karmanaut / chartjunk

chartjunk » Blog Archive » Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me).


Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me).

UPDATE: Here’s a PDF version of my redrawn tax plan chart.

There’s a graph that Obama supporters are sending around, showing the differences between the Republican and Democrat tax cut proposals. It shows that Obama is not in fact planning to raise taxes - he’s planning to cut them for all but the very, very rich. I couldn’t help but notice though - the graph is still massively weighted towards the interests of the super-rich. For example, the bottom two-thirds of the population are given only a third of the space on the graph, while the top 0.1% of the population - one in a thousand people - gets almost 10%. What’s more, an “average tax cut” is then given, which seems to have been derived from taking a total of the nine income brackets shown and dividing it by nine. Journalists should really volunteer to take remedial arithmetic, you know. Once again, this ignores that one of the brackets represents one thousandth of the population.

So let’s make this a bit more accurate - let’s keep all the brackets, but draw it to scale.
US Tax Plans redrawn

(cc) US Tax Plans - Redrawing by Viveka Weiley is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.

My redrawing is not perfect - I don’t know the detailed income distributions, only that the bottom three brackets equal 60% of the population, the next four are 39%, the next 1% and the next 0.1% (to make a total of 100.01%, but never mind) - but with some help from commenters (particularly zach) it’s becoming pretty good - the height of each bar now correctly reflects the source data. Also notice that even with my redrawing, median income (where Obama is proposing a sevenfold larger tax cut than McCain) is not in the middle, it’s down in the second or third-bottom bracket. This reflects the concentration of wealth at the top, as commenters have helpfully pointed out below.

Nonetheless it is a considerably truthier picture than the Washington Post version, which I reproduce below for comparison.

Washington Post Tax Plans Chart

I’m still not certain that a bar chart is the ideal way to show this data, and there may be problems with my chart as well. Comments and corrections gratefully received.

Previously:

Ice Age - broken graphs for a broken world
Test Pattern, or how to get away with lying in graphs by making them so ugly that no-one can bear to look at them.

112 Responses to “Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me).”

  1. sean reilly » Tax Plans O vs M Says:

    [...] even better, here’s a version of the same graph that chartjunk adjusted to be to scale based on the number of people in each income [...]

  2. eclecticism » Blog Archive » Links for September 11th through September 12th Says:

    [...] Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me): There’s a graph that Obama supporters are sending around, showing the differences between the Republican and Democrat tax cut proposals. It shows that Obama is not in fact planning to raise taxes - he’s planning to cut them for all but the very, very rich. I couldn’t help but notice though - the graph is still massively weighted towards the interests of the super-rich…one of the brackets represents one thousandth of the population. So let’s make this a bit more accurate - let’s keep all the brackets, but draw it to scale. (via Waxy) [...]

  3. steves Says:

    The reason the media income is not in the middle is that median does not mean average; average, in math, is mean. Median income is the income at which 50% of the people make less and 50% make more. The difference between mean income and median income illustrates the concentration of wealth (as measured in income, of course, not in assets) among the highest earners. Assets is a whole other question, by the way. One can be very, very rich and not make any money. One can also make a pile of money and still not have any. I don’t feel sorry for them.

  4. HelpfulReader Says:

    This is an excellent redrawing. I’m delighted to see this depiction.

    The source for the data has the information you need to draw the upper brackets to scale. Here’s the source:
    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf
    See Table 1, Footnote (2).

    When you use these correct percentiles, you get an even more dramatic difference.

  5. HelpfulReader Says:

    A follow-up: since the document with the source data is quite long, I should have mentioned that Table 1 appears on page 30.

  6. Figure Says:

    Thanks for doing this. The Post’s chart appears at first to be misleading, but upon closer inspection it’s not misleading (using facts selectively) but simply incorrect on all counts. It is completely unacceptable and there should be far more attention to this. The “average cut” has absolutely no basis in fact. The Post’s editors should be ashamed of themselves. Your chart is prettier, too.

    Now, suggestions: Your chart mentions individual income, while the Post’s chart lists “family” (I assume household) income. The median household income was $50,233 in 2007 [1], which is approximately the halfway point on your chart. That’s a good start.

    Going by US census data [2] and interpolating a little, we can try to get some real percentages:

    Household Income Bracket (USD) — Percentage
    $0 to $18,981 — 20.6%
    $18,982 to $37,595 — 19.4%
    $37,596 to $66,354 — 23.4%

    Total: $0 to $66,354 — 63.4%

    According to the US census bureau, the three brackets are divided almost perfectly into thirds. This is strange, but we’ll assume it’s right. Therefore the bottom 60% is accurate the way you presented it.

    The upper 40% is where it gets rocky. Data above $98,000 is hard to glean from the report [2] because the brackets are just too wide. You can’t go too wrong with just assuming a smooth gradient of width between the 20% brackets and the 1% bracket.

    Again, great job and thank you for getting this out there.

    [1] US Census Bureau, Aug. 2008 press release, “Household Income Rises, Poverty Rate Unchanged, Number of Uninsured Down.” — http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html
    [2] U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2008 ASEC Supplement, Table HINC-06. — http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/hhinc/new06_000.htm

  7. madeofglass :: tripp millican :: More Palin Says:

    [...] I linked to the tax chart yesterday — but here it is proportionally displayed. That is, the percentage of people being taxed corresponds to the thickness of the line. Now, you [...]

  8. scrotty Says:

    Your scaling is interesting but scaling inherently introduces a bias.

    You’ve chosen to scale each bracket based on population. You should create a companion graph that scales each bracket based on percentage of total tax dollars that group contributes.

    If you are interested in graphing this information too, I’ll do the legwork to get the data.

  9. nertzy Says:

    I’d like to see a version where instead of starting all the bars at 0 they start at today’s tax rates.

    Then you would see that Obama is taking an already very skewed distribution and making it even more skewed, while McCain is mildly reducing it.

    Obama is going the populist route so as to get a majority of votes. Never mindthat having high income earners with excess capital will increase the pool for investment in new ventures that create jobs. But that involves thinking at a deeper level and on a longer term than just “how can I pay less money this year”. Election cycles run on short term thinking.

  10. viveka Says:

    @scrotty - I’d be happy to graph that if you can find the data - thanks for the offer. How to graph it though is another question. When drawing a graph there is always a bias - but in this case it’s not in the scaling, it’s in what I (following the Post) chose to show. In this graph the X axis is money, and the Y axis is people. The context is electoral politics, where one person = one vote - so the 1:1 scaling I have imposed is appropriate, and the Post’s scaling was arbitrary. Now, I hear that in the US only a minority actually vote* - so scaling each bar’s height by that group’s likelihood to vote would be illuminating as well.

    To scale the Y axis by total tax contribution instead of population would serve a different purpose: it would show the impact of the policy on total tax revenue. It would be kind of confusing graph though, since you would have money on both the X and Y axes. I already show total change in contribution along the X axis - but as a percentage. It would be relatively straightforward to change that to an absolute figure instead. In fact I could show both with a stacked bar - could be fun!

    * I’m in Australia, where the secret ballot was invented, and where things work very differently - to the extent that we sometimes find it difficult to understand why the US system is considered a democracy. We do wish you well though.

  11. viveka Says:

    @nertzy - once again, shoot me the data and I’ll have a go. Not sure I agree with your assumptions; let’s see what we get when we do the work. I don’t know how progressive the US tax system is, and when measuring that it’s necessary to include sales taxes, which work in the other direction. Let me explain. As I understand it there are three main forms of tax:

    1. Progressive tax - the rich pay a higher percentage of their income, the poor pay a lower percentage. The extreme would be land redistribution, which tends to lead to economic collapse for a generation or so.
    2. Flat tax - everyone pays the same percentage of their income
    3. Regressive tax - the rich pay a lower percentage, the poor a higher percentage. Sales tax is regressive (since the poor use more of their income for consumption, whereas the richer you are, the more you can save and invest). The most regressive tax is a Poll Tax (everyone pays the same absolute dollar amount) - these tend to cause riot and revolution.

    From what I hear the US has a combination of a progressive income tax, offset by regressive sales taxes. How can you tell where it’s balanced on the continuum? I think it’s impossible, really - there are too many other factors to consider. Income redistribution happens in a lot of ways. Rich people contribute more, but demand more in return; government largesse in the forms of legislated monopolies, a free police service to protect property, government contracts, infrastructure grants. Roads, for example, are largely provided free. They are by far most heavily used in the morning and evening commute, so that’s clearly a subsidy to owners of centralised big businesses. Meanwhile the poor may be getting rent or income support - perhaps smaller in absolute dollar amounts per person, but more as a percentage of income. More income support leads to lower property crime - do we count that as a broad subsidy, then? There’s more: many of the poor are in prison. The legislative power of the rich in the US means that drugs used by poor people (e.g. crack cocaine) attract longer sentences than drugs used by rich people (e.g. powder cocaine). It costs a lot to keep someone in prison - do we count that as a subsidy to the poor, or to the rich? There are just too many judgement calls to make, and this is what politics is made of.

    All systems of government, once you have taken the step of giving the state a monopoly on violence and particularly if you give it the duty to protect property, diverge from a state of nature. The choice to construct a society where land can be owned, rent can be sought, money can be lent at interest, property is protected and can be inherited by descendants - these are all social choices, not laws of nature. There is no fair, there’s just what we decide to do; and we can only measure the success or failure of our choices by whether we like the consequences.

  12. John McCain and Barack Obama’s Tax Plans Compared (Drawn to Scale) | Phil Nelson Says:

    [...] It’s very obvious what the two of them think. McCain thinks that millionaires deserve more money, Obama thinks all of us common people making under a half million dollars a year could use more money. It’s not complicated. [...]

  13. scrotty Says:

    @viveka - Thanks for your response. I will track down those numbers for you and give you references to their source. I hope you’ll be able to put something cool together. :)

    BTW, it’s a common misconception that the United States is a democracy - even by its own citizens. It is not and never has been. The US Declaration of Independence doesn’t even include the word ‘democracy’. The US is actually a Constitutional Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic). This is one of its defense mechanisms against mob rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority).

    Thanks!
    Sean

  14. GIGANTIC DWARF » Blog Archive » Don’t Let McPalin McNasty Get Away With It! Says:

    [...] LINK [...]

  15. scrotty Says:

    Eep! It is tricky to shoehorn the data I’ve found with the Washington Post’s income brackets.

    I’m using Table 1.1 for 2006 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in11si.xls) from the IRS’s website (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=134951,00.html#_pt1). In particular, I’m using columns (7) and (17). Unfortunately, there is an impedance mismatch between their income brackets and those of the Washington Post (which are actually those of the Tax Policy Center from which the Post obtained the data).

    The Tax Policy Center has a table (http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1347) that is helping me do the conversion - but it’s imprecise.

    I’ll respond again soon with my final results and method. But for the sake of satisfying curiosity, here is what I’ve roughly determined:

    Adjusted Gross Income (% of total tax revenue)
    Top .1% (20)
    1 - .1 (16)
    95-99 (22.2)
    90-95 (10)
    80-90 (11.2)
    60-80 (13.7)
    40-60 (5.2)
    20-40 (1.5)
    0-20 (0.2)

    Sean

  16. lavardera Says:

    nertzy, your reasoning is flawed, because even after Obama’s higher tax rate these high earners have plenty of capital available to invest and create new jobs. They are hardly burdened by this tax proposal. The un-named philosophy you are espousing is “trickle-down economics”. I think we can say with some assurance right now that based on the past 8 years it does not trickle down. In fact everybody was more prosperous and the economy more vital during Clintons tenure and before Bush the Republican congress enacted the current tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. Those are going to expire during the next term, and now with a Democratic congress we can be pretty sure that McCain if he managed to win will not be able to re-instate them, nor set any other tax policy. So in the end what we have here is a policy proposal by Obama, and wishful thinking at best from McCain.

  17. Banapana » Sometimes the Graphics Say It All Says:

    [...] is amazing, when the facts are laid out truthfully in graphic form, the story that they can tell. Chart Junk has posted a chart that should rightfully outrage any American. Brilliantly illustrated. [...]

  18. herman Says:

    Great job. I hate to suggest more work, but I have no way of making such quality graphs at present or I’d take a pass myself,. I think an interesting graph might be take home income after taxes. I suspect it would show how poorly income is distributed and how, even after the Obama tax cuts, the rich will still make much, much more than everyone else.

    Again, thanks for the great work.

  19. scrotty Says:

    (Sorry if this is a duplicate post, Viveka. I don’t see that the comment I thought I just posted is in the “awaiting moderation” state. So I’ll try again.)

    I’ve put together a version of the chart that I’ve been envisioning. I did my best to copy your style, but it’s still not as readable as yours. The font sizing and style isn’t great.

    Anyhow, you can find the chart here: http://scrotty.fileave.com/taxBurden.png

    Thanks!
    Sean

  20. GFMorris.com » links for 2008-09-13 Says:

    [...] chartjunk » Blog Archive » Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me). (tags: election_2008 public_policy) Posted September 13th, 2008 in del.icio.us Links. [...]

  21. Simple graphic illustrating Obama/McCain tax plans « SchizoFrenetic Says:

    [...] Graphic by Chartjunk [...]

  22. ewjordan Says:

    @viveka - Interesting thoughts, I’ve lately landed upon the inevitable conclusion that you’re right, merely defining “progressive” or “fair” in the context of a tax system is extremely difficult. Even such simple solutions as a “flat” income tax are arguably skewed, in part because of the fact that the wealth distribution is not the same as the income distribution (wealth / income tends to be higher as you go up the pay scale), so which one do you base your taxes on? This quote (just from Wikipedia, so I’m not sure how reliable the info is, and this stuff is tedious to verify…) is relevant, especially when confronted with the so-common claim that the US has an outrageously progressive tax burden:

    “If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).”
    (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States)

    If we can trust those numbers (again, I’m not vouching for them, it’s quite possible they are wrong, but nobody appears to have challenged or corrected them), it means that in terms of wealth, the distribution of tax burden is humped - the rich get screwed a bit, the middle class is lucky, and the poor get screwed even more than the rich do ( 3.3 / 2.8 = 1.179 is the “screwed” rating for the lower 50%, versus 36.9 / 32.7 = 1.128 for the top 1%, which roughly means the poor are screwed by ~18%, and the rich are screwed by 13%). That’s right - our “oppressively progressive” tax system actually hits the poorest 50% of the population harder than everyone else, all so that the middle class can save a percent or two.

    Which, of course, is exactly what you would expect in a democracy, as the majority of voters are in the upper 50% of the wealth distribution (but not the top 1%, clearly), so pure democracy would tend to push their tax rates down at the expense of the less represented groups. So maybe our tax system is a lot more “fair” than you would think, for a bizarre definition of the word “fair”…

    Whether any of this is “right” or good for the economy or not, who the hell knows…SO much more comes into play there, and that’s another discussion for another day.

    It would be an interesting bit of strategy, though, for the Democrats to start re-framing the tax debate in terms of wealth rather than income - I’d be curious to see what the tax landscape would look like measured in terms of wealth after each of the candidates plans, because IMO that is a better measure of how much “hurt” you feel from taxes.

  23. viveka Says:

    @scrotty

    BTW, it’s a common misconception that the United States is a democracy - even by its own citizens. It is not and never has been. The US Declaration of Independence doesn’t even include the word ‘democracy’. The US is actually a Constitutional Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic). This is one of its defense mechanisms against mob rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority).

    There’s no logical reason why it can’t be both; democracy is a descriptive term. It is a fuzzy one though, so tends to lead to this kind of argument over definitions of terms, which have no absolute resolution. I would tend to think that if the US electoral system were less corrupt then it would meet most useful definitions of democracy.

  24. Luis Villa’s Blog / that havoc, he’s such a nice young man. John McCain, not so much. Says:

    [...] bring this back slightly to my typical topics, this is a terrific chart (using the best Tufte-ian approach) explaining who would and wouldn’t get their taxes raised [...]

  25. viveka Says:

    @steves:

    The reason the media income is not in the middle is that median does not mean average; average, in math, is mean. Median income is the income at which 50% of the people make less and 50% make more. The difference between mean income and median income illustrates the concentration of wealth (as measured in income, of course, not in assets) among the highest earners.

    Yes, that’s what I was getting at - sorry I wasn’t clear. I also need to add median household income to the chart, as @Figure suggests.

  26. viveka Says:

    The magnificent Ben Fry has linked here - this little chart is getting more attention than I expected :)

  27. Pulling back the curtain « The Mississippifarian Says:

    [...] Congress and President Obama force them to. McCain is just a continuation of the ongoing screw job. Chartjunk has a graphic that shows exactly how McCain will perpetuate the destruction of the Middle [...]

  28. Barnhard Blog » Blog Archive » McCain Fiscal Conservative Says:

    [...] Taxing Difference POLICY [...]

  29. Tozai Todd » Blog Archive » Redrawn Chart of Obama Tax Plan vs McCain’s Says:

    [...] on one that appeared in the Washington Post, but redrawn to scale. Read the post on Chartjunk for a better description of the differences between the two. The chart speaks volumes for both candidates, but more Americans would benefit from Obama’s [...]

  30. Facts About the Obama Tax Plan | The Obama Project@WindonWater.net Says:

    [...] US Tax Plans - Redrawing by Viveka Weiley is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia [...]

  31. kgautreaux/blog » Blog Archive » Looking back, going forward Says:

    [...] says they want the election to be about the policy, but once again it’s [...]

  32. HumidCity » Blog Archive » Where Do You Fall? Says:

    [...] Graphic from Chartjunk. See the whole Chartjunk post here. [...]

  33. McCain & Obama Tax Plans: Small Change -- Garrick Van Buren .com Says:

    [...] Viveka Weiley redrew Washington Post’s chart of Obama’s and McCain’s respective tax plans. [...]

  34. grendelkhan Says:

    viveka, the regressive portion of the US tax regime is payroll tax; for example, Social Security taxes apply at a flat rate on wage income up to a certain level, past which the rate is zero.

    scrotty is attempting a depressingly familiar bit of rhetorical legerdemain, which I’ve seen floating around elsewhere. Step one, cut taxes on the wealthy. Inequality will deepen, and the wealthy will get more wealthy. Despite paying a smaller proportion of their income, they’ll make up a larger portion of total tax receipts. Now complain that the wealthy pay too much in taxes, so they need to be cut again. More wealth rushes upward, and despite their marginal tax rate decreasing, the wealthy pay an even larger proportion of total tax receipts. Eventually you wind up with a form of neofeudalism which features the prisoners of addiction locked in their gated enclaves while the prisoners of envy kill each other over scraps outside.

    For bonus points, you can refer to people too poor to pay income taxes (but, of course, still subject to payroll and sales taxes) as “lucky duckies”.

    This is all often combined with references to how enriching the already rich will trickle down to the rest of us. Lost in the shuffle are some relevant facts; spending money on food stamps and unemployment insurance is a reliable way to stimulate the economy, while cutting taxes on the wealthy isn’t. (Of course, it’s a fabulous way to fluff their coffers, if that’s the real purpose.)

    Here, I’ll quote.

    There often is misunderstanding, however, about which federal policies are most effective in maintaining business purchases and employment when the economy weakens materially. The primary factor in such circumstances is not the cash that businesses have on hand; it is whether customers are spending money and buying their products.

    And the best way to do that is not to put money into the hands of the most wealthy, but into the hands of the middle and working class.

    It’s understandable to argue for plutocracy if you’re pulling in a few hundred large per year. If you’re not, you’re arguing against your own economic interests, and you should at least be honest about it. The United States has some the most profound inequality in the developed world, and you’re keen on widening the gap, because the nation’s wealth shouldn’t be spread around too much.

  35. scrotty Says:

    @grendelkhan, the motive for my version of the chart is the same Viveka’s site is all about - correcting misleading/deceiving charts.

    Viveka chose to correct the original Washington Post chart by scaling the income brackets based on the size of the population in each of those brackets. That is a reasonable perspective and has been received very positively if gauged by the comments and trackbacks here. Her chart clearly shows that Obama’s proposed tax plan will directly benefit a much larger proportion of US tax payers than McCain’s proposed plan. Additionally, her chart very clearly shows that tax payers with the smallest adjusted gross incomes would receive the greatest benefit, while they would receive the least benefit by McCain’s plan.

    My version of the chart (http://scrotty.fileave.com/taxBurden.png)* corrects the original by scaling the brackets by the percentage of the total tax burden that bracket bears. It clearly shows that Obama’s plan will increase taxes on those who already contribute the most. That fact is almost lost in Viveka’s version since more than half the total US tax revenue is supplied by those in the top 5% of adjusted gross income.

    You charge me of being deceptive, but my chart is a completely reasonable and accurate view of the data. Why wouldn’t it be helpful for everyone to clearly see how those pay the most in income tax will be affected by each tax plan?

    You assert that the economy is best helped by putting money “into the hands of the middle and working class.” I, too, think it would be great if we could give the middle and working class a bunch of money. Your criticism of my chart shows that you think the best way to get that money is to take it from the super rich. That is, you believe that income tax should be used a vehicle for wealth redistribution (which, of course, it already is). I disagree on that point.

    It looks like we are opposite sides of this issue? I could dust off my old books and historical data to support my position and you could do the same for yours. So what? Are you suggesting that my chart should be disregarded because it is deceptive or because it clearly shows that Obama’s plan is Robin Hood economics?

    But, really, why do you care if my chart _does_ show that Obama intends to redistribute wealth via changes to tax rates? You’ve said that you think that is precisely the right thing to do. If anything, you should be trumpeting my chart as clear proof of Obama’s stand against the gap between the rich and poor. I mean, it’s right there, clear as day: Obama is going to take more from the rich and give back more to the rest. That old coot McCain is giving those bluebloods a break, for Pete’s sake! He’s crazy, man, and this chart proves it!

    Look, I’m not suggesting that my chart is better than Viveka’s. I think hers and mine should be presented side by side. In tandem, they show that the same data can produce very different charts that are each accurate representations of that data. After reading her entries on this site, I think that Viveka is working to correct misleading and poorly-designed charts rather than skew charts to better reflect her ideals.

    *My chart is merely an example for Viveka. I’m not happy with my presentation (Viveka is much better as this) nor my mapping of IRS data to the Tax Policy Center’s brackets. However, I do think that the numbers are reasonably close and thus the chart is a decent representation of what my final crunching will produce.

  36. ewjordan Says:

    scrotty wrote:

    My version of the chart (http://scrotty.fileave.com/taxBurden.png)* corrects the original by scaling the brackets by the percentage of the total tax burden that bracket bears. It clearly shows that Obama’s plan will increase taxes on those who already contribute the most. That fact is almost lost in Viveka’s version since more than half the total US tax revenue is supplied by those in the top 5% of adjusted gross income.

    I suspect people are bothered by your presentation because it implicitly weights the “importance” of each person based on their dollar value. Case in point: 50% of the population is, according to your graph, completely and utterly irrelevant, squashed into a meaningless mush at the bottom. It’s true, the other way of scaling leaves 50% of the money squashed into irrelevancy at the top; however, I suspect most people would prefer to hold people as more important than dollars. If you disagree, of course, that’s your right - a lot of people would, indeed, like to see this country become a dollar democracy.

    You charge me of being deceptive, but my chart is a completely reasonable and accurate view of the data. Why wouldn’t it be helpful for everyone to clearly see how those pay the most in income tax will be affected by each tax plan?

    If the purported point of the chart is to lay out how most people will be affected by the varying tax plans, then it IS deceptive to scale the chart weighted by money instead of by head count.

    You assert that the economy is best helped by putting money “into the hands of the middle and working class.” I, too, think it would be great if we could give the middle and working class a bunch of money. Your criticism of my chart shows that you think the best way to get that money is to take it from the super rich. That is, you believe that income tax should be used a vehicle for wealth redistribution (which, of course, it already is). I disagree on that point.

    The wealth redistribution/Robin Hood economics line is a nice sound bite, but it’s really a fiction, no wealth is being redistributed, and if anything, wealth is pretty evenly taxed even if income is not - see my earlier post, the current income tax burden as measured against wealth (as opposed to income, which is a bad measure since rich people tend to have far less (taxable, after deductions) income per unit of wealth than poor people - I’m reminded of Warren Buffett’s realization that his actual tax rate is lower than his secretary’s, and his claim that the same is true for most billionaires) actually hits the poor harder than it hits the rich. If anything, both the poor and the rich are financing the betterment of the middle class; nothing at all is flowing down to the lower 50%.

  37. zach Says:

    Hi, I have an annotated version of the Washington Post graphic at obamataxcut.com that addresses some of your concerns without rescaling the data. I haven’t seen anyone point it out here, but the Washington Post numbers use the TPC’s traditional brackets:

    0-20%
    20-40%
    40-60%
    60-80%
    80-90%
    90-95%
    95-99%
    99-99.9%
    99.9-100%

    Useful if you’re interested in making a version that rescales the bar heights accordingly. I have some charts you might like (http://alchemytoday.com/2008/09/13/tax-policy-center-releases-new-campaign-summary/) that chart the most recent data from the TPC (quintiles only, none of the finer-grained stuff) for 2009 with x=income percentile, y=percent change in tax, and area=size of tax cut in $. That way, the area of the point tells you the fraction of a candidate’s cut going to that quintile (although apparently perception of area is flawed or something).

  38. scrotty Says:

    @ewjordan, I agree on your first two points. My chart alone would be insufficient; it makes a large portion of the US taxpayers practically invisible. I think the combination of both charts together provide meaningful information about two different concerns: tax plan effect on tax payers in general vs tax plan effect on those who pay the most in tax.

    On your last point I can only refer to the IRS chart from which I’m pulling the numbers. Columns 18 and 19 of Table 1.1 of the 2006 SOI tax stats (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=134951,00.html#_pt1) show that those with $1,000,000 - $2,000,000 in AGI pay the greatest percentage of that income.

    It _does_ show that that percentage drops for those with greater than $2,000,000 AGI. That would support your reference to Warren Buffet and his secretary. But now you’re not talking about the top 0.1%, you’re talking about the top 0.01%.

    But your argument makes me think of yet another chart that could be developed: to scale the brackets based on what percentage of that bracket’s AGI is paid in taxes. To do that properly, I’d really need to understand the difference between columns 18 and 19 of the table I mention above. And the more I think about it, the more I think that would be a valuable chart to see.

  39. Grapefeed » A Taxing Chart Says:

    [...] drawn-to-scale bar chart breaking down the details of tax plans from both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain. [...]

  40. CasdraBlog » Blog Archive » links for 2008-09-16 Says:

    [...] chartjunk » Blog Archive » Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me). Better poor tax chart. (tags: politics) [...]

  41. Truth Vs. Truthiness « Idealink Says:

    [...] Here is a better visualization from the chartjunk blog, which shows where tax cuts really are. Read the commentary from karmanaut (Viveka Weiley) and you can see how it makes more sense. While Wiley says that her(?) map is truthier, it is indeed more truthful regarding the population. [...]

  42. ewjordan Says:

    @scrotty:
    Thanks for that link, that’s a good set of data to look at. You’re right, it does appear that it’s really the richest of the richest whose rates drop substantially - I suspect that’s mostly because at that level, you’re not getting paid those figures, you’re getting it mostly from capital gains, so things tend to revert closer to the 15% level.

    I agree, it is definitely worth considering the split between what affects the most people, and what effects the people that pay the most; in fact, I suspect this is fundamentally where Republicans and Democrats disagree. There are good arguments to be made that either focus is both more fair and more economically fruitful.

    Personally, I’d still love to see charts that lay it out based on wealth instead of income, as I really believe that’s a far more relevant measure of the damage taxation does to each class (and it’s a far better means of measuring rich vs. poor than income, automatically factoring in the necessary expenses of living), but unfortunately it seems that none of the raw tax data has any information on assets attached (probably because it’s not required for tax calculation purposes). I’ll have to think about a proper way to synthesize or estimate those numbers based on the data that is available…

    Oh, and re: the difference between AGI and AGI less deficit, I have no idea, and a quick Google search didn’t enlighten me, either; maybe someone else knows?

  43. Obama vs. McCain: Tax Plans « Stocks, Bonds, and Rock & Roll Says:

    [...] as it applies to personal finance I thought this handy little chart depicting the differences in Obama’s and McCain’s tax plans was worthy of posting, [...]

  44. In LA » Blog Archive » Fox News headline says Palin “Misleads”, then doesn’t. Says:

    [...] anyone who is curious about the respective Obama and McCain tax plans to take a look at the infographic and discussion on this page. That infographic is an attempt by some statistically-minded bloggers to bring some clarity to the [...]

  45. Debunking Lies and Spin with Graphs and Charts « Wide Dynamic Range Says:

    [...] Debunking Chart 1: Obama’s Tax Plan compared to McCain’s [...]

  46. Juice The Blog » Blog Archive » The Definitive Tax Plan Graph Says:

    [...] This is from a blog called chartjunk, which I am infinitely more interested in now that I’ve found it.  This is a perfect representation because it scales each of the tax brackets vertically by how much of the population that bracket represents.  This way you can tell just how few people will receive a tax increase under Obama’s tax plan.  Furthermore, all of this data is from WaPo, which should put a definitive MSM stamp on this to convince otherwise skeptical persons. [...]

  47. What Is you Favorite, and who? | Knitting In Translation Says:

    [...] now, before I go to sleep, I must point you to a very eye opening presentation of Obama versus McCain Tax plans I found on Kerstin’s blog. Thank you Kerstin! I hope it will help those of you who are worried [...]

  48. viveka Says:

    UPDATE: median household income is now added to the chart, per @Figure’s suggestion. Thank you everyone for the interest and feedback.

  49. zach Says:

    @viveka

    Did you see my note above? The heights of the bars should be, from top to bottom: 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 4%, .9%, and .1%

    The Washington Post figure you grab the numbers from derives from a Tax Policy Center report ca. mid-June that’s since been updated here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411749_updated_candidates.pdf

    The numbers that you want are the Percent Change in After-Tax Income columns in tables 1 and 6 in that PDF. The numbers that you used came from the same tables in this older analysis: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

  50. It’s the economy, stupid. « John McCain hates women. Says:

    [...] (Thanks Ben for chart, which came from this article.) [...]

  51. viveka Says:

    @zach - thank you very much, that’s excellent work. Graph updated accordingly.

  52. abpend Says:

    I wanted to print this chart, and was wondering if you had either a version in a vector format (pdf, svg, eps, etc.) or a higher-resolution, printing-suitable raster version.

  53. viveka Says:

    Hi,

    I wanted to print this chart, and was wondering if you had either a version in a vector format (pdf, svg, eps, etc.) or a higher-resolution, printing-suitable raster version.

    Sure thing, I’ll put a PDF up tomorrow :)

  54. Izbit Says:

    This is very cool, and getting a ton of play in the US. At some point, could you make an nuts and bolts post about how to make a chart like this?

  55. Katy Says:

    In fact, you’ve been referenced on the Freakanomics blog at the NYTimes:
    http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/competing-tax-plans-two-perspectives/

  56. Spudart: Links Says:

    [...] Bar chart showing the differences between McCain’s and Obama’s tax cut proposals If you make less than $111,645 then you want Obama. 0 comments [...]

  57. Tax policy vs lipstick « ThinkEcon Says:

    [...] The media has made an effort to explain them to the public through graphs and charts.  This chart shows one interpretation of the tax policies. (I found it through http://reallyboring.net/). The [...]

  58. Tac cuts chart obama vs the other dude.. - YaHooka Forums Says:

    [...] cuts chart obama vs the other dude.. chartjunk Blog Archive Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me). M [...]

  59. Skewed Data | The Q Company Says:

    [...] guys over at ChartJunk realized this and created a more accurate representation of the chart - drawing it to scale based [...]

  60. liberaltarian Says:

    It might be worthwhile to be show the overall tax rates before and after the proposed changes (again, by income and to scale) instead of just the size of the proposed changes.

  61. M Says:

    http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=taxplansxx1.png

    I think one of the big problems here is that that top .1% holds a SUBSTANTIAL portion of the nations wealth. Similarly the other “upper tiers” hold a much larger percentage of wealth than the lower tiers. This may be a social problem if you favor wealth distribution, but it’s also a problem in terms of understanding these tax plans in terms of percentages rather than dollar amounts.

    I’ve re-visualized the data (poorly) using the “average tax” dollar amount from the washington post graph, the percentages of the population from zach, and the total population of the USA to represent the data as dollar amounts rather than percent amounts.

    I think this is the key way in which two groups of people who both may mean equally well and have noble intentions might differ. Which is the greater good: effects the most people or effects the most money?

    I’ve managed to visualize the data very poorly because I’m not that good at using google charts, but I’ve published the spread sheet so other people can try and do better if they’d like:
    http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pVpI8r-n07fRNacRMBuuaTA

  62. Bring It On! » Blog Archive » How Much Will Your Tax Bill Change Under Obama vs. McSame? Says:

    [...] friend tossed me this chart. I haven’t checked the numbers myself, but when the Rightwinger Faithful are done taking [...]

  63. Steve Wills’ Weblog » Blog Archive » Twitter Updates for 2008-09-19 Says:

    [...] http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/ # [...]

  64. John McCain will cut taxes for John McCain's rich friends Says:

    [...] taxes, he means Obama will raise taxes on John McCain’s rich friends. Original chart by Viveka Weiley, click for larger version and [...]

  65. YACHT Says:

    [...] charjunk Tagged with: 2008 elections, charts, mccain, obama, taxes « WordPress [...]

  66. chasp044 Says:

    For me I would like to see three additional columns. One that has Clintons tax structure in his last year in office, the current tax structure of Bush, both pre and post his reduced tax plans.

    I can’t seem to pull the info together. But sure would like to see the caparisions!

    Thanks
    Charlie

  67. Obama Will Lower Taxes; $250K = Rich « spruce to the tree Says:

    [...] you agree with point number two, first take a look at the chart above, which shows how the tax plans of McCain and Obama will directly impact different segments of [...]

  68. gedblog » Blog Archive » Seeing Red Says:

    [...] these McCain supporters would benefit more from an Obama presidency than from a McCain administration. Obama’s tax cuts on middle class [...]

  69. Recent Links: September 14 to September 21 » Alex Jones Says:

    [...] Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me) A great visual breakdown of the impact of the tab plans from Senators McCain and Obama. [...]

  70. Headkleaner » The canidates tax plans side by side Says:

    [...] AS we approach the upcoming US Presidential election it is probably high time AMericans start to seriously look at the candidates tax plans.  We have found an interesting side by side comparison of the two with a redrawn chart that attempts to accurately display the data each campaign is distributing.  Have a look HERE [...]

  71. EdgeWise Says:

    Corrected PDF Link is http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/wp-content/images/taxplans.pdf

  72. Hermenautic Circle blog » Tax Proposal Infographics Says:

    [...] Observer: Observed on 22 Sep 2008 Data visualizations of the McCain and Obama tax proposals. [...]

  73. Robert Reinhardt » New review of the Flash CS3 Prof. Video Studio Techniques Says:

    [...] http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/ [...]

  74. Daily Candor » Why Obama’s economic team beats McCain’s hands-down Says:

    [...] loophole“. Incompetent and irresponsible. Doug Holtz-Eakin, the guy behind the McCain tax cut plan, that gives EVERYONE a tax cut, the largest, naturally, to the richest 0.1%, people earning more [...]

  75. barriebarrie Says:

    I am very, very confused. The redrawn chart shows Obama not increasing taxes until the person’s income is 600k or over but the Washington Post chart indicates that Obama is increasing taxes on everyone making over 115k. So, which is it?

  76. barriebarrie Says:

    Ooops, scratch my previous comment. That Washington Post chart really IS confusing!

  77. viveka Says:

    @barriebarrie

    Yes, it is! It looks like you’ve worked it out, but for anyone with the same misapprehension: The Washington Post chart is trying to pack a lot of information in, which does get confusing. They show absolute figures of average-per-bracket tax rises and cuts, showing that under the Obama plan people in the top 1%, with incomes between about $600,000 and about 2.7 million per annum will pay an average of $115,974 in extra tax. Of course people at the lower end of that spread will pay less, people at the upper end will pay more, and the distribution is likely to be uneven (median far from mean) - so giving this very precise average figure is not particularly helpful, as well as having the potential to be misread.

  78. Bookmarks for September 23rd | Quality Peoples Says:

    [...] chartjunk » Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me).a more accurate graph of McCain and Obama's tax plans. this graph takes things like arithmetic in to consideration. [...]

  79. links for 2008-09-26 at jozjozjoz.com Says:

    [...] chartjunk » Blog Archive » Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me). McCain vs Obama Tax Plans (tags: visualization) [...]

  80. Links: September 2008 « Consider the Evidence Says:

    [...] Tax plans, by Viveka Weiley [...]

  81. Obama vs. McCain on Taxes | jcksn Says:

    [...] via chartjunk » Blog Archive » Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me). [...]

  82. PrettyFakes » Blog Archive » TAX ATTACK Says:

    [...] Chartjunk has a correctly-weighted chart that emphasizes the scale of the proposed tax [...]

  83. Blog Says:

    [...] Readable charts that help explain the proposed McCain/Obama tax plans: Only my friends who make more than $600k a year should even consider voting for McCain. And then, after closely examining all the issues, you should strongly reconsider. This entry was written by danwashburn and posted on October 6, 2008 at 10:41 am and filed under links. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. [...]

  84. » Obama vs. McCain Tax Plans: Obama Saves You More on Blueprint for Financial Prosperity Says:

    [...] Here it is in beautiful chart form (courtesy of ChartJunk): [...]

  85. ARLOdesign® » BLOG › Corporate Greed Says:

    [...] started going off about how Obama is going to raise our taxes and I started going off about how that’s a lie, Dad threw this little bit at me: “Why do the Democrats insist on punishing the rich for [...]

  86. Information Design: Visualizing Obama vs. McCain Tax Plan | exclamation. Says:

    [...] They posted a nicely designed bar graphic chart comparing the two candidate’s “Tax Plans.” It helps visualize where the tax breaks and tax increases are in both plans. Obama vs. [...]

  87. 35 Cool Visualizations on 2008 US Presidential Election - Obama vs. McCain | Pointy Haired Dilbert - Chandoo.org Says:

    [...] Tax Plans - McCain vs. ObamaHow the tax plans of Obama and McCain are going to impact you? [...]

  88. OrTaxGuy Says:

    Great chart. What software are you using to produce it? And can you recommend software to use as alternative to excel and powerpoint?

  89. The Candidates’ Tax Proposals, Part II: Distribution — Dean’s World Says:

    [...] based on earlier statements by McCain’s economic advisors). Many of us have also seen the rescaled version. Both charts omit two key pieces of information — how much tax does each household actually [...]

  90. What McCain and Obama’s tax plans reveal about their priorities « Reflections on faith, politics, and society. Says:

    [...] http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/ [...]

  91. Save money on your taxes! Or maybe not. « Full Quiver Living Says:

    [...] you want to see a really detailed chart of what the two candidates tax plans will look like go to chartjunk. [...]

  92. Obama vs. McCain on Financial Matters Part 1- Taxes Parchayi.com - Personal Finance Simplified Says:

    [...] Source 1 [...]

  93. » Tax Plans Graphicized mike | bietz Says:

    [...] chartjunk » Blog Archive » Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me). via *name [...]

  94. Reflections After Four Presidential & Vice Presidential Debates « A Procession Of Days Says:

    [...] .pdf version of the the chart is available on Chartjunk along with a comparison to the chart from The Washington Post (which this was based [...]

  95. baldmancan Says:

    Karmanaut,The pdf link to the chart is fixed, but now the file is corrupt and will not open.
    Please take another look at this i wanted to print one out for my class discussion.
    The gif does not print clear enough for an overhead or PowerPoint.

    Thanks,
    Steve

  96. Obama/McCain tax plan chart | Cahoots Blog Says:

    [...] This says it all. From here [...]

  97. jpindenver Says:

    Scotty-

    The research I’ve looked at is regarding economic measurements of income and wealth disparities within an economic boundary (obviously the US). The baseline probability measurement is called the Lorenz Curve, which is the distribution of wealth throughout all income levels.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Lorenz-curve1.png
    The area between the line of perfect equality and the Lorenz Curve is called the Gini Coefficient, which is the true measurement of whether income is being distributed fairly within a system. The higher the coefficient, the more unequal the distribution is.

    Here’s the Gini Coefficient numbers from the US Census Bureau:

    1967: 0.397 (first year reported)
    1968: 0.386 (lowest coefficient reported)
    1970: 0.394
    1980: 0.403
    1990: 0.428
    2000: 0.462
    2005: 0.469 (most recent year reported; highest coefficient reported

    So the convex nature of the Lorenz Curve is getting more and more pronounced over time. Meaning, the amount of wealth is staying flat for lower incomes while the curve at the “wealthy” end rises more sharply.

    Relative to other countries, we’re in fact one of the worst at maintaining better equality of wealth distribution. In this image, green countries maintain low Gini Coefficients; and the yellow / orange / red, the more disparate the income distribution
    http://bp1.blogger.com/_4un1GP2PSuM/R19gW6qlYQI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/lr3codSUakE/s400/gin+2.bmp

    So if you believe the information from the census bureau, there are a couple of notable issues:

    1. The ‘Land of Opportunity’ does a poor job at creating opportunity, in comparison to many other First World economies
    2. The US Gini coefficient is already high, and the trends are moving further towards distribution of wealth towards the wealthy.

    Why does this matter? Because we can observe countries, like Mexico, where the Gini Coefficient is high. Countries where you have destitute populations with 1-2 rich families, and virtually no middle class. Can’t happen? Check it:
    http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Gini1967.jpg

    Seems that we already have distribution of wealth, but the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the wealthy; and moving moreso in that direction.
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3071/2615230273_780c478395.jpg

    http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/images/wealth_distribution.jpg
    So the question is: Is it inherently wrong (or, if you prefer, Socialist) to try to reverse that trend, or at least flatten it in the direction of the 95% that don’t enjoy that growing advantage?

  98. taxation without (proper statistical) representation » How Does It Know? Says:

    [...] wanted to make a quick post pointing you to this other blog post that compares the McCain tax plan to the Obama tax plan. It takes the popular diagram made by the [...]

  99. jefferino37 Says:

    Also, I cannot figure out how they calculated the average tax cut percent at the bottom of the chart.
    The author of this page suggested the Washington Post simple added up all the percentages and divided by nine, but that gives you:
    Obama: +0.322%
    McCain: -2.133%
    Considering the similarity in the numbers, except for the sign, this suggests that the Wash Post did the sum and divide by 9 calculation, which is bad math to begin with, but made an additional error by getting the sign wrong on the Obama number.

    It seems to me that the proper way to do it is to add up all the percentages from all the brackets, with each one weighted according to population percent that bracket represents.
    From what I gather, the brackets represent: top 0.1%, then 99.9-99%, 99-95%, 95-90% 90-80%, 80-60%, 60-40%, 40-20%, 20-0%.
    The Obama average percent calculation is thus:
    average percent = 0.001*11.5 + 0.009*8.7 + 0.04*0 + 0.05*(-1.9) + 0.1*(-2.1) + 0.2*(-1.8 - 2.4 - 3.6 - 5.5)
    So using this calculation the average percentages are:
    Obama: -2.133%
    McCain: -1.119%
    So, not only are the Wash Post average numbers just wrong, they suggest the opposite of the truth: the average tax cut under Obama’s plan is lower than McCain, by nearly double.

  100. Walkerw Says:

    Wow! You did what I wished I had had time to do when I saw the Washington Post graph. I wanted to use it, so did a simple paste up in a page layout program to modify it in the right direction, but was painfully aware that it was a very partial compensation for the shortcomings of the original.

    Nice site. I went on to your post about the test scores / TV in room vs computer available chart. I guess I’m used to bad charts because the reversal of the expected effect was the FIRST thing I noticed about it, though your commentary about the layout generally, silly grouping, and distracting elements and colors were all apt as well. Your clear dot alternative was nicely fabricated.

  101. The Obama Tax Plan Calculator | Fresh Leads Unite Says:

    [...] may be in a small, culturally if not financially elite demographic, Viveka Welly at chartjunk did a clever, Edwart Tufte-esque redrawing of a Washington Post graphic that charts both the candidates’ tax plans and their [...]

  102. Questions for John McCain « The Liquid Thinker Says:

    [...] is it that after Obama has repeatedly stated, and charts clearly show, that he plans on decreasing taxes (more than you in many cases) for the majority of [...]

  103. kjl Says:

    I like the chart, but the chart is not labeled in any way; it is impossible to tell what it means. The Washington Post chart has a column for “average change in taxes” which is handy, but the overall chart is labeled confusingly (It says “Average percentage change in after-tax income”, which is actually backwards; a negative number in the chart would imply you keep LESS money instead of more).

    e.g. if I make the median income of $50K and currently pay $8800 taxes (I keep $41200) and I look at your chart to see how my taxes change under Obama, I have no idea what -2.4% under Obama’s plan means. Does it mean, as implied by the WPost chart, that my take-home income goes up by 2.4% (I keep $42190 and pay $7810), or my taxes go down by 2.4% of my total income (i keep $42400 and pay $7600), or my taxes go down by 2.4% of what I paid last year (I keep and pay $41400 and pay $8590) ?

    Furthermore, it would help if the Y axis was also labeled - it is not clear if the columns represent actual incomes or if they represent tax brackets. e.g. if I make $50K a year, it is not clear whether I should just look up the number in the $37K - $66K column (-2.4%), or if I have to do the progressive tax bracket thing (subtract 5.5% from the first $19K I made, then subtract 3.6% from the money I made between $19K and $37K, and then subject 2.4% from the money I made between $37K and $55K).

  104. MarkPeppers.com » Tax policy and the candidates Says:

    [...] Check out the following graph from here: [...]

  105. McCain-Palin | theacousticlife.com Says:

    [...] tax cuts for all (see charts here) [...]

  106. Will develop framework for food » Joe, HENRY and taxes Says:

    [...] decrease under McCain’s plan). It is helpful, also, to take a look at that same graph, but with the height of each bar adjusted to reflect the population size of each bracket (from chartj…). One perspective on this is that the Obama tax plan is a nice tax break for the vast majority of [...]

  107. you really don’t want to know » Blog Archive » Fundamentals Says:

    [...] areas, and was reminded just how huge the income gap is between myself and these people. You know that bar graph comparing Obama’s tax proposals to McCain’s? Yeah, that top 0.1% of the richest people [...]

  108. Informatie design Says:

    [...] De tweede is van chart junkie: [...]

  109. McCain & Obama Tax Plans: Small Change | Newsami Says:

    [...] Viveka Weiley redrew Washington Post’s chart of Obama’s and McCain’s respective tax plans. [...]

  110. Jerome Cukier » Flowing Data’s chart contest Says:

    [...] a few words about the design. I took some of the colours from a chart I really liked, by Viveka Weiley. In her chart she uses the MyriadPro font (guess she’s a Mac, but I’m [...]

  111. Vincent Gable » Microsoft Excel Does Not Excel at Graphing Says:

    [...] have a good recommendation for a better software program. The excellent redrawings at the chartjunk blog were done in Adobe Illustrator, according to their metadata (I’ve not heard back from the [...]

  112. Charted Territory Says:

    [...] and sites like chartjunk (and junkcharts) exist to critique charts in the media (and sometimes correct them quite handily). Some business journals regularly feature articles that suggest graphing strategies [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.