ONTD Political

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

9:16 am - 01/16/2013
"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 Journal reporter 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 increases will have for the poor, apparently no one in their Wall Street Journal's world makes under $100,000 a year.

Think of the rich people!

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.


edit: oops, this was already posted with a different source.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
evilnel 16th-Jan-2013 02:30 pm (UTC)
Lol they should take a look at my tax return. I don't think they could draw a face sad enough for my paychecks if this is their idea of struggling (and I'm by no means the poorest person out there!). This is the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time.
miss_almost 16th-Jan-2013 04:09 pm (UTC)
lol @ "I don't think they could draw a face sad enough for my paychecks"

mte. if they put my annual income on there the picture would be of a person in a sobbing mess, probably in a gutter with some kind of alcohol in a brown bag.
deutscher_engel 16th-Jan-2013 02:56 pm (UTC)
When any of these hypothetical people have had to feed 2 people on $10/week then maybe I'll give a shit about their cartoon feels. Also Lol @ the Carlton Banks sweater.
ahzuri 16th-Jan-2013 03:04 pm (UTC)
LOLOL Right right. Me and my husband with our two incomes just barely come up over 40k a year so clearly we are doing something wrong even though we have jobs that pay above min wage.
lickety_split 16th-Jan-2013 03:11 pm (UTC)
Welp, now we know who Todd Henderson's been writing for since that flounce.
toastieghostie 16th-Jan-2013 03:14 pm (UTC)
In what universe is it the norm for young, single people to make a quarter mil annually? Wtaf?? Or am I supposed to boohoo that a single person making more than twice than what my mother (who is supporting 4 people) makes at half her age has to pay a couple hundred dollars more a month in taxes?

maladaptive 16th-Jan-2013 03:27 pm (UTC)
Seriously, I'm in a potentially rich field (law) and even the MEN average "$172,000" (average for female lawyers in my state is $80,000). I don't know where the numbers came from, because I know for sure I won't see that kind of money.

But if those are the averages in law-- and that includes big law with huge paychecks-- where the hell is this single mother working to make that kind of money? Because I guarantee you she's recently single.
intrikate88 16th-Jan-2013 03:17 pm (UTC)
Wow, a friend of a friend got a job at Deloitte making 90k and we thought she was doing well... apparently all of us single ladies are supposed to be making 230k? Well, fuck, where do I sign up for my 200k/year bonus?
ljs_lj 16th-Jan-2013 03:26 pm (UTC)
I particularly like how they threw in some ethnic diversity, as if to say, "Who, us? We're not a newspaper that caters to rich white men! Look, we have minorities!"
aviv_b 16th-Jan-2013 04:24 pm (UTC)
But note that the minority couple are the only one's whose taxes don't go up. I don't think that's an accident.
odette_river 16th-Jan-2013 03:37 pm (UTC)
lol, I looked at this and thought, Oh, maybe it's finally time to move back to the US and get a real job. ...Or maybe not.
schmanda 16th-Jan-2013 06:21 pm (UTC)
furrygreen 16th-Jan-2013 03:48 pm (UTC)
Why is it the black couple making the least and why is the "single" woman Asian? Does anyone feel these "portraits" are racist (on top of everything else)?
beoweasel 16th-Jan-2013 03:56 pm (UTC)
And why is the black guy Carlton Banks?

Well, he did come from a wealthy family, and lord knows the only black people the WSJ are familiar with is reruns from Fresh Prince of Bel Air...

Edited at 2013-01-16 03:58 pm (UTC)
ultraelectric 16th-Jan-2013 03:54 pm (UTC)
Where do these people live and how do I get in on this money?
ultraelectric 16th-Jan-2013 03:59 pm (UTC)
I have to say though, this also just offends me. As someone who was raised by a single mom who made $40,000-$45,000 a year, these kids will still benefit in every fucking way, like school district etc. Me? I lived in a trailer that looked like a tin can and had to go to one of the poorest schools in my county, this chick and her kids will live. As will that family w/ 4 kids.

Edited at 2013-01-16 04:01 pm (UTC)
aviv_b 16th-Jan-2013 04:27 pm (UTC)
Yeah cry me a river. I'm happy to pay a little more this year in social security taxes, because I hope to be able to receive a benefit when I'm 65. These folks - fuck them - they don't like it - become a citizen of Russia like Gerard Depardieu.
romp 17th-Jan-2013 04:01 am (UTC)
did he? what a dick
wrestlingdog 16th-Jan-2013 04:35 pm (UTC)
Please tell me they misplaced a decimal or something.
kyra_neko_rei 17th-Jan-2013 02:11 am (UTC)
Inorite? My first thought was, "you people are off by an order of magnitude here."

My second thought was "somebody making a hundred and sixty grand a year is bawwwing over an extra three grand in taxes? fuck this shit."
mingemonster 16th-Jan-2013 04:35 pm (UTC)
Crying for the poor single mother who'll only have $500 to live on per day :( And that (clearly despairing) family will only have $113 000 per child after taxes.
quizzicalsphinx 16th-Jan-2013 04:55 pm (UTC)
It occurs to me that I wouldn't even have any idea how to spend $500 a day. I mean, my gas tank's topped off, the power bill's paid, and my Amazon wishlist is three hundred bucks at most. Are there things beyond that?
can_be_cruel 16th-Jan-2013 05:00 pm (UTC)
I would really like the Wallstreet journal to draw a portrait of me weeping in despair over my ~$25,000 (BEFORE taxes) annual income.
valarltd 16th-Jan-2013 05:21 pm (UTC)
I'm pleased to be working part time for $8/hour. My first paycheck will be about $100. No, I haven't slipped a decimal.

When I was working, we were making about 3 times as much an the average family in our town. And over $100,000 less than their poorest couple.

I want their sad faces. I want to not worry that spending $50 on groceries for 2 weeks is an extravgance.
lux_roark 16th-Jan-2013 05:47 pm (UTC)
Now that I can't work we don't make as much money as we used to, even when we were paying childcare expenses. Then my husband lost his $40,000 a year job in 2009 and we've been stuck in a rut ever since. We made $18,500 for a family of 4 in 2011.
mickeym 16th-Jan-2013 07:11 pm (UTC)
Oh, Jesus. My income for a family of two (me and my son) last year was just a tad over $18,600. I can't imagine having two more people to try and stretch that money over.

I hope things get better for y'all, and *soon*.
bananainpyjamas 16th-Jan-2013 06:00 pm (UTC)
Yup, this is basically how I feel when my dad (who makes more than everyone but the married couple) complains about tax increases. At that level of income I doubt you can even tell when your income goes up or down by a few thousand.
apostle_of_eris 16th-Jan-2013 06:53 pm (UTC)
It's not very unusual that the graphic got a nice coat of pastel diversity paint, but the retired couple getting by on $180,000 is black. Are there enough retired black couples in the country with incomes over $175,000 to be statistically significant?
zinnia_rose 16th-Jan-2013 07:00 pm (UTC)
I would say their zero key seems to be stuck, but since it's a drawing...yeah, no idea.
mickeym 16th-Jan-2013 07:03 pm (UTC)
Y'know... I'd give an organ or three if I, as a single parent (granted, only one kid, but still) could make $260K/yr.

My yearly income right now, including child support (which will end next June, after my son graduates high school), is under $19K/yr.

Jesus. By that graph thingy, I have less yearly income than that single mom has in a month.

Now I'm really depressed. :-/
kangofu 16th-Jan-2013 07:05 pm (UTC)
I make a nice salary. Not as much as that retired couple up there makes, but enough that I pay more in taxes than some homes with children make. And that's fine. I'm ok with paying taxes and I am not upset that I have to pay more.

I'm not starving. I can afford to pay off my 6-figure loan in the allotted years. I can still buy nice things and go nice places.

My cousins (the staunch Repubs who hate "big gov't) kept their factory jobs after the economy crash thanks to government contracts. My brother is a disabled veteran and his GF is in the military. Most of my family works in education. I myself am in healthcare. We went to excellent public schools and I even had a scholarship briefly, until it was axed from the state budet. I am very grateful for what the tax dollars of America's citizens have provided for me and my loved ones.

It infuriates me to hear my friends complain. Friends with nice apartments in Manhattan. Who don't have to work 3 jobs to make ends meet. Whose children don't go to school hungry and depend to the food program for their only meal of the day. The local food bank has been discreetly sending food home with the kids whose family's would otherwise have nothing at all.

In the end, it all comes back to our culture of having and buying. If I have to pay more taxes, then I'll have even less money to buy all the stuff I want. Because that's all that's ever important anymore.
redstar826 16th-Jan-2013 08:22 pm (UTC)
I wonder what the average subscriber to the WSJ makes. If they have a reader base that is fairly wealthy overall, this might at least make a little bit more sense. I can't speak for the WSJ, but every so often I'll buy a copy of the New York Times, and the ads are hilarious because a lot of them are aimed at really wealthy people.
agentsculder 16th-Jan-2013 10:09 pm (UTC)
I'm a NYT subscriber and I also find the ads HYSTERICAL. It is so clear that they assume that the average NYT subscriber is rich, white, lives in Manhattan, and has shit loads of disposable income. Out of those four things, the only one which applies to me is race.
skellington1 16th-Jan-2013 08:24 pm (UTC)
THIS is why I deeply, deeply wish that debaters and speechifiers and newscasters weren't allowed to use phrases like "rich," "poor", or "middle class," without defining their terms with numbers. I noticed it a lot in the election -- everyone wants to talk about the "middle class" but most of those in the upper echelons have no freaking idea what the middle class IS.

I'd say my parents are comfortably middle class. Secure state jobs, education, own their house (well, bank owns it), enough money to support my little brother and be generous to me. Together they make just over six figures, each working full time -- so less than this chart's retired couple.

We won't even go into my income, or the fact that my income, low as it is, is much higher than that of many of my friends. UGH.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
This page was loaded Jul 22nd 2017, 10:54 am GMT.