Support NeoGAF

[Hari Seldon]

It seems like people in this thread are pro tax simply because the people make more money than them so fuck them. Can't blame them for saying, "fuck the poor, I got mine" if that is the general attitude. I want to know what the fuck the purpose of the tax increase is. More drones to kill brown skins? Seems like they have a right to be pissed even if they make 260k.

 

[xxracerxx]

It seems like people in this thread are pro tax simply because the people make more money than them so fuck them. Can't blame them for saying, "fuck the poor, I got mine" if that is the general attitude. I want to know what the fuck the purpose of the tax increase is. More drones to kill brown skins? Seems like they have a right to be pissed even if they make 260k.

Good lord. The President wants to decrease military spending.

 

[remnant]

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.

The Wall Street journal doesn't cheer taxing rich people...so you know they're monsters.

irony is most people who have a sad face these days are the millions of americans who got their checks this week or last and saw their new take home pay after the payroll tax increase.

Good lord. The President wants to decrease military spending.

And increase drone strikes. Pres. obama has stated drone strikes are a part of the military being more cost efficient.

 

[dabig2]

Wait, how much of that increase is due to the payroll tax cut expiring? You know, that tax cut that Obama had to fight tooth and nail to even institute AND extend for a year? The tax cut that republicans didn't give a shit about as they "fought" for the Bush tax cuts permanently blowing up our debt and deficit?

 

[wildfire]

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.

NO.

From the very same Wall Street Journal article.

<10,0000 Unemployed Person

+20.9%

10,000 - 20,000 College Student

+14.7%

20,000 - 30,000 Low Income Couple

+446%

30,000 - 40,000 Retired household (couple)

+5.1%

150,000 High Income Professional

+6.5%

180,000 retired couple

0%

230,000 single

+4.7%

260,000 Single Parent, 2 kids

+4.8%

350,000 High Income Couple

+3.9%

650,000 Married couple, four children

+12.37%

> 1 million Very High Income Households

+15.5%

The bolded portion are from the picture that has deservedly gotten a lot of derision.

 

[Guileless]

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.

This is ridiculous. THE CHANGES TO THE INCOME TAX CODE ONLY APPLY TO INCOMES STARTING AT $300,000.

Tristam, do you think think "they" are trying to brainwash the readers of the WSJ personal finance column? Why bother when the editorial page explicitly criticizes Pres. Obama's tax policies every day?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

It seems like people in this thread are pro tax simply because the people make more money than them so fuck them. Can't blame them for saying, "fuck the poor, I got mine" if that is the general attitude. I want to know what the fuck the purpose of the tax increase is. More drones to kill brown skins? Seems like they have a right to be pissed even if they make 260k.

Yeah, flat tax all the way bro.

 

[JustProgress]

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.

Why are you mad

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

So you guys aren't the target audience for this piece. Got it.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Don't you fucking think that the guy who edited this piece probably has the same feeling you have?

It's an editorial decision. You don't really matter.

 

[Tristam]

This is ridiculous. THE CHANGES TO THE INCOME TAX CODE ONLY APPLY TO INCOMES STARTING AT $300,000.

Tristam, do you think think "they" are trying to brainwash the readers of the WSJ personal finance column? Why bother when the editorial page explicitly criticizes Pres. Obama's tax policies every day?

And yet the income tax wasn't all that was changed. Even in all text, wildfire's post manages to be much more illustrative and informative than the drawing. But most people tend to gee-whiz and whistle more over dollar values than they do percentages because most people are innumerate.

 

[Agent_J]

My post wasn't sarcastic. You made a false claim about the author. That's not an opinion.

When you pull shit out of your ass, people on these message boards, will call you out.

what "shit" did i pull out of my ass? an opinion that you seem to disagree with?

let me make this crystal clear: i wasn't talking about any "author" in particular so quit assuming that i'm "claiming" anything. i replied to the OP's post, which included a few links to some online posts, and a picture. if u don't like what i said, feel free to ignore it. otherwise, you're just reaching too far for something that isn't there.

 

[Kazerei]

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.

Honestly, this is not something that alarms me. It's just the expiration of the payroll tax break. It might seem scary if you look at the percentages. For example, a low-income couple making $20k-$30k will see their federal tax increase by 446%! But the absolute value is just an increase of $279. The percentage change is so large is because they paid so little last year.

 

[OJdaKiller]

Married couple, 4 kids and 650k?

Who's gives a fuck???

If they cared about money they wouldn't have had 4 fucking kids.

 

[WedgeX]

Married couple, 4 kids and 650k?

Who's gives a fuck???

If they cared about money they wouldn't have had 4 fucking kids.

They've got like 100k per person, per year. Got dang.

 

[Deleted member 284]

The responses to that "article" (lol) is like reading a foxnews.com comment section.

 

[Deku Tree]

WSJ photo confirms: Money can't buy you happiness!

 

[JzeroT1437]

I wish I could afford to look that sad about only taking home $165410/year.

 

[I'M FINISHED!]

It seems like people in this thread are pro tax simply because the people make more money than them so fuck them. Can't blame them for saying, "fuck the poor, I got mine" if that is the general attitude. I want to know what the fuck the purpose of the tax increase is. More drones to kill brown skins? Seems like they have a right to be pissed even if they make 260k.

"Fuck the poor, I got mine" deserves the response of "Fuck the rich, I got nothing." Fair and balanced.

 

[Oblivion]

Don't you fucking think that the guy who edited this piece probably has the same feeling you have?

...no?

 

[Chichikov]

It seems like people in this thread are pro tax simply because the people make more money than them so fuck them.

I think it's more productive to respond to actual posters saying actual things rather than making broad comments about what "some posters" or "people" might be thinking.

Can't blame them for saying, "fuck the poor, I got mine" if that is the general attitude. I want to know what the fuck the purpose of the tax increase is. More drones to kill brown skins? Seems like they have a right to be pissed even if they make 260k.

Are you making the case that rich people push for tax cuts for the high income level because poor people hurt their feeling?
I want to make sure I get you right before I engage in that conversation.

I want to know what the fuck the purpose of the tax increase is. More drones to kill brown skins? Seems like they have a right to be pissed even if they make 260k.

The purpose of that tax increase is to reduce the deficit, I personally think our deficit is not an issue currently, but that's a different discussion.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

I was raised by a single father making 45k paying Canadian taxes at a higher rate than any of these people. I never climbed on his back and made sad tax-faces at people like that. Not even once.

 

[demon]

Good lord that picture in the OP

And that couple of gloomy gusses making $650,000 a year? It would be life changing for me to be able to make a tenth that. Hell I make much less than a quarter of their investment income.

It's just perverse. There are so many people out there suffering financially while the upper class make out like bandits and act like they're the ones with real money problems.

 

[wildfire]

Honestly, this is not something that alarms me. It's just the expiration of the payroll tax break. It might seem scary if you look at the percentages. For example, a couple making $20k-$30k will see their federal tax increase by 446%! But the absolute value is just an increase of $279.

Well if you want to use that logic keep in mind that tax increase accounts for 1.7% of the yearly revenue of that 25k couple.

The 350k high income couple I mentioned earlier has their tax increase amount to 0.8% of their yearly revenue.

With percentage changes like that it would seem the difference income is as trivial as you try to make it seem to be.


Regardless of how you try to represent that lower absolute value, one of these couples is struggling to live in an apartment. The other lives comfortably in a home or condo.


It's getting very ridiculous that we are trying to debate the merits of taxing richer people more to help poorer more; when the very article that incites this discussion flat out states the tax changes might've failed at doing that in the first place.

Can we change the topic to something like what are the merits of the various expenses we make as a country that those taxes get poured into?

 

[RobotMafia]

Good lord that picture in the OP

And that couple of gloomy gusses making $650,000 a year? It would be life changing for me to be able to make a tenth that. Hell I make much less than a quarter of their investment income.

It's just perverse. There are so many people out there suffering financially while the upper class make out like bandits and act like they're the ones with real money problems.

Why don't you feel their feel? FEEL!

 

[Valnen]

Good lord that picture in the OP

And that couple of gloomy gusses making $650,000 a year? It would be life changing for me to be able to make a tenth that. Hell I make much less than a quarter of their investment income.

It's just perverse. There are so many people out there suffering financially while the upper class make out like bandits and act like they're the ones with real money problems.

How else will they fill a third closet full of designer suits they'll never wear?

Fuck these scumbags, they have no right to ever complain about money.

 

[Tristam]

 

[~Kinggi~]

Dont worry rich, us, the actual poor, will kill your asses when we experience what it is actually like to not be able to live with less monies. Soon enough, your suffering will be over.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

It's getting very ridiculous that we are trying to debate the merits of taxing richer people more to help poorer more; when the very article that incites this discussion flat out states the tax changes might've failed at doing that in the first place.

Can we change the topic to something like what are the merits of the various programs those taxes get poured into?

How was income inequality reduced earlier in US history with higher effective federal taxes on high earners? I'm confused because it seemed like based off of the arguments against the fiscal cliff that tax increases (I thought) cause the economy in this situation to grow less than it otherwise would or contract. Additionally, I thought the problem was regressive taxes at the state/local level. So basically if the economy is growing at 1% rather than 3% let's say and I'm still paying too much in excise/payroll taxes, how do these tax increases benefit me?

 

[Kinitari]

I think this makes the point better than many posts in this thread.

WSJ knows what they are doing, they understand that painting sad faces on those pictures is supposed to incite some level of sympathy for an ailing family. I don't know why they are doing it, and I honestly don't really care -that- much, but let's not be disingenuous - it's obvious.

 

[Kazerei]

Well if you want to use that logic keep in mind that tax increase accounts for 1.7% of the yearly revenue of that 25k couple.

The 350k high income couple I mentioned earlier has their tax increase amount to 0.8% of their yearly revenue.

With percentage changes like that it would seem the difference income is as trivial as you try to make it seem to be.

The numbers are slightly lower than that I think.
$279 / $25,000 = 1.12%
$2,699 / $350,000 = 0.77%

At any rate, I'd say this is a more sensible way to look at the increase, rather than the double-digit percentage increases you mentioned earlier. I don't think this is over-trivializing at all.

Regardless of how you try to represent that lower absolute value, one of these couples is struggling to live in an apartment. The other lives comfortably in a home or condo.


It's getting very ridiculous that we are trying to debate the merits of taxing richer people more to help poorer more; when the very article that incites this discussion flat out states the tax changes might've failed at doing that in the first place.

Can we change the topic to something like what are the merits of the various expenses we make as a country that those taxes get poured into?

I was never debating the merits of taxing richer people more. I'm pretty damn liberal and I'm happy to see taxes going up in the higher brackets.

I just noticed in the WSJ comments and elsewhere, people going on about the expiry of the payroll tax break, and how this was devastating to poor people, and how Obama failed them, etc. I just feel that it's not as dire as some people are making it out to be.

 

[Dead Man]

I think this makes the point better than many posts in this thread.

WSJ knows what they are doing, they understand that painting sad faces on those pictures is supposed to incite some level of sympathy for an ailing family. I don't know why they are doing it, and I honestly don't really care -that- much, but let's not be disingenuous - it's obvious.

Indeed.

 

[GillianSeed79]

As someone who is a working professional who only makes $25K a year I find those pictures infuriating. I'll give you I work in a low paying profession in a state with low cost of living, but even my Ivy League-income making married sister and brother-in-law financial analysts don't make $260,000/year. Seriously, just fuck off. I have never met a single-mother pulling in $260K a year let alone a fucking retired couple pulling in $180K a year. These pictures look like lottery winners who regret taking yearly payments instead of a lump sum.

There is a fundamental disconnect between the people that read the WSJ and the permanent underclass that exist in this country and it's disgusting. I fully expect to be paying $400 plus in taxes this year, which is a paycheck to me. I felt ashamed last year because I had to make a monthly payment agreement with the IRS because I couldn't afford the tax burden. I felt like Russell Crow in Cinderalla Man every time I had to go into the local IRS office to make a payment even though I have a decent job.

Fuck off with the, well, I'm poor because I live in a major city and make less than $100K and that means I'm poor with cost of living. Fine. Yes. I will give you that it costs a lot of money to live in a major city or the mortage payment on your McMansion in the suburbs that you seclude yourself in away from minorities that have all the best school districts.

But I will have to pray to Jesus not to slap you in the face (please Lord, help me Jesus) not to slap you upside the face if you are making $260K a year and single complaining about being poor.

 

[senahorse]

What I don't understand is that the people writing these types of articles surely don't make anywhere near this type of money, are they just pandering to the local Wall Street professionals? What is the average wage in New York?

 

[speculawyer]

Well played!

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Good god, I nearly choked on my drink reading those yearly income and the attempt to empathize with those sad faces. There is such a huge disconnect from the average American, yeesh.

That's life changing money for most Americans.

 

[Mattlikewhoa]

I don't know about you guys, but I was happy to move up a few tax brackets when I started my new job...

 

[NullPointer]

Good god, I nearly choked on my drink reading those yearly income and the attempt to empathize with those sad faces. There is such a huge disconnect from the average American, yeesh.

And making that kind of income has entitled these earners to the lion's share of the benefits of our economy for the last 30 years while everybody else watched their wages stagnate.

It really is so out of touch that its flat out insulting.

 

[Izayoi]

WSJ is a fucking joke. My hotel gets it because a bunch of rich businessmen stay there and I read it every morning to start the day off with a laugh. The "Lifestyle" section is especially good, all kinds of shit normal families could never even dream of doing. The fear mongering running up to the election was pretty good, too.

 

[Prime crotch]

The single girl's hot! I'd love to schedule a lunch with her, she's buying though thats a whole lot more than what I gain, hell I can't even pay a rent for a single house for myself

 

[Freshmaker]

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.

Blue state professionals tend to be cool with paying taxes already (since they aren't nutty "I Got Mine" loons) so I don't see how irony applies.

 

[travisbickle]

It's an instant classic, really pulls my heart strings.

I'm also sure the junior illustrator was ecstatic drawing these while he's on his unpaid internship.

 

[Castor Krieg]

How old is the piece? Did WSJ realize yet what happened?

 

[POWERSPHERE]

It's such a small increase, those rich cunts wouldn't care at all.

 

[norinrad]

USA, USA, USA, USA

 

[MaddenNFL64]

I don't know anyone making that kind of coin. Just different worlds.

 

[Dude Abides]

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.

Blue state professionals tend to be cool with paying taxes already (since they aren't nutty "I Got Mine" loons) so I don't see how irony applies.

I don't know. I'm in this demo and a lot of the I-Banker fratboy asshole types vote Republican.

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

$180,000 is poor in the US? You guys must be all living like kings

 

[Baraka in the White House]

The Wall Street journal doesn't cheer taxing rich people...so you know they're monsters.

irony is most people who have a sad face these days are the millions of americans who got their checks this week or last and saw their new take home pay after the payroll tax increase.



And increase drone strikes. Pres. obama has stated drone strikes are a part of the military being more cost efficient.

I love how god damned dense you pretend to be just to make these snipes. It's no big secret the WSJ skews right and that's not the source of the outrage here. And of course millions of Americans might wince a little when they see that the payroll tax holiday expired, that's kind of the point most here are making. Of all those millions of Americans who are probably legitimately hurting from a 2% tax increase that they could have featured they decide to go with a cross section of well-to-do folks instead.

An attempt at being facetious or just being that disconnected from reality are the only two explanations here. Middle and lower-middle class Americans simply aren't that hard to find.

 

[drexplora]

seems that someone with good money complaining about higher taxes must have stopped making good monay long ago and lives in fear of driving a FORD?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Wealthy people feel things like the hard realities of social injustice more intensely than dirty savages. That's why they shouldn't have to pay tax.