TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

How Much Will Your Taxes Jump?

32 点作者 krohling超过 12 年前

19 条评论

rayiner超过 12 年前
And this is pretty much why I have switched from the WSJ to Bloomberg Business Week. It's Wall Street news for people who can't help but laugh at info-graphics with single moms earning $260k standing with their sad looking young children.<p>Also: I'm trying to figure out what's interactive about this "interactive graphic."<p>Also: It's amusing to play "guess the profession." Mine: the single mom and the single women are lawyers--senior associates but not partners. The single mom is divorced. In the family of six, the dad is an MD at a bank, but in one of the less cash-cow divisions. The wife is a college educated stay at home mom. The retired couple: the man is a retired NYPD deputy chief, and the woman is a retired teacher. The single woman lives in Manhattan, the single mom lives in a gentrified part of Brooklyn, the retired couple has a nice place in one of the gentrified parts of Harlem, and the family of four lives in Greenwich and the dad commutes down every morning.
评论 #5074833 未加载
评论 #5074466 未加载
评论 #5074204 未加载
评论 #5074874 未加载
freehunter超过 12 年前
I don't like that the headline has changed. Sure, it may have been editorialized, but if the editorialized headline was inappropriate, the whole submission should have been removed. Without the original headline, this post makes no sense.<p>If you're confused, the original headline was along the lines of "WSJ - Out of Touch?". The implication was that with the WSJ saying their idea of a retired person makes $180,000, their single parent of two makes $260,000, etc, the WSJ is out of touch with the common person's actual salary, especially during a recession.
评论 #5074110 未加载
评论 #5074863 未加载
grecy超过 12 年前
Look at those poor, sad retirees struggling to make ends meet on only $180,000/yr, with no change to their taxes.<p>Four children on $650,000, what a horrible life those kids are going to have - those parents look so stressed and tired.<p>That single person on $230,000 looks pissed off they'll have to contribute a whole $2,900 extra. How horrible for her.
评论 #5074139 未加载
评论 #5074109 未加载
zalzane超过 12 年前
this has to be the stupidest graphic i have ever seen<p>not only does it assign unrealistic income values, it uses different income brackets AND different deduction possibilities for each scenario. I walk away from this graph with absolutely no knowledge.
评论 #5074054 未加载
评论 #5074551 未加载
frendiversity超过 12 年前
Most single moms I know make at LEAST 7 figures, come on. What do you think these poor people are, some kind of slave class?
评论 #5074005 未加载
ck2超过 12 年前
People making $260k a year are making $5,000 per <i>week</i><p>Somehow I am just not worried about them.<p>There are tens of millions living on one tenth of that in this country and even millions living on one 1/20th
JohnGB超过 12 年前
That is one most biased examples of reporting I have seen. Blatantly trying to manipulate peoples perceptions by leaving out the cases that will apply to the vast majority of people.<p>I'm really disappointed that the WSJ would lower themselves to that.
usaphp超过 12 年前
Why does that married couple with 4 kids look so sad while making 650K/year!
omellet超过 12 年前
Only if you think they're trying to keep in touch with the average person.
dmm超过 12 年前
The median household income in the US is something like $45K/year. The people in these examples are paying more than that in taxes every year, except for the retired couple struggling along on $180K.
tortilla超过 12 年前
When did the Onion buy the WSJ?
评论 #5074152 未加载
DavidBradbury超过 12 年前
I like how the 'poorest' person in the infographic makes $25k per year in investment income. Assuming an average rate of 8% in returns from an low-risk and diversified portfolio, that person has roughly $312,000 in investments. Man they have it hard.
aresant超过 12 年前
There is no incentive to pay higher taxes as an individual.<p>Country prosperity and supporting social services are nice concepts but ask any CPA how the average high earner feels about being "business partners" with the govt.<p>So an honest suggestion - what if there were some small incentives created in govt controlled systems for high earners?<p>Pay the highest tax rate? Free carpool lane access for the next year.<p>Nothing insane, but some direct positive benefit in a transaction that overwhelmingly feels negative.
hudibras超过 12 年前
And don't forget to multiply each of the "investment income" numbers by 25 for a rough calculation of their wealth, assuming a 4% return on investment. For example, that family of six with $180,000 of passive investment income has net worth of $4.5 million. They could move almost everywhere in the U.S. except Manhattan and San Francisco and never work another day in their lives.
tzs超过 12 年前
Wow. I knew I was below the Wall Street Journal's target audience, but I didn't realize how far below, assuming those four examples are meant to by typical WJS readers.
towski超过 12 年前
How can you be mad. They are showing you the numbers right there on the page. It's not like they're lying. How can they be out of touch if they know the numbers?
ComputerGuru超过 12 年前
I'm a little surprised at the comments here on HN. I expected a much less sarcastic and "chip on the shoulder" attitude.<p>No one is saying that rich people can't <i>afford</i> to pay more taxes. It's not a question of they're going to starve and be out on the streets. The real issue is, approaching 50% taxes (EDIT: state + federal + medicare/medicaid + social security) is in conflict with the American concept of capitalism. The fact of the matter is, there is nothing proportionate about how much you benefit to how much you pay. The more you make, the more you pay to Uncle Sam both as a proportion of your income and as an actual number.<p>It is not a question of how much can you "afford to give" while remaining well off - I think it's a much more core issue at hand: is someone who makes (to bring this closer to home) $250k as a single individual, perhaps doing freelance software development and consulting, culpable to the tune of $80k out of their salary to help everyone else out?<p>Yes, it's a moral question. It's a philosophical question. And it's also a legal question: even if they <i>are</i> morally obligated - is it the government's job to enforce that?<p>Many people I know in that bracket actually give that much or more in very directed donations to non-profit entities (meaning they're no longer in that bracket thanks to tax deductions) because they feel they a) distrust the government to wisely spend their money to solve the problems, b) they should have a say in where their money goes, and c) it is not the government's job to take and redistribute wealth.<p>As for those that <i>don't</i> make such donations - can you absolutely say they must?<p>Also remember, these tax hikes are really not targeted at the so-called "filthy rich" that have been the focus of all the ire and angst in recent years by groups such as "Occupy Wall Street" - they just affect the upper middle class. Capital gains taxes are ridiculously lower than income taxes. Your wall street bankers and trust fund babies don't have "income" in the traditional sense. You're not taking this money from people that have invested money and are making more money explicitly not doing anything, these taxes are on the upper class of <i>working</i> citizens.<p>The biggest targets are small business owners, startups, lawyers, doctors, engineers, and others of their kind. Can you say for an absolute fact that they <i>owe</i> ~40% of their annual income to the government? I can tell you for a fact that the difference between a freelancer in high demand earning $250k/year vs $100k/year is a matter of the hours you work. If you kill yourself to work around the clock to make more money.... you are rewarded with higher taxes. It's not a different <i>class</i> of people that are being taxed higher - it's just people that have worked harder for longer and are, as a result, more well off. This is literally the anti-thesis of core American values: work harder and be, quite frankly, punished for it.<p>(I'm not saying everyone can automatically make $250k/year by working harder and that if you don't make that much then you are lazy - I'm saying the difference between $50k/year and $350k/year is a matter is a matter of quantity, not type; whereas the difference between $250k/year and $200MM/year is a different beast.)<p>At the end of the day, people need to decide if you are paying for services provided by the government or if we are asking the upper middle class to subsidize the rest of the country. There's nothing inherently better or worse about one or the other - it's a matter of philosophy. At the end of the day, are our core principles capitalistic or socialistic? There's something to be said for both, and I'm not saying it's wrong to have socialistic taxes such as those that were just recently repealed in France - but if that's the case, we need to own up and admit that is what we want.<p>It is an exercise in futility to ask to levy taxes on the middle class and above to subsidize the cost of a welfare nation <i>while pretending that is not the case</i>. If that's what you want to do, fine. Nothing in the constitution (despite what your favorite talk show might say) says a thing (explicitly) about capitalism vs socialism one way or the other. It's a democracy and we're free to choose our own path. But let's not do one thing while pretending to be another.
评论 #5074197 未加载
评论 #5074192 未加载
评论 #5074166 未加载
评论 #5074355 未加载
评论 #5074235 未加载
评论 #5074248 未加载
leothekim超过 12 年前
Just what about those income levels is representative of the rest of the country? It is not telling me anything.
patmcguire超过 12 年前
Apparently they all found out the one weird trick for making money online.