-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
"The poor, poor rich of the Wall Street Journal"
- Thread starter poisonelf
- Start date
- Status
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
...try reading my post again.
Um ok.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
If you're still confused, please note the difference between an article and the comments on the article and how that difference may be applied to said post.
radios shipping overview
Member
Those poor people sure look sad. Is it because of the NYC soft drink ban?
No, that only makes the obese New Yorkers sad, and none of them are obese.
Its not an article, its an ongoing theme in the reaction the wealthy are having to paying higher taxes. Its what we all voted for as well. Its a negative thing, not a literal punishment. But the reaction is definitely not positive. Taxes, as they were, aren't fair. Now its heading to a more fair. As Warren Buffet suggests they should be.
Sorry that this bothers you, but its the way the world is. Wealthy people don't like losing their wealth. Its a negative for them. I'm middle class or whatever, and Im fine with paying a fair share. I'm in the damn near 50% bracket and you're not going to hear any tears from me.
The fuck you i've got mine attitude is evident to everyone who isn't blind. You're acting as if you don't understand it.
And I know you're better than making a silly argument about generalizing 101. Will you seek some solace in knowing that I don't think every, single, wealthy person has this attitude? Is that what you want to hear...? If so. Ya, every single person doesn't do X ever in the history of evertude.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
The "fuck these rich assholes" attitude directed at the people paying higher income taxes under the recent policy changes, as illustrated in the personal finance column, will mostly hit Blue State professionals who voted for Pres. Obama. Thats ironic.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
lol
Beerman462
Member
47%CHEEZMO;46563437 said:
First off, I don't really see how that's like rain on your wedding day at all.
Secondly, people making six figures and up voted for Romney, by and large, and so did the people who read the Wall Street Journal.
Thirdly, this is still a bizarre conflation of issues. If somebody makes six figures, I think they should probably pay more taxes regardless of who they voted for. The difference is that, if they voted for Obama, they probably agree with me. So they're probably not being referenced by this article or by the haters of this article, because they wouldn't be making such sad faces about the whole thing.
Eighty Deuce
Banned
I made 32k in an Iraqi hellhole burning shit with desiel and collecting body parts of suicide bombers. Seeing this article makes me die a little inside.
NullPointer
Member
You mean the people who voted for increased taxes on upper income earners? Why would they be upset? How is this ironic?
Its simply this: People making the levels of income in that infographic who actually get upset at those tax increases can honestly go fuck themselves.
I'm having a Poe's Law moment. Do you actually believe that 47% of Americans pay no taxes? Or are you just mocking the unfortunate individuals who do believe that?
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
This made me actually "laugh out loud."
My entire argument is that the comments aren't on the article because the number of "look at these poor people making 200k" comments proves that hardly anyone even read the fucking article.
I don't consider my argument "silly" because I don't agree with your generalization, and that's the problem with generalizing.
Don't people who get paid 200k+ usually vote for Romney regardless of the leanings of their state? And do you think that it's impossible that someone might be making 200k+ a year and think "Maybe people in my bracket should be getting taxed more"?
As someone else says, anyone affected would have known. And voted for it, as to be fair to those who don't make as much money. I know its a weird concept for some republicans.. but I think the dems figured this one out.
Right, I knew that was your only issue. Which is a non issue. Generalization force can never let a generalization pass by without educating everyone that knows what is meant behind a non sanctioned non labeled generalization. Thanks.
No offense, but I consider it completely silly. As it serves no purpose to get someone to tell you they don't literally mean every single anything in the entire world.. when the fact of the matter is that the attitude that I pointed out, is the prevailing attitude that can literally be divided and counted by the recent vote we had in this country.
Exactly. Its an alien concept to some.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Sure, except I quoted a comment directly. And then you wanted attribution on that from the article. These are two separate things, one I was discussing, one that I was not.
RukusProvider
Banned
I respect this and agree. Well put.
Beerman462
Member
It's in reference to the comment Romney made. As far as my limited research showed 47% don't end up paying federal income taxes. The breakdown was 20% are retired or on some kind of federal support do to being unable to work. 30% are people who work and pay SS, medicare and pay taxes, but get it back with deductions.
Keep throwing out "prevailing attitude" etc. I still don't agree with you, and could care less what you think is "silly".
And I'm still trying to figure out what his comment is based on because I don't see how paying taxes is portrayed as "punishment" anywhere in the article.
NullPointer
Member
As far as I know Income Taxes weren't designed to be something that all Americans pay, only the wealthiest.
The whole 47% thing is a sham in every way.
The whole 47% thing is a sham in every way.
Operations
Member
I fail to see what is so bad about this article. Nowhere does it claim the examples provided are poor or representative of the poor. It simply goes into detail saying how the new tax increases may affect you even if you're not in the >$400k subset of the population.
<3 Cyan
This is about the infographic, essay. I thought it was pretty self explanatory.
This is about the infographic, essay. I thought it was pretty self explanatory.
CyclopsRock
Member
You don't think removing it from its context removes the ability for one to guage the insinuations of it? Afterall, it's the insinuations we're discussing here, since nothing in the actual content of the infographic itself is untrue.
But it's the portrayal everyone seems to have a problem with. I don't think anyone complained about the actual tax figures being inaccurate or anything.
Don't need you to agree, my side won.
Rhomega Beta
Member
I wish I was making $230K a year. Heck, I'd be happy to make $100K a year.
Are you not looking at the images? The content isn't really the issue (though the shown incomes are rather large in their own right).
CyclopsRock
Member
Sure, but when you remove the image from the context - ie the article, where it's placed right next to a sentence explaining specifically about how the taxes effect the well off - you alter the perception of the image dramatically. Which was my point. The image had a specific context.
They're not smiling at their tax rises?
ElectricBlue187
Member
Actually the article doesn't say that, here's what it actually says right next to the image
WSJ said:
also stop pretending like the WSJ is unbiased on this issue.
NinjaTehFish
Banned
We are right to criticize the picture for what it is. It purposefully paints a picture of high income earners being like typical Americans.
You are correct that the article itself isn't as offensive as the OP or some other people have made it to be.
It simply states facts about the upcoming tax increases and focuses heavily on high income earners because those are the people who get the most out of reading the WSJ in the first place. It was fairly interesting overall and for certain types of high income earners I would be sympathetic about the rougher break they were getting.
But while the writer's approach wasn't offensive the illustrator's was downright terrible.
Except for the couple with four children the other representatives of different tax brackets had middling single digit tax increases. This is nothing compared to the double digit increases people far poorer than anyone in the picture was going to experience. Keep in mind I'm using the same information the WSJ provides in the second interactive graphic further down in the article.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
More like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.
Im not looking at exit polls so correct me if im wrong, but in blue states, high salaried professionals voted for Pres. Obama. over Gov. Romney. And the blue states have a lot more high earning professionals than Mississippi and Wyoming. They're the ones paying these taxes, not Montgomery Burns types that make millions or live off investment income that the people in this thread are denouncing. Good folk like commedieu.
This article (more precisely, personal finance column) is not making any political statement. It never uses the word average to describe the people in the graphic. You can analyze the pictures Sherlock Holmes style if you want, but this is a personal finance column showing how the changes in tax laws affect high earners. Anything beyond that is what you bring with you.
You and others, not just here but across many places over the last couple weeks, keep bringing up these Dems in these higher tax brackets. Why? Where exactly is this demographic complaining or making a big deal out of this?
I only see the same exact pundits and right wing sources doing the same complaining as before but now they keep trying to drag the Dem's who make over 250,000.00 into it as a "HA, see you are paying for it now with your vote for Obama!" and so far its just a big shrug and "Yea, so? We knew." It's a complete disconnect, almost like this group of pundits and right wingers can't fathom how anyone would be ok with paying taxes.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
ftfy.
Can anyone honestly claim that the graphic isn't a blatant appeal to emotion? The very fact that these examples of mild tax raises on incomes well above average were deemed worthy of being contextualised like this should be enough to set eyes rolling. These figures have enough emotional impact to warrant a table, or a graph if you're feeling generous. The very act of personalising this sort of information is ludicrous. Even a textual hypothetical would have too much in my opinion, let alone this collage of stressed and weary folk who clearly deserve all the sympathy we can muster.
Yep -- they chose people in apparently varied life and financial situations (single woman, single mother, family with four children, retired couple) drawn from varied ethnic groups to make it out to be a cross-section of Americans across the socioeconomic spectrum. Their wan appearance and haunted and/or miffed expressions suggest a crushing burden that threatens to send their lives into tailspin. The juxtaposition of the drawings and the six-figure incomes (some with six-figure investment incomes!) is hilarious. Those crying foul are being obtuse, and that's really the kindest way I can phrase it.
So many people here are calling me out on not having read the article, how can you miss what's on the first couple of paragraphs?
That, along with the faces on that graph, really and honestly does not create a first impression of "even the poor are being affected, look at those sad, unfortunate people"?
Yes the article then goes on to detail how the taxes will affect specific income levels, which I can't comment on since I don't really know the economics side of things on this issue, but the topic here is how the writers of this article are either completely out of touch with reality, or they're deliberately trying to create sensationalist impressions.
wsj said:
That, along with the faces on that graph, really and honestly does not create a first impression of "even the poor are being affected, look at those sad, unfortunate people"?
Yes the article then goes on to detail how the taxes will affect specific income levels, which I can't comment on since I don't really know the economics side of things on this issue, but the topic here is how the writers of this article are either completely out of touch with reality, or they're deliberately trying to create sensationalist impressions.
radios shipping overview
Member
I just have to quote this for greatness.
Not a Jellyfish
but I am a sheep
GuyIncognito
Member
No, they chose people based on a variety of tax code treatments - single vs. married, kids vs. not, retired vs. working - to better illustrate the impact of taxes. It is a cross-section of the U.S. tax code, not the "socioeconomic spectrum."
The burden of the tax increases overwhelmingly falls on those of upper income, so showing the impact on someone making less than these amounts wouldn't be very instructive as to the the various ways the tax changes play out in different contexts.
And I think a sad look is more than justified in response to a $20k+ (!!) increase in taxes.
Why not, the disparity in wealth is so comical, there really is no middle class, and the gap just keep's widening. There is no doubt some people have been put in the lap of luxury where there they're forever out of touch, what if at least there was some type of education?
Really though,who am I kidding it's the hoarder mentality that will never end; we're all just animals.
Er, you seem to be using the boldfaced as though they're mutually exclusive when there is obvious and enormous overlap.
As to your second statement: in raw numbers, of course! As a percentage of income (a far more useful measure)? Not necessarily--in some cases, not even close. To keep it simple, let's focus on incomes and imagine Worker A, who makes $500,000.00 per annum and Worker B, who makes $35,000.00. You're welcome to check my math, but the former will have an increased tax burden of $7,025.20 (as a consequence of the top-bracket income tax increase and the payroll tax increase), while the latter will have an increased tax burden of $700.00 (purely as a consequence of the payroll tax increase). You can see without doing any additional calculation that Worker B is, in fact, harder hit (as a % of income) by the payroll tax increase than Worker A is by the combined increase in income and payroll tax. And I'm speaking purely in numbers here without even mentioning how much more utility Worker B (on his comparatively tiny salary) derives from additional dollars than Worker A.
- Status