4 ms·

> A recent post on Reddit's main economic forum included a 2018 graphic that shows Texans pay more taxes than Californians unless they are in the top 1 percent.

> A recent post on Reddit's main economic forum included a 2018 graphic that shows Texans pay more taxes than Californians unless they are in the top 1 percent. Quality journalism right here.

bonestamp2 4y ago
Read the source report for better info: https://itep.org/whopays/ https://itep.org/whopays/
- matt_heimer 4y ago
  The income buckets aren't the same between states but it looks like anyone making 62k (in the top 40%) is better off in Texas. That's a lot different than only the top 1% being better off in Texas. Averaging the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th 20% incoming buckets and dropping 2 other buckets from the top 20% paints an incorrect picture.
ABeeSea 4y ago
Low quality HN post right there.
- ppqqrr 4y ago
  Low quality HN post right there. /s
- guelo 4y ago
  Agree, it's pure adhominem.
  - macspoofing 4y ago
    No, not quite. OP is raising a valid issue, namely reddit is forum where anyone can post anything, so if you want to use a reddit post to support a position, you have to do a little bit of work to verify the accuracy of that information. Also, OP isn't actually saying the information is wrong because its reddit, rather he's saying it's lazy journalism - which it is.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      It is lazy journalism only insofar as the journalist did not eliminate the blogspam by linking to reddit rather than the underlying study. Which is annoying, sure, but does not invalidate the conclusions, and the root comment seems to carry a connotation that the conclusion is not trustworthy on the basis it came from a public forum and not an authoritative source, when really it's just one degree removed.
      - tzs 4y ago
        It links to the underlying study in the paragraph below the graphic.
      - macspoofing 4y ago
        >and the root comment seems to carry a connotation that the conclusion is not trustworthy on the basis it came from a public forum and not an authoritative source Right - because reddit is not inherently trustworthy (even though there are subject-matter experts that post there) > when really it's just one degree removed. Hence, 'lazy journalism' (or the sarcastic 'quality journalism') moniker. They were just one degree removed from an authoritative source, and they didn't bother linking to either the reddit post, or the authoritative source (though hard to tell because of paywall)
    - tzs 4y ago
      The article is not using the Reddit post to support its position. The position support is in the paragraph below the graph from Reddit where it links to the source of the data. All the Reddit post is there for is the handy graph it has that puts Texas and California side-by-side. In the source there are separate pages for each state so if you want a side-by-side comparison of Texas and California you have to make your own graph, or find someone who already did so and use theirs. I don't see anything wrong with doing the latter. From another comment I gather there is a paywall that is stopping some people from seeing the full article. I wonder if that is cutting off the article right below the graph, so some people are not realizing that the article isn't based on the graph from Reddit?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
usui 4y ago
This reminds of news channels quoting tweets by random Twitter users. They could be real, or credible, but even if they are, if I see journalists directly cite Reddit/Twitter, I can't help but think the exact same thought: "Quality journalism right here."
- dimitrios1 4y ago
  It's about the lowest form of credibility one could possibly have. Quoting Wikipedia would be infinitely more credible, and even then, Wikipedia itself tells you not to use it is not a reliable source, and not to use it as such.
  - the8472 4y ago
    Would anonymous sources be more credible? Because they could always be anonymized.
- duskwuff 4y ago
  To be fair, the article immediately continued by referencing the actual source of the image...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
timbit42 4y ago
"The graphic is of data from the sixth edition of the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy's "Who Pays" series, which tracks tax data for all 50 states and Washington, D.C."

> A recent post on Reddit's main economic forum included a 2018 graphic that shows Texans pay more taxes than Californians unless they are in the top 1 percent. Quality journalism right here.

bonestamp2 4y ago

Read the source report for better info: https://itep.org/whopays/ https://itep.org/whopays/

matt_heimer 4y ago
The income buckets aren't the same between states but it looks like anyone making 62k (in the top 40%) is better off in Texas. That's a lot different than only the top 1% being better off in Texas. Averaging the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th 20% incoming buckets and dropping 2 other buckets from the top 20% paints an incorrect picture.

ABeeSea 4y ago

Low quality HN post right there.

ppqqrr 4y ago
Low quality HN post right there. /s
guelo 4y ago
Agree, it's pure adhominem.
- macspoofing 4y ago
  No, not quite. OP is raising a valid issue, namely reddit is forum where anyone can post anything, so if you want to use a reddit post to support a position, you have to do a little bit of work to verify the accuracy of that information. Also, OP isn't actually saying the information is wrong because its reddit, rather he's saying it's lazy journalism - which it is.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    It is lazy journalism only insofar as the journalist did not eliminate the blogspam by linking to reddit rather than the underlying study. Which is annoying, sure, but does not invalidate the conclusions, and the root comment seems to carry a connotation that the conclusion is not trustworthy on the basis it came from a public forum and not an authoritative source, when really it's just one degree removed.
    - tzs 4y ago
      It links to the underlying study in the paragraph below the graphic.
    - macspoofing 4y ago
      >and the root comment seems to carry a connotation that the conclusion is not trustworthy on the basis it came from a public forum and not an authoritative source Right - because reddit is not inherently trustworthy (even though there are subject-matter experts that post there) > when really it's just one degree removed. Hence, 'lazy journalism' (or the sarcastic 'quality journalism') moniker. They were just one degree removed from an authoritative source, and they didn't bother linking to either the reddit post, or the authoritative source (though hard to tell because of paywall)
  - tzs 4y ago
    The article is not using the Reddit post to support its position. The position support is in the paragraph below the graph from Reddit where it links to the source of the data. All the Reddit post is there for is the handy graph it has that puts Texas and California side-by-side. In the source there are separate pages for each state so if you want a side-by-side comparison of Texas and California you have to make your own graph, or find someone who already did so and use theirs. I don't see anything wrong with doing the latter. From another comment I gather there is a paywall that is stopping some people from seeing the full article. I wonder if that is cutting off the article right below the graph, so some people are not realizing that the article isn't based on the graph from Reddit?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

usui 4y ago

This reminds of news channels quoting tweets by random Twitter users. They could be real, or credible, but even if they are, if I see journalists directly cite Reddit/Twitter, I can't help but think the exact same thought: "Quality journalism right here."

dimitrios1 4y ago
It's about the lowest form of credibility one could possibly have. Quoting Wikipedia would be infinitely more credible, and even then, Wikipedia itself tells you not to use it is not a reliable source, and not to use it as such.
- the8472 4y ago
  Would anonymous sources be more credible? Because they could always be anonymized.
duskwuff 4y ago
To be fair, the article immediately continued by referencing the actual source of the image...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

timbit42 4y ago

"The graphic is of data from the sixth edition of the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy's "Who Pays" series, which tracks tax data for all 50 states and Washington, D.C."