:The axes choices are not really a major issue in this particular case, as Romney is almost off the chart any way you slice it (and if they the axes choices are a major issue, an axis break symbol could be introduced to indicate that the full axis is not displayed). The more relevant challenge is that there is no context for the graph in the accompanying text. What is the point that the contributor intends to make? Further, if the intent is to show that Romney had by far the greatest income yet paid the lowest tax rate, it is probably worth considering, to be fair, a mention of how tax laws changed over the time period being displayed. In other words, compare apples to apples: If Romney had had the same inflation-adjusted income during Reagan's term as Romney had in 2010, what would his effective tax rate have been under the tax laws in place at that time; or, put another way, if Reagan had had the same inflation-adjusted income in 2010 as he had during his term in office, what would his tax rate have been under the tax laws that were operating in 2010? I haven't looked closely at the source, but I assume that the graph doesn't show that information. If the data are not displayed with that kind of adjustment, there should at least be a mention of that issue in the accompanying text or in a note for the graph.