Why the Party of Romney Lost and Will Keep Losing Till it Gets a Clue

From Cracked:

Here is an infographic that ran in the Wall Street Journal talking about how the new tax code would be “highly painful” for Americans. The graphic covers every possible scenario the Wall Street Journal can conceive of, from the single mom only making $260,000 a year to the retired couple trying to get by on a fixed income of $180,000:

Read the whole piece.  It’s hilarious in a grim sort of way.  The working poor are a reality and nobody is paying attention to them because they are too busy vilifying them as shiftless drug addicts.

  • Elaine S.

    A single parent with two kids making $260,000, with $35,000 of that coming from investments? Where I live I’d be more likely to meet Sasquatch than someone who actually fit that profile. Perhaps the WSJ assumes that no one who lives outside of a major city or makes less than six figures would read their publication….

    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      Other than the investment income if I were to drop dead, my wife would roughly fit the profile of the single mom (three kids, not two). Look to your female professional population (doctors/lawyers/etc) to find more examples.

      Think about the name of the paper. This is a journal that was born to cover Wall Street. It has always, and likely will always come at issues from a different perspective than most.

  • http://arkanabar.blogspot.com Arkanabar

    Mark, these are the people who start, own, run, and/or hire small businesses, such as employ most of us. Pinch them too hard, and they can’t. Taxes meant to gouge the super-rich when they bought new yachts instead wound up destroying the US luxury yacht industry, ending manufacturing jobs for … well, everyone who worked in it. A few were able to move into used luxury yacht refurbishing, but not many.

    • Susan

      Thank you! While I have little sympathy for gazillionaires, the people in Obama’s crosshairs have always been the small businessmen. (You are SO RIGHT about the punitive luxury tax on boats – I learned from experience in Maine that NOT ONE RICH PERSON was hurt, but boatyards laid off many, many people, and the repercussions went on and on – families and children suffering, other small businesses like restaurants and coffee shops and their employees lost their homes, etc.).
      In my family’s case, our business allows more than 50 other people to pay their mortgages, send their kids to college, etc. Our income allows us to employ cleaning people and lawn companies and other lower income workers, whose hours we will have to cut or eliminate with any tax increase. We are Catholic and do not live luxuriously- we give 5 figures to charity PLUS another 5 figures to nondeductible charity – direct payments to help people with their mortgages, medical bills, etc. This is in addition to the $125,000 we pay in taxes, (with no loopholes, that’s around a third of our total, not marginal, income) which goes a long way to funding social programs in this country. I don’t understand the contempt sent our way – we take 100% of the risk, work 60-80 hours a week, etc., do all the selling and administrative work and pay all the insurance – all our workers have to do is simply the work and nothing more — and it is work we could do ourselves, but choose to share with others.

  • Andy

    Interesting numbers, especially since the median income where I live is around $40,000. My income is in the low $70,000s and helping 2 kids go to college and preparing to welcome a new grandchild means there is not a lot to work with. Not complaining, but I cannot get to worked up over people who make 2 to 3 times what I make paying higher taxes. I recall many years ago during one of the baseball strikes a player saying nobody knows how hard it is to live on a million dollars year. Damn until we recognize that nobody is worth that kind of money, that no CEO is worth millions of dollars per year and that we lionize those who make that money – we will decline. The worship of mammon and well.

    • Dan C

      That is because you have insufficient veneration of those god-folk termed “job creators.” The Makers walk on earth amongst us and you think your small existence matters. What really matters is merely pleasing the Makers, so we must be incensed when anyone dares to upset them. If they become displeased, the Makers may leave us and without them we will be nothing. Nothing.

      If we do not seek to please the Makers, and stop displeasing them, our lives will not matter.

      We are small and they are great.

      • Susan

        I wish you’d read my post above, with a little compassion. Most “job creators” are small businesspersons like myself who started with absolutely nothing – well, not nothing; we raided our kid’s college fund (it had $800 in it) to start our business. We work around the clock without the security of a guaranteed, every-Friday paycheck, the security of group health insurance, or even of someone else shelling out half our social security payments (the self-employed pay 100%). And it resulted in our being able to provide a living to many other people. We do not look down on people who choose to work 35-hour weeks for others. I understand many people do not want to be saddled with the risks, uncertainties, and excessive regulation involved in starting a business.

        • Pancho

          Most people don’t “chose” to work for others. It’s not like picking a t-shirt at The Gap.

          • Ioannes Georgius

            It is sometimes like staying home in rain because your umbrella is broken and you have not heard of raincoats.

            Besides, the fewer who can make small businesses, the more are obliged to push each other around hunting for 35 hours a week.

            tinyurl (dot) com/cc2hgqz

  • http://mondayevening.wordpress.com/ Marcel

    Shocking how all the illustrations are heteronormative. Plus, that married couple has like four kids! What an example of planet-busting Wastern Society!

  • dcs

    One can tell from their facial expressions that wealth can’t buy happiness.

  • http://backoftheworld.com Ryan M.

    Man, retiring on a fixed income of $180k sounds really, really nice right about now…

  • http://www.chesterton.org Sean P. Dailey

    It’s not just the party of Romney, Mark, it’s the ruling class. That congressgal who struggles by, paycheck to paycheck on $175,000, is a democrat.

  • http://knowledgehungry.wordpress.com Jeanne G.

    There must be an extra 0 on all those figures. A single mom ONLY making $260,000 a year? I am married w/o kids (yet), my husband is not employed full time, and it takes us almost 9 years to make that much. We’re not even poor, although we do have some serious financial problems, we don’t even qualify for any government assistance (and at our current income, we wouldn’t qualify for anything unless we had 2 kids). Some people’s concept of middle class is much different than mine, I guess.

    • http://knowledgehungry.wordpress.com Jeanne G.

      I should say, that I am employed full time, although my husband isn’t.

  • http://www.mytruckbuddy.com Chris

    I don’t get it. Is that supposed to be a joke? What world is that? A single mom making $260,000 per year exists…where? The neighborhood immediately surrounding the Journal’s building?

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    There is a true “clueless class” in this country. I was speaking to a very nice, very well meaning woman a year or so ago who told me, “Well, the poor wouldn’t be poor if they would just learn to handle their investments better.” She had absolutely no concept that millions of people have a hard time putting food on the table, much less deciding where to invest.

    Nothing she said was out of malice or willful ignorance. She simply had no clue. She grew up in a wealthy home, married a wealthy man, graduated college but never held a job. And yes, she voted for Romney.

    There’s that line from Sports Night: “So Natalie, where do you invest your money?” “Well, my money is mostly tied up in investments like food and shelter and hoping I don’t get sick enough to warrant a trip to the doctor.”

  • Mark R

    It looks jokey, but it’s a dud. Really? A sweater tied over his shoulders? Cliche’ alert!
    Seriously, I live in a suburb with lots of folks from Ivies and top universities, and I don’t think they really make this much (I live here through marriage, the in-laws bought in when it was much cheaper). Most of these folks are just intelligent and industrious and have put off immediate gratification to affort to live in a nice spot to have a family. If this graphic is serious, it is only for Manhattanites.

  • Mark R

    However, a cop married to a teacher can pull in over 100 K together. Obama & Co. have lowered the threshold for what it considered wealthy. 250 K under Clinton is not what it is under Obama and in the near future a cop married to a teacher could be pulling in 250 K and then under the Obama criteria they would then be considered wealthy and more onerously taxed.

    • Beccolina

      Not here they don’t. We have a lower cost of living here than in many parts of the country, but a teacher and policeman here would start (together) at $50K. They might break $100K together after 15 years each, IF the teacher goes back to school and gets a masters.

  • Paul H

    Either that picture is a joke, or it was made by someone who is unfathomably out of touch with reality.

    My wife and I make a lot less than the couple in that picture, and for what it’s worth, our income tax went down from 2011 to 2012.

  • Stu

    Glad to see Dee Dee Myers got work as a cartoon model.

  • Ed Graham

    Of course, one could simply read the article rather than go into full outrage mode over the cheesy graphic and attack straw men. The article is about the effects of the recent tax code deal. The effects tend to hit the more affluent. That was the design. The tax deal was not designed to hit the “working poor,” who generally do not pay much in the way of federal income taxes in any event. So the WSJ did not attempt to canvas the status of the “working poor” under the tax deal. What would be the point? Of course, as others have suggested above, the working poor will be affected by the negative economic consequences of these and similar policies, e.g., more part-time and less full-time work as small employers try to avoid triggering Obamacare. But what any of this has to do with the “Party of Romney” is anyone’s guess.

    • Arnold

      Unfortunately, Mark has a habit of writing headlines like that based on what I suspect was a cursory reading of the WSJ article. Thank you for clarifying what was the actual purpose of the article.

    • Nobody

      True, this. Also, the WSJ is indeed oriented toward Wall Streeters, uber-metro-1%ers; look at the weekend feature sections they have … stuff to enflame envy and resentment … I’m sure many of those folk, both the ones who work for the WSJ and their target audience are as clueless as you all assume … sigh …

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    I suppose for people living in such places as New York City, San Francisco, and Washington DC, these numbers may not look quite as ridiculous as they look to the rest of us, but still, I can’t really bring myself to feel bad about a marginal tax hike for people making $200,000 or more.

  • Obpoet

    Perhaps more accurate to say no one is paying attention to the poor because…….they are poor.

    And what other party will ever win until they find something to best abortion, contraception, and other sundry free stuff? Personal freedoms? No. Liberty? Who needs it? The party of I want mine and I want it now is here to stay, minus a few bumps in the road here and there for hapless types that occasionally get nominated. When the 47% become the 51%, it is all over.

  • Imrahil

    I thought the only was irony. I still think so. As has been said, there must be an additional 0 on this… or the USA is incredibly wealthy.

    Single mother and 260,000$? Does she see her children at all, even if in an absolute top manager job or entrepreneurial position?

    Retired and 90,000$ each? Which is more than 7500 a month, at very roughly the level of a German Colonel?

    The Chancelloress of Germany makes about 250,000 € (€ that is, but still) a year. This time, the 0′s are straight. And that includes her additional salary for being MP.

  • Rachel

    Um, I don’t understand the outrage here. The actual WSJ article clearly stated it was illustrating how the new tax laws are affecting “affluent” Americans, not all Americans.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X