The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

The New Tax Law

Throughout the run-up to major tax reform initiated by Donald Trump, almost every Democrat told us that only the rich would get tax breaks, that the new tax law would spell economic doom, and most important, that the vast majority of taxpayers would get no tax reduction and might even pay more. At the risk of being indelicate, the Dems were either grossly misinformed or blatantly dishonest.

Now, as the benefits of the tax law are being felt across the country, and approval of it ratchets upward weekly, the Dems are in a quandary. How to explain their dishonesty? Because their trained hamsters in the media don't hold them to account, the Dems get a pass and don't have to explain. In fact, the very media sources that should ask why, also suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, and parroting their masters in the Democratic Party, they still insist that middle class taxpayers get screwed.

James Freeman writes:
Even perennial tax-increase advocate Warren Buffett is now acknowledging the economic benefit of the Trump tax cuts, but the New York Times newsroom still won’t concede the point. Will criticism from a liberal law professor persuade the Times to reconsider?

Since the overwhelming majority of Americans is receiving a tax cut this year, much of the press corps has naturally sought to find and highlight those few taxpayers who won’t be enjoying any relief, and may even be facing higher tax bills. On Friday the Times published a story typical of the genre, but with a twist.

Perhaps because of the difficulty of identifying particular victims of tax increases, the Times created two fictional characters to illustrate the story:

Thanks to lower rates and a doubled standard deduction, 2018 taxes will fall for many people. But that won’t be true for quite a few others, like this hypothetical couple in suburban New York, Samuel and Felicity Taxpayer.
The Times then described their imaginary family, which includes two children and an elderly parent living in the household. The paper elaborated: “Both Samuel and Felicity earn income, she as an employee of a design firm and he as a self-employed engineering consultant.” And the Times sketches out the family finances, writing that “their total income for 2017 was $183,911, but after deductions, their taxable income is $88,293. In 2018, it would be $116,097.”

The Times added other relevant details, accompanied by compelling graphics, and delivered the sad news to their imaginary couple:

The family would owe $3,896 more in taxes under the new tax law.
Except the NYT suffered from confirmation bias—their analysis was incorrect and they were called on it. In fact, the NYT's fictitious family (apparently they couldn't find a real one) would have saved on taxes, not paid more.

I find it fascinating that the Democrats have a problem when middle class workers have more money in their paychecks. The new tax law didn't GIVE anything to anyone. It allows people at all income levels to KEEP more of their own money. It seems that most people agree that keeping more of your own money is a good thing. But that hasn't stopped the Democrats from claiming otherwise.