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.

(Esquire)   The Wall Street Journal explains how Obama's tax increases will hurt a typical single mom with a salary of $225K and investment income of $35K   (esquire.com) divider line 272
    More: Asinine, Wall Street Journal, obama, single-parent, ancient Greeks  
•       •       •

4170 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jan 2013 at 3:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-16 08:23:51 PM
I'm glad somebody in MSM has the balls to cover this under-reported travesty.
 
2013-01-16 08:27:02 PM
Farking Obama!!
 
2013-01-16 08:31:42 PM
Socialism at work people. Hope you're happy.
 
2013-01-16 08:46:14 PM
the hell?
 
2013-01-16 08:50:43 PM
At least Esquire points out how the WSJ used a black couple as the ones who would not be affected by the tax change.

No racism there, no-siree.
 
2013-01-16 09:37:31 PM
www.esquire.com

Did someone actually think that the people in this graphic would come across as sympathetic characters? really?
 
2013-01-16 09:47:21 PM

Dinki: [www.esquire.com image 614x408]

Did someone actually think that the people in this graphic would come across as sympathetic characters? really?


Take away the numbers and you might.  You have a mother who is clearly beaten down and tired, probably because she's still breastfeeding the boy, who won't let go of her titty. The Asian chick is hella ugly and cross-eyed, which must make her professional life difficult.  The four kids all have blond hair, so that poor man clearly isn't the father of his own children.  And finally, you have a man whose wife won't let him dress himself, because no self-respecting male would wear a sweater tie over a pink polo  shirt.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 10:10:04 PM

Dinki: Did someone actually think that the people in this graphic would come across as sympathetic characters? really?


$260K and worrying about a couple grand extra in taxes?  My wife and I make less than that (combined) and we could effortlessly handle that size tax increase.
 
2013-01-16 11:14:49 PM
That this actually survived multiple editorial levels is mind boggling.
 
2013-01-16 11:36:46 PM

kronicfeld: That this actually survived multiple editorial levels is mind boggling.


The order to create this came down through multiple editorial levels. It's not like it's a f*cking accident.
 
2013-01-16 11:43:41 PM

Dinki: [www.esquire.com image 614x408]

Did someone actually think that the people in this graphic would come across as sympathetic characters? really?


Notice the black folks' taxes DON'T go up.

OBAAAMAAA
 
2013-01-16 11:59:33 PM

Relatively Obscure: Dinki: [www.esquire.com image 614x408]

Did someone actually think that the people in this graphic would come across as sympathetic characters? really?

Notice the black folks' taxes DON'T go up.

OBAAAMAAA


And what's with the black guys pants?

/those look... mooslum
 
2013-01-17 12:12:55 AM
UiH explains repeat threads.

Link
 
2013-01-17 12:14:50 AM
The reason the black couple look sad is because they're not white.
 
2013-01-17 12:15:34 AM
Jesus fkn Christ some people are so ridiculously out of touch.

Can't wait for the FARK teabagger krew to show up and explain how that poor single lady just eeking out a living on $168,317 after taxes is going to be completely wrecked by having to somehow make it on a mere $165,410.

She'll have to make soup out of her old shoes!
 
2013-01-17 12:15:53 AM
Doesnt Wall Street Journal skew more towards middle class? Its bad that they assume their readers are such?
 
2013-01-17 12:21:00 AM

Relatively Obscure: Dinki: [www.esquire.com image 614x408]

Did someone actually think that the people in this graphic would come across as sympathetic characters? really?

Notice the black folks' taxes DON'T go up.

OBAAAMAAA


Yeah, that's a nice subtle touch.
 
2013-01-17 12:22:01 AM

cman: Doesnt Wall Street Journal skew more towards middle class? Its bad that they assume their readers are such?


Oh, yeah...I forgot that anything up to $500,000 is middle-class around here.
 
2013-01-17 12:24:06 AM

Lionel Mandrake: cman: Doesnt Wall Street Journal skew more towards middle class? Its bad that they assume their readers are such?

Oh, yeah...I forgot that anything up to $500,000 is middle-class around here.


Thats not what I said.

Wall Street Journal readers are typically not the run-of-the-mill everyday folk.
 
2013-01-17 12:32:29 AM

cman: Lionel Mandrake: cman: Doesnt Wall Street Journal skew more towards middle class? Its bad that they assume their readers are such?

Oh, yeah...I forgot that anything up to $500,000 is middle-class around here.

Thats not what I said.

Wall Street Journal readers are typically not the run-of-the-mill everyday folk.


I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

I must be distracted by the soul-shattering sadness of these peoples' abject impoverishment.
 
2013-01-17 12:34:01 AM

Dinki: [www.esquire.com image 614x408]

Did someone actually think that the people in this graphic would come across as sympathetic characters? really?


To WSJ readers? Yeah, kinda.
 
2013-01-17 12:34:21 AM

Dinki: Did someone actually think that the people in this graphic would come across as sympathetic characters? really?


You're underestimating the typical WSJ reader.
 
2013-01-17 12:34:25 AM

Lionel Mandrake: cman: Lionel Mandrake: cman: Doesnt Wall Street Journal skew more towards middle class? Its bad that they assume their readers are such?

Oh, yeah...I forgot that anything up to $500,000 is middle-class around here.

Thats not what I said.

Wall Street Journal readers are typically not the run-of-the-mill everyday folk.

I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

I must be distracted by the soul-shattering sadness of these peoples' abject impoverishment.


Wall Street Journal Typical is not the same as Real Life Typical
 
2013-01-17 12:39:35 AM

NFA: Dinki: Did someone actually think that the people in this graphic would come across as sympathetic characters? really?

$260K and worrying about a couple grand extra in taxes?  My wife and I make less than that (combined) and we could effortlessly handle that size tax increase.


That's more than what a four-star general with nearly 40 years of service earns.
 
2013-01-17 12:49:14 AM
When will America be freed from the scourge of single mothers?
 
2013-01-17 12:50:01 AM

cman:

Wall Street Journal Typical is not the same as Real Life Typical



That's why we have contempt for them.
 
2013-01-17 12:52:40 AM

kmmontandon: cman:

Wall Street Journal Typical is not the same as Real Life Typical


That's why we have contempt for them.


The point is that Wall Street Journal is not out of touch. They are presenting information that their readers would be interested in. You wouldnt see an advertisement for a high-end yacht in a wrestling magazine, would you? Different demographics.
 
2013-01-17 12:59:26 AM

Lsherm: The four kids all have blond hair, so that poor man clearly isn't the father of his own children.


blonde is recessive to black/brown.
 
2013-01-17 01:01:53 AM

Dinki: [www.esquire.com image 614x408]

Did someone actually think that the people in this graphic would come across as sympathetic characters? really?


230,000 a year single!? fark me, I wants that kind of bread!
 
2013-01-17 01:06:03 AM

Dinki: [www.esquire.com image 614x408]

Did someone actually think that the people in this graphic would come across as sympathetic characters? really?


I like the fact the couple whose taxes AREN'T being raised have the same "HOW WILL WE EVER AFFORD TO REDECORATE THE SOLARIUM IN OUR WINTER HOME IN TUSCANY?" look on their faces as the rest of them.
 
2013-01-17 01:20:03 AM

cman:

The point is that Wall Street Journal is not out of touch. They are presenting information that their readers would be interested in.



No, they aren't. They're presenting information in an echo-chamber to make their readers feel persecuted, in a way that is completely out of touch for the nation as a whole.
 
2013-01-17 01:21:16 AM

Kazan: Lsherm: The four kids all have blond hair, so that poor man clearly isn't the father of his own children.

blonde is recessive to black/brown.


And most kids with blond/brown hair eventually go to brown as they mature.

It was a joke.
 
2013-01-17 01:24:25 AM

kmmontandon: cman:

The point is that Wall Street Journal is not out of touch. They are presenting information that their readers would be interested in.


No, they aren't. They're presenting information in an echo-chamber to make their readers feel persecuted, in a way that is completely out of touch for the nation as a whole.


I coud give two shiats about WSJ, really. I just dont see the fuss.
 
2013-01-17 01:42:37 AM

kmmontandon: cman:

The point is that Wall Street Journal is not out of touch. They are presenting information that their readers would be interested in.


No, they aren't. They're presenting information in an echo-chamber to make their readers feel persecuted, in a way that is completely out of touch for the nation as a whole.


Don't discount the fact that the only black family on there isn't seeing their taxes go up.  No way that's incidental.
 
2013-01-17 02:32:18 AM
Of COURSE the black couple are also the only ones who aren't working...
 
2013-01-17 02:53:30 AM
Oh, noes! I had no idea my wife and I were living in abject poverty! How can we possibly get by without Government assistance on the measly $65,000/yr I bring in? Why, after the utilities, mortgage payment and the payment for the van we just got (our car and truck are both paid off), I simply don't know how we make ends meet!
 
2013-01-17 04:07:39 AM
A new day!  A repeat story!
 
2013-01-17 04:09:32 AM

Dinki: [www.esquire.com image 614x408]

Did someone actually think that the people in this graphic would come across as sympathetic characters? really?


They are the 1%.
 
2013-01-17 04:12:09 AM
To be fair, some places are stupidly more expensive than others. For instance, according to salary.com, you'd have to make about 101k per year, in New York City, to match the standard of living you'd have on 55k where I'm currently located, in Melbourne FL.

\I'm not a Teatard.
\\I voted for Fartbongo Taxbama.
\\\did I do slashies correctly?
 
2013-01-17 04:20:48 AM
www.esquire.com

What a surprise, Eric Holder's taxes stayed the same.
 
2013-01-17 04:22:39 AM

you are a puppet: [www.esquire.com image 614x408]

What a surprise, Eric Holder's taxes stayed the same.


I was going to roll my eyes, then I looked closer at the picture. They DID draw him!
 
2013-01-17 04:27:31 AM
If you made 180k a year on investment income. Then why the fark are you working other than for fun? I'd assume with that sort of combined income of over half a million you'd have one or more homes paid for, full medical insurance for your family and almost zero expenses except for sundries and utilities.

I know families of 6 that make it on less than 100k a year, both parents work and they are paying off a mortgage and 2 cars. Hell my aunt and uncle make combined probably around 70k a year and they have 3 kids and own their own home (granted, this is in the mid west where you can get a nice home for 130k easy).

I just don't farking understand this.... who are these people? I would consider my wife and I very succesful - we live in a nice aparment in a major metropolitan area that we've bought. We have nice things. We have lots of savings and we have stocks/investments - hell we have enough cash left over to throw around on the Mrs. getting a tummy tuck and a boob job this year, no problem - and we still make less than all of the examples in that image.

The farks I do not give are just... innumerable right now.
 
2013-01-17 04:33:36 AM
If you're making the amount of money as the people in the graphic are, then you don't need a graphic to tell you about your taxes. your accountant does that for you.
 
2013-01-17 04:37:24 AM
Yeah, it is a repeat, but I'd completely overlooked the first thread, since the description was so vague.
 
2013-01-17 04:37:50 AM
If you keep your pearls clutched
and hyperbole is your crutch
you might be surprised
if we call out your lies.
It just shows that you're out of touch.

Link
 
2013-01-17 04:38:14 AM
Oh, woe is me for making more than $600,000 and not being able to afford the Maserati I so desperately desire.
 
2013-01-17 04:40:41 AM
Effective Tax Rate Increase (Based on Net Income, discounting seperate tax rates for capital gains, calculated as lump):
Boob Grabbed: 1.29% of Net Income
Blackies: 0
Upset Asian: 1.26%
Family of 7 (Oldest chained in basement): 3.32%

It's true. Obama is anti Family. At least they weren't really trying to rub the numbers and go for 0 dollars in deductions.

Also, these people are comfortably in the top 5% of income earners in America. The information is actually quite useful for some people. The picture however, turns what is just standard "Here's what this means for you" into a "Wow. Really?"
 
2013-01-17 04:44:46 AM
s13.postimage.org
 
2013-01-17 04:54:21 AM
Typical of an article from Money Magazine. This is why I don't subscribe.
 
2013-01-17 04:58:14 AM
I an not sure which is more attainable for me.....a $225K annual income, an investment income of $35K or becoming a woman?

Given the turd-field that is corporate America, a sex change operation is probably my best bet.
 
Displayed 50 of 272 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report