{"id":827,"date":"2012-12-02T17:31:32","date_gmt":"2012-12-02T23:31:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nathanhunstad.com\/blog\/?p=827"},"modified":"2013-02-09T12:14:16","modified_gmt":"2013-02-09T18:14:16","slug":"historical-tax-incidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nathanhunstad.com\/blog\/2012\/12\/historical-tax-incidence\/","title":{"rendered":"Historical Tax Incidence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Note: These graphs have been corrected in the 2012 Tax Incidence<\/a> post.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I like analysis, and I like tax policy. Put the two together, as I\u2019ve done before<\/a>, and it\u2019s a pretty sweet time. But I have a lot of numbers at my disposal, much more than the past couple of years. So because I had little better to do, I decided to calculate my tax incidence for the time I\u2019ve been working, which is a very long time indeed. All the details after the jump.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been tracking my income and expenses in Quicken forever (despite it being terrible software<\/a>), so I could pretty easily figure out my tax burdens. Income taxes and payroll taxes were easy. Property taxes were difficult due to renting: I used an estimate of 15% of rent towards property taxes, less than the 17% calculated on the Minnesota Property Tax Refund. Sales taxes were also somewhat dicey, as I had to estimate based on various categories of spending. Ditto for the liquor tax, which I included simply because it was easy to do so. Gas tax was also easy: in addition to monitoring my spending, I\u2019ve been monitoring my gas consumption forever too.<\/p>\n

The end result is a pretty interesting, and volatile, total tax burden:<\/p>\n

\"chart_3\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Which breaks down like this:<\/p>\n

\"image\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Clearly, federal income taxes are the most volatile. Some years I pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, others the reverse. Here\u2019s a cumulative shot:<\/p>\n

\"image\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Another thing I did was break it down by state taxes only:<\/p>\n

\"image\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This pretty closely matches the MN Tax Incidence Study<\/a>. My rates are a couple percentage points below the study, since I didn\u2019t include indirect taxes like the individual portion of the corporate income tax, and so forth. There\u2019s simple no way I would have been able to calculate that.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not sure what all of this means, but I find it interesting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Note: These graphs have been corrected in the 2012 Tax Incidence post. I like analysis, and I like tax policy. Put the two together, as I\u2019ve done before, and it\u2019s a pretty sweet time. But I have a lot of numbers at my disposal, much more than the past couple of years. So because I… Continue reading Historical Tax Incidence<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[188,26],"tags":[54,116],"class_list":["post-827","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-money","category-personal","tag-tax-incidence","tag-taxes","entry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t