Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   NY Times: "Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in Reagan 80s." With many stats and graphs comparing today's rates with those in 1980. Who wants to be the one to tell them Reagan was inaugurated in 1981?   (nytimes.com) divider line 73
    More: Dumbass, tax burden, factory town, property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, median household income  
•       •       •

1883 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-30 10:20:01 AM  
And corporate taxes - ultimately paid by people - have declined.

I need to sit down. The New York Times finally figured it out.
 
2012-11-30 10:23:27 AM  
NY Times, the Gawker of Old Media
 
2012-11-30 10:44:39 AM  
FTA:

Alan Hicks divides long days between the insurance business he started in the late 1970s and the barbecue restaurant he opened with his sons three years ago. He earned more than $250,000 last year and said taxes took more than 40 percent.

Note the weasel word "taxes" not income taxes, but all taxes. And yes, if he includes sales tax, property tax, payroll tax and gas taxes, 40% could be accurate. But 40% in income tax? No, that did not happen.

Carry on.

"It feels like the harder we work, the more they take from us," said Mr. Hicks, 55, as he waited for a meat truck one recent afternoon. "And it seems like there's an awful lot of people in the United States who don't pay any taxes."

And an awful lot of people in the United States don't make as much money as you do. Why not quit your barbecue restaurant business and make below the poverty line at a minimum wage job? Then you could pay nothing like they do. Oh, what's that? You don't like that idea? I can't possibly imagine why.

Carry on.

Households earning more than $200,000 benefited from the largest percentage declines in total taxation as a share of income. Middle-income households benefited, too. More than 85 percent of households with earnings above $25,000 paid less in total taxes than comparable households in 1980.

Amazing, Mr. Hicks and the rest of his "we pay too much" ilk are full of sh*t.

Thanks for playing.
 
2012-11-30 10:46:55 AM  
NY Times: "Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in Reagan 80s." With many stats and graphs comparing today's rates with those in 1980. Who wants to be the one to tell them Reagan was inaugurated in 1981?

Uhh, subby? Isn't 1981 considered part of the 80's?
 
2012-11-30 10:47:02 AM  
You'd rather they show the graphs proving that St. Ronnie raises taxes from their 1980 levels?
 
2012-11-30 10:48:17 AM  
This is the most stupefying headline of the week, for sure.
 
2012-11-30 10:50:21 AM  

Karac: NY Times: "Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in Reagan 80s." With many stats and graphs comparing today's rates with those in 1980. Who wants to be the one to tell them Reagan was inaugurated in 1981?

Uhh, subby? Isn't 1981 considered part of the 80's?


Thank you for saving me the trouble.

/Dumbassmitter, they said Regan's 80s. Not Regan's 1980.
 
2012-11-30 10:50:23 AM  
Um, Subby is an idiot.

Quote from the article:

To analyze the total burden, The Times created a model, in consultation with experts, which estimated total tax bills for each taxpayer in each year from 1980, when the election of President Ronald Reagan opened an era of tax cutting, up to 2010, the most recent year for which relevant data is available.
 
2012-11-30 10:51:37 AM  
Sure subby. TFA made a 'president must have had a time machine' mistake, because their comparison between 1980 and now was only two points, with one from before Reagan.

Oh wait! It'd didn't, It has graphs including the intermediate years. It also contains the text "Savings from federal income tax cuts in 1981 and 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, eroded as other taxes increased.".

Seems like more of a subby headline fail than a NYT fail.
 
2012-11-30 10:53:13 AM  

cman: NY Times, the Gawker of Old Media


I'll accept that if you accept that the WSJ is the NAMBLA newsletter of Old Media.
 
2012-11-30 10:53:23 AM  
So, basically what subtard is saying is that Jimmy Carter was a Teabagger's wet dream?

10/10 for originality. 

potato/10 for accuracy.
 
2012-11-30 10:55:05 AM  
Okay, the Times changed the headline.

Original headline, at the time of submission (also seen on the front page of today's paper): "Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in Reagan 80s." Followed by a long list of graphs comparing today with 1980, which, of course, has nothing to do with the "Reagan 80s."

Current headline: "Complaints Aside, Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in 1980."

Yes, the above headline would be bad, and would qualify for "dumbassmitter" status, had the Times originally said what they say now. However, that's not what it said at the time of submission, and if you don't believe me, check the paper version.

/subby
//I guess someone broke the news to them
 
2012-11-30 10:55:07 AM  
You see, the NY Times uses these amazing things called "Charts". By using charts, they can present data that compares not just 1980 and 2010, but all the years between too!
 
2012-11-30 10:57:49 AM  
Didn't Reagan raise taxes after he got in anyway?
 
2012-11-30 10:58:00 AM  

Rev.K:

Households earning more than $200,000 benefited from the largest percentage declines in total taxation as a share of income. Middle-income households benefited, too. More than 85 percent of households with earnings above $25,000 paid less in total taxes than comparable households in 1980.

Amazing, Mr. Hicks and the rest of his "we pay too much" ilk are full of sh*t.

Thanks for playing.


Note also that $25k today is a damn sight less money than in 1980 (or 1985 even, for subby's sake).
 
2012-11-30 10:58:45 AM  
Subby is a perfect example of what happens when a political movement declares war on thinking.
 
2012-11-30 10:59:01 AM  
Nice work Freepmitter. You get my vote for the dumbest headline of the year
 
2012-11-30 10:59:22 AM  

Truncks1: Didn't Reagan raise taxes after he got in anyway?


Reagan cut taxes his first and last years in office. He raised taxes 11 times in between.
 
2012-11-30 11:00:47 AM  
It amazes me that so few Americans know that the top marginal rate was still at 50% in 1986. That fact alone should pretty much destroy the arguments against raising that rate back to the "Clinton era" rate of 39%, going forward.
 
2012-11-30 11:00:52 AM  

Rev.K: Amazing, Mr. Hicks and the rest of his "we pay too much" ilk are full of sh*t.


Whether the taxes are high or low is only part of the picture. The key question is whether somebody can make an informed call on whether they're getting their money's worth.

And Mr. Hicks is working from Illinois, which is positively legendary for incompetence, business-unfriendliness, wastefulness and corruption. Four of the last nine governors are/were in prison for being thieving scum.

You should be able to get what you paid for without also having to buy legislators on top of what you paid in taxes.
 
2012-11-30 11:02:05 AM  
The uneven decline is a result of two trends. Congress cut federal taxation at every income level over the last 30 years. State and local taxes, meanwhile, increased for most Americans. Those taxes generally take a larger share of income from those who make less, so the increases offset more and more of the federal savings at lower levels of income.

This is why you have these guys/gals that are genuinely have a gripe about their taxes but they are directing at the wrong people. The people that want to force raises in regressive taxes and an increase in user based fees are the republicans.
 
2012-11-30 11:05:00 AM  
The NY Times headline changed after dumbassmitter submitted this, but considering that the entire four pages and the graph itself are about how taxes started to fall BEGINNING with Reagan, the only way this idiotic headline on Fark makes any sense is if the person who submitted it only read the NY Times headline and then raced off to post this derp.
 
2012-11-30 11:05:04 AM  

A lot of confusion about our headline today. The tax burden for most Americans is lower now than in 1980 AND 1981 AND 1982 AND 1983 etc.

- Binyamin Appelbaum (@BCAppelbaum) November 30, 2012
 
2012-11-30 11:05:06 AM  

cman: NY Times, the Gawker of Old Media


Well, they are the flagship of fartbongo's liebral-media-conspiracy-armada-of-doom. Romney landslide! suck it libs!
 
2012-11-30 11:06:23 AM  
From TFA's data page:
And corporate taxes - ultimately paid by people - have declined.

Um. wait, I thought "Corporations are people, my friend", so why the "ultimately"?

But its a sucky observation, it should be 'And corporate taxes - ultimately paid by their customers - have declined.'

Because it is unlikely the population of the entire country are their customers. And some customers can be international.

So why cut their taxes on some imagined theory that the same group of people will pay regardless? Corporate taxes should be viewed as cost of business for maintaining national infrastructure. As such, it should be passed to their customers, regardless of where they live. If you want to be a market purist, then passed to JUST their customers.

Corporate taxcuts are just corporate welfare. To pay for their Cadillacs and lobster.

/Ok, they'd probably buy BMWs and Hummers before Cadillacs
 
2012-11-30 11:08:11 AM  

sunspotter: cman: NY Times, the Gawker of Old Media

I'll accept that if you accept that the WSJ is the NAMBLA newsletter of Old Media.


Where does that leave Business Insider?
 
2012-11-30 11:09:11 AM  
Complaints Aside, Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in 1980
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM and ROBERT GEBELOFF


By the way, the reporter here, is he related to Bonita?
 
2012-11-30 11:10:49 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Where does that leave Business Insider?


Jerkin' it in the corner?
 
2012-11-30 11:13:06 AM  

sunspotter: cman: NY Times, the Gawker of Old Media

I'll accept that if you accept that the WSJ is the NAMBLA newsletter of Old Media.


I don't know about that. Does NAMBLA advocate drowning children in bathtubs?
 
2012-11-30 11:14:01 AM  

Super Chronic: Yes, the above headline would be bad, and would qualify for "dumbassmitter" status, had the Times originally said what they say now. However, that's not what it said at the time of submission, and if you don't believe me, check the paper version.


Lifelong Times subscriber here, looking at the paper version right now.

The article is correct. The original headline was correct. The altered headline is also correct.

Maybe it's time to switch to Regular Chronic?
 
2012-11-30 11:14:18 AM  

Gulper Eel: Whether the taxes are high or low is only part of the picture. The key question is whether somebody can make an informed call on whether they're getting their money's worth.


Well, seeing as how Mr. Hicks can't see that his tax burden is lower than 30 years ago, I don't trust any call he's going to make on whether or not he's getting his money's worth.
 
2012-11-30 11:14:48 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: And corporate taxes - ultimately paid by people - have declined.


What does ultimately paid by the people even mean? A cut in corporate tax rates wouldn't lower the cost of goods if people already purchase those goods at their current cost.
 
2012-11-30 11:18:20 AM  

Arkanaut: sunspotter: cman: NY Times, the Gawker of Old Media

I'll accept that if you accept that the WSJ is the NAMBLA newsletter of Old Media.

I don't know about that. Does NAMBLA advocate drowning children in bathtubs?


Drowning? No.
 
2012-11-30 11:20:30 AM  
"And it seems like there's an awful lot of people in the United States who don't pay any taxes."

You mean like the low-paid restaurant workers you employ, Alan?
 
2012-11-30 11:20:54 AM  
You know what, guys? Yes, I farked up. I submitted it in haste. Again, it wasn't as bad as the current headline would make it look, and yes, the article does give us a lot of anecdotes from 1980, but the submission was ill-advised. I am by no means a freeper/teabagger. I just found what I perceived as inaccuracy from the Paper of Record to be amusing.

There. I feel better. How often do you see that around here?
 
2012-11-30 11:22:13 AM  
So, now that Obama has won reelection, by the time he leaves office, he will have been president for as long as Reagan.

/ Kind of wish I could have poked some people like that after the election.
 
2012-11-30 11:24:36 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: From TFA's data page:
And corporate taxes - ultimately paid by people - have declined.

Um. wait, I thought "Corporations are people, my friend", so why the "ultimately"?

But its a sucky observation, it should be 'And corporate taxes - ultimately paid by their customers - have declined.'

Because it is unlikely the population of the entire country are their customers. And some customers can be international.

So why cut their taxes on some imagined theory that the same group of people will pay regardless? Corporate taxes should be viewed as cost of business for maintaining national infrastructure. As such, it should be passed to their customers, regardless of where they live. If you want to be a market purist, then passed to JUST their customers.

Corporate taxcuts are just corporate welfare. To pay for their Cadillacs and lobster.

/Ok, they'd probably buy BMWs and Hummers before Cadillacs


For the record, corporate income taxes are not paid by customers. They are paid by shareholders, which is to say that they are paid by the owners - the very people who ought to be paying.
 
2012-11-30 11:24:39 AM  

Super Chronic: You know what, guys? Yes, I farked up. I submitted it in haste. Again, it wasn't as bad as the current headline would make it look, and yes, the article does give us a lot of anecdotes from 1980, but the submission was ill-advised. I am by no means a freeper/teabagger. I just found what I perceived as inaccuracy from the Paper of Record to be amusing.

There. I feel better. How often do you see that around here?


pussy. DEFEND! :)
 
2012-11-30 11:32:15 AM  

Super Chronic: You know what, guys? Yes, I farked up. I submitted it in haste. Again, it wasn't as bad as the current headline would make it look, and yes, the article does give us a lot of anecdotes from 1980, but the submission was ill-advised. I am by no means a freeper/teabagger. I just found what I perceived as inaccuracy from the Paper of Record to be amusing.

There. I feel better. How often do you see that around here?


People like you make me sick. You're no better then the people from the Neutral Planet.
 
2012-11-30 11:33:11 AM  

BMulligan: For the record, corporate income taxes are not paid by customers. They are paid by shareholders, which is to say that they are paid by the owners - the very people who ought to be paying.


Since I was the one who injected the word 'customers', I wish to point out I said 'passed to', not 'paid by'.

As in factored into the cost of doing business, which is a factor in determining the price paid by customers.

If you just amplifying on my comment, well, ok..
 
2012-11-30 11:34:12 AM  
I have no problem with paying taxes and am in favor of returning to Clinton rates. Sometimes, though, I look at the overall tax burden and in an admittedly appeal to incredulity logical fallacy moment, do we really have to give 40+% of our total income up to run this country? It just seems like such huge number.
 
2012-11-30 11:35:53 AM  

Apocalyptic Inferno: I have no problem with paying taxes and am in favor of returning to Clinton rates. Sometimes, though, I look at the overall tax burden and in an admittedly appeal to incredulity logical fallacy moment, do we really have to give 40+% of our total income up to run this country? It just seems like such huge number.


Think of all the fun stuff the government does, though!
 
2012-11-30 11:36:16 AM  
-10 to Subby for not mentioning pic of totally hittable waitress.
 
2012-11-30 11:38:06 AM  

Super Chronic: You know what, guys? Yes, I farked up. I submitted it in haste. Again, it wasn't as bad as the current headline would make it look, and yes, the article does give us a lot of anecdotes from 1980, but the submission was ill-advised. I am by no means a freeper/teabagger. I just found what I perceived as inaccuracy from the Paper of Record to be amusing.

There. I feel better. How often do you see that around here?


But you dun goofed! We were almost done backtracing you!

/internet police
 
2012-11-30 11:38:18 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Super Chronic: You know what, guys? Yes, I farked up. I submitted it in haste. Again, it wasn't as bad as the current headline would make it look, and yes, the article does give us a lot of anecdotes from 1980, but the submission was ill-advised. I am by no means a freeper/teabagger. I just found what I perceived as inaccuracy from the Paper of Record to be amusing.

There. I feel better. How often do you see that around here?

People like you make me sick. You're no better then the people from the Neutral Planet.


I get that a lot.
 
2012-11-30 11:53:45 AM  
Came to call subby an idiot as 80s != 1980 only, but I see you guys are already on the case, carry on.
 
2012-11-30 12:03:22 PM  
The Times created a model, in consultation with experts, which estimated total tax bills for each taxpayer in each year from 1980

Ok Mr Whistleteeth. How much did I pay in 1989?
 
2012-11-30 12:16:16 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: BMulligan: For the record, corporate income taxes are not paid by customers. They are paid by shareholders, which is to say that they are paid by the owners - the very people who ought to be paying.

Since I was the one who injected the word 'customers', I wish to point out I said 'passed to', not 'paid by'.

As in factored into the cost of doing business, which is a factor in determining the price paid by customers.

If you just amplifying on my comment, well, ok..


No, that's wrong. Corporate income taxes are not passed along to customers. Pricing does not work that way. It's true that taxes may, depending on circumstances, have some impact on prices by shifting the supply curve, but in most cases any such impact is likely to be minimal. Remember, if the market will bear a higher price, any competently managed firm will already be charging the higher price.
 
2012-11-30 12:17:15 PM  

JerseyTim: A lot of confusion about our headline today. The tax burden for most Americans is lower now than in 1980 AND 1981 AND 1982 AND 1983 etc.- Binyamin Appelbaum (@BCAppelbaum) November 30, 2012


Is that 'and' as in 'the sum of 1980 + 1981 + 1982..'. or as in '1980 or 1981 or 1982....'?
 
2012-11-30 12:22:47 PM  

BMulligan: Remember, if the market will bear a higher price, any competently managed firm will already be charging the higher price.

 

Taxes however don't differentiate between suppliers and change the nature of the market as a whole, potentially causing them all to raise prices.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report