Deceive the Children: NYT 'Learning Network' Frames Federal Income Tax Rate Extension as Benefiting 'Especially the Wealthy'
A New York Times "Learning Network" graphic informs us that under the proposed Obama-GOP tax and spending compromise, "rates will not change for at least two years for anyone."
Wow. Somebody at the Learning Network needs to tell the Old Gray Lady's beat reporters, editorial board, and opinion columnists. Just today, reporter Helene Cooper, in noting how Vice President Joe Biden is playing a "bigger role" in the administration (translation: picking up the pieces from President Obama's disastrous ongoing alienation of anyone and everyone, friend and foe alike), twice refers to the compromise as involving "tax cuts." Cooper's defenders may claim that the Times reporter is partially referring to the proposed one-year reduction in the Social Security payroll tax from 6.2% to 4.2%, but that's not a contentious issue at the moment (though given how broke the Social Security really is, it should be). Federal income tax rates for 2011 and beyond are.
Anyway, as far as the Learning Network is concerned, so far, so good. But then it commits its own unforced error:
Who Benefits? All taxpayers, but especially high-income households, which had faced a new, higher rate.
Gosh, it's as if no one but "high-income households" would face "a new, higher rate" if nothing is done between now and the end of the year. Not only is that not true, but the rate increases at lower income levels would hit them proportionally harder:
- The lowest current rate of 10% would rise to 15%. Household affected by this "new, higher rate" would see their tax bills rise by 50%, and the additional money sent to the government would be much more likely to cause those households to have to make difficult spending choices relating to what most people would see as "necessities." Even far-lefty Lawrence O'Donnell at MSNBC understands this.
- By contrast, the rate on higher incomes would rise from 35% to 39.6%, a 13% increase. Obviously, more dollars are involved here, and there would be no shortage of required spending cutbacks; but the point is that this "new, higher rate" is not a unique problem for "high-income households."
Not to say that the impact on high-earners is unimportant, but in terms of their percentage effect on tax bills and their impact on household spending decisions, the "new, higher rates" that would apply to everyone if nothing is done would hit lower- and middle-income taxpayers harder.
If this is the best the Times's Learning Network can do, the teachers relying on the information and the schoolchildren receiving said "learning" are better off looking elsewhere for accurate guidance.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Life's lesson
Submitted by locomotivebreath1901 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:38am.
All taxpayers benefit, "but especially high-income households, which had faced a new, higher rate."
And you know what boys n girls? It's nobody's effing business because IT'S THEIR MONEY!
It's an idea called 'private property', and very special in a free society where adults get to act like adults; not like little children where mean ol' uncle Sam abuses them, and won't let them have any fun.
Bad Uncle Sam. Bad!
So next time Nancy botox or Harry sour puss shows their scary mug on TV, RUN AWAY, and tell an adult that bad person wants to touch your private part - your wallet!
Liberty is good. Liberty is your friend. Vote Liberty.
Nitey-nite.
so nobody else had a higher tax rate....???
Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:51am.
What disingenuous BS... but the consider the source.
could some body
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:10pm.
show how often the media said the Bush tax cuts were for the wealthy , they never call them out on how big the middle class tax cut from Bush really was.
I wish fthese folks would make up their minds
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:11pm.
Is it a significant gift to the rich, or are we talking about amounts so small they don't need it, and won't even notice?
Phantom "tax cuts"
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:42pm.
So according to Biden (and the rest talking about "tax cuts"), if an employer considers reducing his employee's salaries but then decided to keep them where they are, he is justified in bragging about how he gave all his employees a pay raise.
And if your utility company considers raising your rates and decides not to, they can include a note with your next bill explaining how they just reduced your utility costs.
Got it.
Utility company analogy
Submitted by yutsnark on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:35pm.
I don't think that's the correct analogy. Better would be: Your utility company, under its former administration, gave you a ten year discount on your gas bill. After the ten years are up, the current administration decides to extend that discount for another two years. You can say they decided not to raise your rates, and you'd be right. They can say they geave you a two year discount, and they would also be right.
Oh do shut up idiot.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:41pm.
Name one utility company EVER that handed out decade long discounts. Name one utility company EVER that handed out discounts at all.
Idiot trolls think they can come here and talk about utility companies giving out discounts. How STUPID do you have to be to think we are that STUPID we will buy your brainless analogy.
Who have you EVER convinced with the vapid stupidity that you spew? WHO? TELL US. Name someone. Now. NAME SOMEONE YOU HAVE ACTUALLY CONVINCED OF ANYTHING.
~Hmmm
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:53pm.
He's convinced me he's a useful idiot. Does that count?
yutsnark
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:59am.
OK, here's a quiz. The following represent bill amounts for a utility for six consecutive months:
$54.35 $54.35 $54.35 $54.35 $54.35 $54.35
Question: Did the recipient of these bills receive a "discount" and, if so, during which month(s) did he receive them?
Not enough information. He
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 5:13am.
Not enough information. He might have received a discount for all those months, or for none of them. Possibly the rates were raised to $64.35 after the third month, and thereafter he received a $10 discount each month.
yutsnark, This morning I
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 3:00am.
yutsnark,
This morning I woke up and decided to give all the kids in my classes an F.
But at the last moment, I decided to give them grades based on how well they actually did.
I suppose I should get credit for all the kids who didn't get F's, right?
You want "credit" for the
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 11:48am.
You want "credit" for the kids that didn't get "F's"? What kind of credit are you referring to?
hydrodyn
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 12:02pm.
Maybe I can clarify.
I believe you're saying that the government thought about raising taxes, but instead decided to keep them the same -- and this is not the equivalent of a tax cut.
But keep in mind that the Bush tax cuts were set to expire this year. I.e., they were not designed to cut taxes beyond 2010. The present legislation does that.
It can be looked at either way. The glass is half empty, or half full.
Not true
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 12:11pm.
They were designed to be permanent, but the only way to get them passed was to put a sunset date on them, with the expectation that they'd be extended or made permanent at some future date.
Try again.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Yes, in the history of the
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 1:08pm.
Yes, in the history of the legislation, there were some people who wanted the tax cuts to be permanent. There were also some people who wanted them to apply only to the middle class. Some wanted them bigger, some wanted them smaller. By majority rule, it was determined that the tax cuts would be temporary, and that's the law that was passed. Extending them beyond 2010 is a new plan. That's why congress had to vote again.
Perspective
Submitted by Nonanon on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:03pm.
Has anyone generated a report showing how much each income bracket currently generates in tax revenues vs what the higher rates would? I know there are more variables in the equation, but it seems it would provide something more people could wrap their head around and see the consequences rather than using their emotions as liberals tend to do to stir up class envy (another sin of the flesh by the way). I know Rush has a spot on his site stating what percentage of the total taxes the top 1, 25, and 50% pay, but it doesn't give income amounts so people could see where they fall in how much they pay compared to others and how much impact the rates might have on the big picture. So many numbers are just thrown out there with no context.
But the bigger issue is that the government has to stop spending more than they bring in. You will never succeed if you don't fix that issue.
On the subject of succeeding, with Obama having succeeded on so many of his projects, do most people think it has been a good thing? After all, there was so much outrage when Rush mentioned he wanted O's policies to fail. In hindsight, do they think America is better off with his success?
Why don't we call their BS
Submitted by Apache on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:47pm.
Why don't we call their BS and insist on a Wealth Tax and lower income tax. That will shut up the populist rhetoric from Buffet, Gates, and a few politicians and force liberals up against reality.
Tell the truth - they would be Democrat tax increases
Submitted by In_Awe on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:08pm.
The current tax rates have been in place for ten years! Ten Years! The media has bought the Dem claptrap about the "Bush Tax Cuts" and by not letting current tax rates revert to rates in place under Clinton we are giving tax cuts to the wealthy. When does something that has been in place for a decade cease being some contemporary issue?
By not agreeing to KEEP THE RATES THE SAME AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOR 10 YEARS, the DEMS ARE WILLING TO INSTITUTE TAX INCREASES on EVERYONE. (and yes, I know I am shouting...).
This isn't rocket science. Sheesh!
The tax cuts were scheduled
Submitted by yutsnark on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 10:32pm.
The tax cuts were scheduled to expire this year. Hence, extending them constitutes a change in the status quo.
Huh?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 10:34pm.
Extending them constitutes a continuation of the status quo. Sheesh.
Indeed. I stand corrected.
Submitted by yutsnark on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 10:47pm.
Indeed. I stand corrected. A change of plans, but a continuation of the status quo.
About those tax rates...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 5:59am.
Let's keep in mind one very significant fact: The Democrats were more than willing--in fact they actually proposed legislation--to retain the current tax rates for everyone with the exception of those earning in excess of one million dollars per year who would see their rate restored from 35% to 39.6%.
Senate Republicans blocked that proposal. If multi-millionaires were going to "suffer", then everybody would suffer along with them.
Jer
About those tax rates ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:57am.
... what horsecrap.
It's bad enough that the tax system already forces people with higher incomes in any given year to pay a far larger percentage of their income to the government than others.
What moral justification is there for distorting that even further? Remember, they are already paying far more into the system than others (and would be doing so even under a flat tax), to a point where no one can reasonably argue that they are somehow disproportionately benefiting.
Conversely, if you buy the argument (which I don't) that the government can't afford to do without the money, what moral justification is there for enabling everyone but those in dire poverty in the other 98% of the population to get by without "suffering" to some extent?