, 2011 6:31 pm Question for you there Populist? which convention, 1970, 1984, 2004, 1995, 2002, or the one founded by Bruce Braley of Iowa? and if so would you also like or approve of the Congressional Progressive Caucus? or is it something more basic like the one started in the 19th century???

River

Message 11 (to preserve topicness)

http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthr ... post179271

Dave, you're right that there's only a conjectural relation between the top marginal tax rate and median income. Tax rates are only one of many factors affecting the economy, and the top tax rate would directly affect only those in that bracket.

A-1 posed the question about people being more prosperous when the top tax rate was higher. I've heard that many times here, so I wanted to check the facts, and have some fun doing it.

All that's proven is that a higher top tax rate is not associated with greater prosperity, as some here have argued. My own speculation is that lower tax rates are more likely during periods friendly to business and wealth creation, so that prosperity is not caused by the tax rates alone, but by the combination of many policies.

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Sun May 08, 2011 1:59 am Dave, you're right that there's only a conjectural relation between the top marginal tax rate and median income. Tax rates are only one of many factors affecting the economy, and the top tax rate would directly affect only those in that bracket.

A-1 posed the question about people being more prosperous when the top tax rate was higher. I've heard that many times here, so I wanted to check the facts, and have some fun doing it.

All that's proven is that a higher top tax rate is not associated with greater prosperity, as some here have argued. My own speculation is that lower tax rates are more likely during periods friendly to business and wealth creation, so that prosperity is not caused by the tax rates alone, but by the combination of many policies.

Yes, and you STILL have not 'explored' the correlation of the top tax rate and the NATIONAL DEBT...

...honestly, bob/3

...you can paint any mathematical picture that you please. That does not mean that there is ANY connection between that picture and the real world...

...IT is a bit like pissing in a jar, throwing in a crucifix with Christ nailed to a cross in it, sealing the top on it and then calling it ART...

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sat May 07, 2011 7:05 pm Message 11 (to preserve topicness)

http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthr ... post179271

So somewhere between a nut job and a fascist?

River