posted on April 10, 2004 12:11:50 AM new Newsweek piece 'doesn't add up'
With a gigantic IRS 1040 income-tax form covering a slightly ajar door presumably leading to a room filled with tightly guarded information, the headline of Newsweek's current cover story screams: "The Dirty Little Secret of the Tax Cut: Why It's Smaller Than You Think." Inside, the article greets the reader with the bold assertion: "Why Your Tax Cut Doesn't Add Up." But the only thing that doesn't add up is the article itself. It is replete with misstatements and distortions masquerading as the real-life experiences of Americans since President Bush's tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003.
The article showcases three middle-class families and includes photos of smiling children and parents, who invariably are quoted as saying they have derived virtually no benefit from the Bush tax cuts. All are utterly misinformed. Newsweek's uncritical portrayal of their demonstrably false assertions amounts to nothing more than a reprehensible journalistic hit piece.
Newsweek first highlights "single-mom" Jennifer Evans and her 7-year-old son. Miss Evans earned $32,400 in 2003. "I kept hearing about these so-called tax cuts," Miss Evans says. "They're not benefiting regular working people," she declared, a patently false assertion that Newsweek chose to emphasize by placing it in boldface type. In fact, Ms. Evans' income tax was reduced by $1,000, or 45 percent. Specifically, she saved $500 from the new 10 percent bracket, which applies to her first $10,000 in taxable income (which had been taxed at 15 percent before Mr. Bush's tax cuts). She saved another $500 after Mr. Bush doubled (from $500 to $1,000) the per-child tax credit.
Newsweek next featured the Taverno family (two parents and three children). Ron and Patty Taverno earned $73,411 last year. Newsweek reports that "they saved a few hundred dollars this year because the 'marriage penalty' [note the quotes] was eliminated." Mr. Taverno boldly declares, "The tax cut to me was inconsequential" — which Newsweek dutifully placed in boldface. In fact, rather than just "a few hundred dollars," the Tavernos saved $626 from the elimination of the marriage penalty. And they saved another $700 from the new 10 percent tax bracket, which applies to their first $14,000 in taxable income. And the doubling of the per-child tax credit cut another $1,500 from their tax bill. Altogether, the Bush tax cuts slashed more than $2,800, or 44 percent, from the Tavernos' 2003 income-tax bill. This is "inconsequential"?
The Ellis family (two parents, two children) was next up. Ted and Erania Ellis earned $194,000 last year. "There's been no break for us," artist Ted tells Newsweek, which boldfaced the falsehood. "It feels like I'm being penalized for trying to run my own business. It doesn't feel like they're helping me. The tax cuts," he ignorantly asserts, "are benefiting major corporations who are downsizing and outsourcing."
Here's the breakdown on our calculations: (1) The 10 percent bracket chopped off $700. (2) By increasing the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly by $1,650 to a level ($9,500) that is now a little more than twice the standard deduction ($4,700) for singles, the Bush tax cuts reduced the Ellis family's taxable income by $1,650. Because the family now finds itself in the 28 percent tax bracket (thanks, by the way, to Mr. Bush's 3-percentage-point reduction from 31 percent), this portion of marriage-penalty relief saved the Ellises $462 ($1,650 x 28 percent = $462). Also, by increasing the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples by $9,400 to a level ($56,800) that is now double the 15 percent level for singles, the Bush tax cuts sliced another $940 from the Ellis tax bill. Total marriage-penalty savings: $1,402. (3) The Bush tax cuts reduced the 31 percent and 28 percent brackets by 3 percentage points each. This reduced income taxes for the Ellis family by another $3,797. (4) Finally, doubling the per-child tax credit to $1,000 saved the Ellises another $1,000.
In total, the Ellis family will save $6,899 from its 2003 income taxes. That represents a monthly savings of $575. "There's been no break for us," Newsweek allowed Mr. Ellis to assert falsely, showcasing the lie in boldface, no less.
The dirty little secret is that Newsweek has published a dirty little story, which it surely had to know was filled with distortions and misrepresentations. Indeed, Newsweek actively contributed to these misrepresentations by boldfacing them.
posted on April 10, 2004 12:54:54 AM new
Pretty sad.....and it's not all that uncommon anymore. ;-( The only thing I can say is that people can look to their *own* paychecks and tax forms and see that what's being said isn't true. Mostly those with families. They have benefitted the most.
But the many false actions/statements of this type are what drove me from considering myself an Independent before 9-11 to being such a strong Republican supporter since then. The democratic party has gone not only ultra-liberal - HARD left.....but they've lost their intergity too. [I make an exception for Lieberman].
posted on April 10, 2004 10:45:50 AM new
What else is new from the liberal media that would like nothing better then to make President Bush look bad. I saved $1100 this year on my taxes. Those people who are dis-satisfied with the tax cuts can send the extra they would pay to my address. i could use the extra money.
In Christ,
Rick
Romans 8:15-17
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God." That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic....or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
C.S. Lewis: "Mere Christianity"
posted on April 10, 2004 05:37:01 PM new
I think your efforts are going to have the opposite effect. When leftist wackos like you rant and rave about Bush, voters on the fence are more likely to choose Bush.
posted on April 11, 2004 10:42:56 AM new
Hibbertist, what are you talkinf about? That money is OURS to begin with!!!! Where do you think "tax monies" comes from?
The government needs to CUT BACK on spending, and what better way then to give them LESS MONEY TO SPEND?!?!
We have so much money going to support social programs in this country that it makes me ill. we have an education problem? Throw tax money at it. Someone wants to make "art" by placing a Crucifix in a bottle of urine? Throw tax money at it. What, we need to save a spotted own in a forest? Throw tax money at it.
It's my money that is paid in taxes. It's your money, and bunnies, and reamonds, and NTS and everyones! It's our money, and we deserve as much back as we can get.
Tax breaks help us all: it's just that some people are to silly to understand this.
In Christ,
Rick
Mark 16
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God." That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic....or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
C.S. Lewis: "Mere Christianity"
posted on April 11, 2004 11:26:18 AM new
There is currently the largest deficit in the histrory of this country. Tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans do nothing but pass the burdon of this deficit onto the next generation(s) od taxpayers yet to be born.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
posted on April 11, 2004 12:02:14 PM new
ChristianCoffee, just wondering... you mention the crucifix in urine - a Mapplethorpe exhibition - how do the taxpayers support an artist?
(sp)
[ edited by kraftdinner on Apr 11, 2004 12:03 PM ]
posted on April 11, 2004 12:13:55 PM new
He's referring to the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA has a relatively small budget--$120 million IIRC--which is uses to support the arts. It has funded some fairly silly things over the years, it's true.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 11, 2004 12:37:20 PM newTax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans
The rich pay a 35% income tax rate. That's still WAY TOO HIGH in my opinion. No American should have to more than 33% of their income in taxes. COMBINED. Income taxes, state taxes, property taxes, etc. should not total more than 33% of anyone's income.
posted on April 11, 2004 01:01:09 PM new
:: I think your efforts are going to have the opposite effect. When leftist wackos like you rant and rave about Bush, voters on the fence are more likely to choose Bush. ::
And you feel that such high brow terms as "leftist whackos" are a positive alternative sure to bring them to your side?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 11, 2004 06:14:02 PM new
What it all boils down to is that Liberals beleive that the government should have the right to tell it's citizens how they are going to spend their citizens hard earned money for them. Conservatives beleive that the government will give it's citizens some of their hard earned money back and allow it's citizens to spend their hard earned money however they see fit for themselves.
If any of you Liberals really want the government to spend your money for you then make your checks payable to the United States Treasury and send it in.
posted on April 12, 2004 09:01:09 AM new
Nothing could be further from the truth yellowstone.
Liberals seem to be the few left in this country that believe and practice the art of community.
They have found through personal experience and a objective view of history that no man is an island and that great nations and peoples are derived from common goals through common experiences and a just sharing of burdens and rewards.
Every great thing our nation has accomplished has been done through the common sacrifice and common spirit of our people.
Taxes are not a function of the government taking away anyones wealth, but only a function of allowing that everyone shares burdens for the common good.
Show me a "true" indiviual and totally self sufficient person and I'll show you a failure.
posted on April 12, 2004 11:39:37 AM newIf any of you Liberals really want the government to spend your money for you then make your checks payable to the United States Treasury and send it in.
They do every year at tax time.
By the way -- I assume you must not be voting for Bush- he is spending your hard earned money like a drunken sailor as well as putting you and your children in debt to give tax breaks to millionaires that never worked, much less worked hard, in their whole life.
You must have also voted for Clinton- be balanced the budget, cut welfare spending and had the best economy we've ever seen.
You anti-tax people are freeloaders. You either fail to recognize the benefits you receive from taxes or just expect those things to be provided to you for free.
If you want to live tax free, move to Africa or any other thrid world country. You'll soon see what taxes pay for.
posted on April 12, 2004 02:23:10 PM new
Personally, I am not against taxes and at the same time, I am not against tax cuts. What I am against is allowing for tax cuts with a soaring deficit. Yes, as you all know, I am a liberal. I would rather see no tax cuts and that money used to lower the deficit. I would rather see it used to bolster federally funded programs such as the housing voucher program that Bush (not surprisingly) wants to cut. We should be taking care of each other in this country and we should be glad to do it. I would happily give what little I do have to someone who may need it more and I have done just that. If I knew that the taxes I paid were being used to uplift the down trodden in this country, I would happily give up whatever tax return I had coming (all $75 of it this year). I just cannot see a tax cut as being justified when we are spending billions in Iraq. Or rather, Bush and his administration are spending billions in Iraq. It's not money I chose to spend, but ultimately, it is money all of us will have to pay.
posted on April 12, 2004 03:56:41 PM newYou anti-tax people are freeloaders. You either fail to recognize the benefits you receive from taxes or just expect those things to be provided to you for free.
ROFLMHO
Oh yes, it's absolutely terrible that those people who pay taxes get any of it back. We're enjoying all the benefits from those who pay little or no taxes.....sure.
----------------------
The Federalist:
"How can there possibly be liberty and justice for all, when, in the name of justice, people claim rights to income, food, housing, education, health care, transportation, ad infinitum? We can't.
Positive rights to receive such things, absent an obligation to earn them, must violate others' liberty, by taking some of their income without their consent. They are really just wishes, convertible into benefits for some only by employing the government to violate others' rights not to have what is theirs taken." --Pepperdine Professor Gary Galles
posted on April 12, 2004 05:38:05 PM new
Anyone remember how much Al Gore donated to charity in 1999 compared to George Bush? I don't remember the amounts but Gore's donations were absolutely pitiful compared to Bush's donations.
Conservatives prefer to help the poor through charities while liberals prefer government entitlements.
looks like the press had a field day with his low charity donation amount for 1997 so then:
for 1998 = $15,000
for 1999 = $15,000
----------------
Bush in 1998 = $334,425
Bush in 1999 = $210,165
-------------
Clintons in 1999 = $39,200.
-----
While searching for this info I came across an article where Wesley Clark was challenging John Kerry to make his tax returns public for the last five years.
In the article kerry said he would...but then they went on to say he hadn't and his office wasn't returning their calls to find out why not.
posted on April 12, 2004 07:17:41 PM newYou anti-tax people are freeloaders.
Who here is anti-tax, not me, Linda, Twelve, EAG are you anti-tax, no, I didn't think so.
If you will go back and read my previous post again you will see that I said that a conservative run government gives it's citizens some of their hard earned money back.
Every great thing our nation has accomplished has been done through the common sacrifice and common spirit of our people.
Taxes are not a function of the government taking away anyones wealth, but only a function of allowing that everyone shares burdens for the common good.
I agree with these statements but understand that they are not just attributable to Liberals.
I think where we diverge is that Liberals believe that only some should be taxed rather than everyone being taxed and some should receive a tax break and some should not.
Bush's tax cut was a function of his administration to try to kickstart the economy. If it will work, only time will tell. I agree that more whealthy people got a bigger tax cut than some middle or lower class citizens did. While the middle class and poor citizens will spend their tax cuts on everyday neccesseties like food, housing, clothing etc. The whealthy will hopefully spend their tax cuts on business ventures which will create more jobs or they will just outright hire more people.
So which is it going to be, should only the poor and middle class receive a tax cut which will be spent within a month or should everyone recieve a tax cut that will hopefully create more jobs for the future??
]