5 ms·

WSJ's take on the same study: https://www.wsj.com/articles/seattles-fake-free-lunch-1541026906 https://www.wsj.com/articles/seattles-fake-free-lunch-154102...

fiblye 8y ago
The Wall Street Journal also likes to frame $260,000 and $650,000 incomes as typical Americans struggling to get by (originally posted on WSJ regarding Obama-era tax increases): http://i.imgur.com/bdgZa.jpg http://i.imgur.com/bdgZa.jpg It's hard to regard this Rupert Murdoch publication's opinions on money as grounded in any sort of reality.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  Where on that image does it claim the family are “typical Americans struggling to get by” ?
- refurb 8y ago
  That doesn’t seem like they are portrait of them as middle class struggling to get by. It just looks like examples of people impacted.
- phd514 8y ago
  The article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323689604578220132665726040 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323689604578220...) said nothing of the sort. It said that while the bulk of the tax increases were at the high end of the income spectrum, many individuals and couples with incomes in the 180k-500k range could see significant tax increases, too. That was contrary to the general portrayal of the "American Taxpayer Relief Act" as retaining the Bush-era tax cuts on everyone with less than 400k in income.
  - fiblye 8y ago
    > It said that while the bulk of the tax increases were at the high end of the income spectrum, many individuals and couples with incomes in the 180k-500k range could see significant tax increases, too. It's amazing that a non-insignificant number of people on HN don't think that's on the high end of the income spectrum. In most places in America, you'd be considered quite handsomely rich if you're making $200,000 a year. It puts you very, very solidly in the top 5% of earners. $300,000 puts you in the top 1%. That people think that's "contrary to the general portrayal of the American Taxpayer Relief Act" is bizarre. A comic with objectively high income earners making sad puppy dog faces because 1% of their massive income is gone is a sign that the publisher is out of touch with the reality that typical Americans face.
    - wahern 8y ago
      $200k wasn't in the top 5%, even in 2013. Squarely in the top 10%, though. Source: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51361 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51361
      - ejstronge 8y ago
        > $200k wasn't in the top 5%, even in 2013. Squarely in the top 10%, though. Source: [...] This is incorrect. The source you cite lists the average income by percentile group, which is not the metric one wants - the average income of the top 5% is skewed by the incomes of very high earners. One actually wants the lowest income in a percentile group; the top 5% started at around 197,000 in 2013. Source: pg 16 of the 2013 Census income report https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2014/demographics/p60-249.pdf https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2014/demographi...

fiblye 8y ago

The Wall Street Journal also likes to frame $260,000 and $650,000 incomes as typical Americans struggling to get by (originally posted on WSJ regarding Obama-era tax increases): http://i.imgur.com/bdgZa.jpg http://i.imgur.com/bdgZa.jpg It's hard to regard this Rupert Murdoch publication's opinions on money as grounded in any sort of reality.

umanwizard 8y ago
Where on that image does it claim the family are “typical Americans struggling to get by” ?
refurb 8y ago
That doesn’t seem like they are portrait of them as middle class struggling to get by. It just looks like examples of people impacted.
phd514 8y ago
The article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323689604578220132665726040 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323689604578220...) said nothing of the sort. It said that while the bulk of the tax increases were at the high end of the income spectrum, many individuals and couples with incomes in the 180k-500k range could see significant tax increases, too. That was contrary to the general portrayal of the "American Taxpayer Relief Act" as retaining the Bush-era tax cuts on everyone with less than 400k in income.
- fiblye 8y ago
  > It said that while the bulk of the tax increases were at the high end of the income spectrum, many individuals and couples with incomes in the 180k-500k range could see significant tax increases, too. It's amazing that a non-insignificant number of people on HN don't think that's on the high end of the income spectrum. In most places in America, you'd be considered quite handsomely rich if you're making $200,000 a year. It puts you very, very solidly in the top 5% of earners. $300,000 puts you in the top 1%. That people think that's "contrary to the general portrayal of the American Taxpayer Relief Act" is bizarre. A comic with objectively high income earners making sad puppy dog faces because 1% of their massive income is gone is a sign that the publisher is out of touch with the reality that typical Americans face.
  - wahern 8y ago
    $200k wasn't in the top 5%, even in 2013. Squarely in the top 10%, though. Source: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51361 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51361
    - ejstronge 8y ago
      > $200k wasn't in the top 5%, even in 2013. Squarely in the top 10%, though. Source: [...] This is incorrect. The source you cite lists the average income by percentile group, which is not the metric one wants - the average income of the top 5% is skewed by the incomes of very high earners. One actually wants the lowest income in a percentile group; the top 5% started at around 197,000 in 2013. Source: pg 16 of the 2013 Census income report https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2014/demographics/p60-249.pdf https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2014/demographi...