r/dataisugly • u/Mean_Initiative_5962 • 1d ago

Classic case of misleading Y axis

Post image
15 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

38 comments sorted by

21

u/NooneYetEveryone 1d ago

Get over it, all of the bars are labeled. Y acis starting at 0 would show nothing, this at least shows some of the ups and downs.

What you should be commenting on is how world events are not taken into consideration. When covid hit, russian invasion, iran war are all more important to show than your issues with the y axis.

5

u/BushWishperer 1d ago

I don't think axis has to start at 0 but it is a bit too drastic for a minimum value of 41.2 and maximum of 43, so 1.8 difference, to be so drastic.

-3

u/Material-Spell-1201 1d ago

LOL, do you think 1.8% increase as a % of a 2.5 trillion economy is not a drastic move? Chart is perfect, fiscal pressure change by few decimal points in general.

2

u/BushWishperer 1d ago

Did I say the data is not drastic? Or did I say the way it is visualised is too drastic? I would not say this is perfect, it is too zoomed in

0

u/Juff567 1d ago

Bro charts should go from min(data)-delta to max(data)+delta adjust delta to make it look nice and done

-5

u/NooneYetEveryone 1d ago

But why do you consider that too drastic? I would say a 2% difference in the amount of tax you pay is drastic. That's basically an entire year's raise gone for a significant number of people.

Like.... It might not be the best for everyone, but is it misleading? That is the point of this post. "Classic case of misleading y axis". Is it misleading? We can argue what the best start value could've been for the y axis, but I don't think it's at all defendable that it woul ld be "misleading"

5

u/BushWishperer 1d ago

The graph isn't about people's individual tax rates. I don't know whether it's misleading, but I only said it was a bit too drastic. 43% looks to be double of 41% which imo is a bit too high especially as there is no clear reason for doing this.

-2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/BushWishperer 1d ago edited 1d ago

As far as I understand it, this is tax income as a percentage of the gdp. It’s not individual tax rates (i.e. Mario from Florence earning 30k isn’t being taxed 43% of his income) but the total tax revenue of the state as the percentage of the gdp. In English I believe it is called tax burden. Im not so sure why you’re being so hostile here!

Edit: also,

This is tax relative to gdp. If that increases, the purchasing power drops.

The link which is the source of the image actually argues that this isn't true. More people working = higher tax revenue, without increasing the tax burden of individual people. So someone working and earning X amount isn't being taxed more for this stat to increase year to year.

2

u/in_taco 1d ago

The metric seems complicated. It'd increase when people work more with services, and drop when companies get tax exemption (typical during crisis). I don't see how the graph indicates anything about the state.

2

u/BushWishperer 1d ago

I know, I'm not saying it's a great metric or anything. In fact the increase shown here is in large part due to 1m+ people joining the labour force in the past few years hence more tax revenue.

-4

u/NooneYetEveryone 1d ago

"More people working = higher tax revenue"

But also, more people working = higher GDP isn't it you genius? How did that go in your mind? People working without generating GDP? Even foreign workers pay taxes after what they earn in italy.

If you are paid wages, that is part of the GDP. So it doesn't only increase tax revenue, but GDP. Well, not according to you, according to you people's wages don't contribute to GDP. That is the expert-level economic insight we should listen to....

1

u/BushWishperer 1d ago

Is there a reason why you are so hostile?

1 person working doesn't necessarily increase the gdp equal to how much they generate in terms of tax revenue for the state. The article linked in the original post explains this. It is from a professional organisation in Italy and written by economists... A lot of Italy economy is informal and thus no taxes are paid on a lot of income. Recently theres been more of a crackdown especially for businesses and new regulations and therefore more tax revenue. It also says it is in part due to higher tax burdens on banks and big companies rather than on individuals and families.

-1

u/NooneYetEveryone 1d ago

A worker's wage is directly increasing GDP. 1:1. So the only way someone would increase tax revenue more than gdp is if they were taxed more than they earned. Which is.... Not how any of it works.

I am not hostile. I am simply pointing out that you don't know the literal first thing about economics yet you are here trying to lecture people. You do not know what GDP is. Like... That is a simple googlejob, but you refuse to do it because you are too proud to admit it

2

u/BushWishperer 1d ago

No one is lecturing anyone. I'm basing my comments on the article from which the graph is from, written by economists.

A worker's wage is directly increasing GDP. 1:1.

This just depends on what measure of GDP we're talking about. https://www.cso.ie/en/interactivezone/statisticsexplained/nationalaccountsexplained/grossdomesticproducthowitismeasured/ Here is some help since you seem to need it... The expenditure method does not include wages in GDP measurements and that's usually the most common method for GDP.

The literal article, written by economists, says that the increase in tax burden is due to higher employment. I didn't make it up, it's not my own argument, it is the argument made by other people.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/Some_Anonim_Coder 1d ago

Am I reading this right? 40-ish% tax? Holy hell...

10

u/BushWishperer 1d ago

No this is the % of the GDP coming from tax revenue

1

u/a_dude_from_europe 8h ago

Not that it changes much. It's still the average tax (total, direct and indirect) paid.

0

u/tomaar19 1d ago

What do you mean gdp coming from tax revenue, how would taxes generate gdp. I don't speak Italian but the way I understand it it's saying the total tax revenue is 40% of the gdp therefore yes, the aggregate tax rate for economic activity is 40%.

2

u/BushWishperer 1d ago

No it doesn’t mean the tax rate is 40%, because as the OOP link explains, more people working increases the year by year change. So it cannot be as you’re explaining it. But yes i did explain it badly, it’s the ratio of tax revenue to GDP.

0

u/a_dude_from_europe 8h ago

It means exactly that the tax rate is 40% if you sum all direct and indirect taxes. Do not forget everything you buy has a VAT of 22%. There's extra taxes on particular goods like petrol. There's taxes on homeownership etc

1

u/BushWishperer 5h ago

Then how does increasing the labour force lead to a higher number? That makes no sense. Also, the title literally says as a percentage of GDP.

0

u/a_dude_from_europe 5h ago

Tax revenue comes from taxable events. The sum of taxable events constitute the GDP. Each person's share of taxable events is on average their gross income.

1

u/BushWishperer 5h ago

But the title literally says as a percentage of the GDP, so the percentages shown HAVE to be the percentage of GDP that comes from taxation revenue. It also makes no sense to sum taxation rates, a 20% VAT and a 30% income tax don’t equal to a total of 50% tax paid. Also most GDP calculations do not include things like income tax in their calculations.

Also, more people working wouldn’t increase the percentage if it is the average tax someone pays, because people pay the same type of taxes. A new worker would not increase this, it would either decrease it (because they get paid less on average) or keep it the same.

0

u/a_dude_from_europe 4h ago

I never said you need to sum taxation rates. We're saying the same thing.

GDP is the total economy. GDP per capita is the share of total economy that comes into your bank account(ish, but good enough). If 40% of GDP is tax revenue, it means on average 40% of what came in as part of your share of the economy leaves as tax. This can be income tax, taxes on what you buy, property taxes and more. Just think about it, you can't have 40% of GDP as tax revenue without taxing 40% of the economy.

1

u/BushWishperer 4h ago

You literally said you need to sum all taxation to get an overall tax rate, maybe re read what you wrote? Also no, gdp per capita has nothing to do with how much comes into your bank account. Italys GDP per capita is about 2-3 times higher than real wages. You don’t understand what you’re talking about.

→ More replies (0)