“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.
- Head Start Revealed (educationviews.org)
- The Wall Street Journal’s Bad Plan for Greece – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
- Picaboo Yearbooks’ Parent Company Rated Best Overall Photo Book Provider in Wall Street Journal Article (prweb.com)
- WSJ: Who Pays More Tax in 2013? (taxprof.typepad.com)
- Stocks edge lower on Wall Street; Apple slides (miamiherald.com)
- Forty-Five Seconds Over Wall Street, AM (blogs.wsj.com)
- The Wall Street Journal Has A Bedbug Problem (capitalnewyork.com)
- Starkman: (taxprof.typepad.com)
- Coloring the Tax Hike (laughtersounds.wordpress.com)
- Treasury Announces Chartier Appointment To IRS Taxpayer Advocacy Panel – Federal Advisory Committee Designed to Reduce Taxpayer Burden and Improve IRS Customer Service (prweb.com)