Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46424)	6/9/2004 1:58:34 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

STAT ERROR MAKES KRUGMAN "THE GREAT EXAGGERATOR" I'll be writing extensively about Krugman's column yesterday on Ronald Reagan, "The Great Taxer." pkarchive.org For the moment, let me just say that it contains a flat-out statistical error that could have been caught by even the most cursory fact-checking -- except that the New York Times has admitted that no one fact-checks Krugman's columns. Krugman writes, "In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down." You can see the Congressional Budget Office estimates for yourself at this link. Scroll down to table 2A, and look in the second panel, titled "Effective Individual Income Tax Rate." cbo.gov You will see that all of Krugman’s numbers can be verified in the table, except for the first one. The number cited as 8.2% should really be 8.7%. Krugman pulled the 8.2% number from the wrong column, representing 1979, rather than 1980. And what do you know. The use of the incorrect number exaggerates the net increase in personal taxes by a factor of 350%. The correct increase is 0.2 percent -- or essentially zero -- but Krugman states it as 0.7 percent, because of the wrong year cited. Funny, isn't it, that somehow all of Krugman’s errors always seem to work in the direction of exaggerating his point. "Donald L. Luskin"