The Wall Street Journal Doesn’t Think Anyone Makes Under $100k a Year

The Contributor

“While the top 1 percent of taxpayers will bear the biggest burden, many other families, affluent and poor, will pay more as well,” wrote Wall Street Journalreporter Laura Saunders in a story about the effect the “fiscal cliff” agreement would have on taxpayers.

However, a graphic that accompanied the story might help explain the conservative mindset about cutting taxes for the rich. Despite writing about the effect tax inceases will have for the poor, apparently no one in their Wall Street Journal’s world makes under $100,000 a year.

I especially feel bad for the poor, single parent struggling to get by on the measly $260,000 she earns a year. After all, how’s she going to afford paying an extra $280 a month in taxes when she’s only bringing in $21,666 a month?

At least the retired couple that barely squeaks by with $180,000 a year of income in retirement won’t have to pay more taxes (although, wearing a sweater tied around your neck like Carlton Banks is a requirement).

I would remind the editors of the Wall Street Journal that the median income in the United States is right around $50,000 a year, and less than 5 percent of households in the country earn more than $166,000 a year.

 

8 comments

  1. I can’t help but feel terrible for the people in this graphic. Every one of them looks so sad, and they all stare at me with the same reproachful expression. Too bad that 95% of us will never understand how difficult it is to survive on a mere pittance of $180,000 a year or so.

    Like

  2. I think they probably could have personally called each of the single mothers of two children earning over $260k in less time than it took to draw up this graphic.

    Thanks for sharing!

    Like

  3. I make the same hourly wage as I did in the eighties. I said this recently at a party and got a lot of saying, “Me, too!” And back then I had four weeks paid vacation, health insurance, and other bennies. Now I don’t get a single paid hour off work for any reason. I estimate that my jobs is worth about 25% of my peak and I’m still working full time. And it’s nowhere near $100k.

    Yes, the WSJ used to be a respectable newspaper. Then Rupert Murdoch’s empire gobbled it up. It hasn’t been quite the same ever since.

    Like

    1. Yeah, I know that pain. My salary was great in 2000, but not getting a raise at all and then the company folded in 2010, it’s value had decreased as my expenses had tripled.

      Like

  4. I wrote an angry letter of “Really? Where can I find those jobs?” to the article’s authour. She replied very quickly and explained the point of the info graphic.

    “No other publication computed the actual rise between 2012 and 2013 of up to $2,425 per worker. But this increase is highly apparent and easily calculated. ”

    That part includes even us regular folks.

    “…the new taxes mostly affect the top 1-2%, and the editors wanted to focus the graphic in that direction as this group has a large overlap with our subscribers.”

    Like

Comments are closed.