Shocking News from the L.A. Times: Tax Breaks Benefit Those Who Pay the Most Taxes
Except they don’t tell you about the “paying the most taxes” part.
Prominently featured on this rag’s web site this morning is this story:
Tax breaks benefit rich households the most, report says
Tax breaks benefit U.S. households unevenly, with the top 1% receiving more than 17% of the savings in 2013.
Federal income tax breaks disproportionately benefit wealthier households, according to a report issued Wednesday that is certain to become ammunition in the budget battles as Congress debates the best ways to reduce Washington’s deficits.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the top 10 major tax breaks “are distributed unevenly across the income scale,” with the top 1% of households — those who make more than $450,000 a year — receiving more than 17% of the savings in 2013.
Absolutely nowhere in the story do they tell you that the top 1% of households pay 30% of the nation’s taxes. Which, you would think, would provide a little bit of perspective.
Paging the Koch brothers. I bet they would understand this.
fever swamp lefties
Colonel Haiku (180a66) — 5/30/2013 @ 7:38 amunfit for teh parrot sh*t
or even fish wrap
Well Mr. Frey we’ve known for a long time that the Los Angeles Times reporting is fit only for lining the bottom of bird cages. Of course most of the current crop of self styled “reporters” at the Los Angeles Times will be in deep dung if either News Corp or the Kochs take over this financially and intellectualy bankrupt “paper”.
Comanche Voter (29e1a6) — 5/30/2013 @ 8:00 amFYI, the LAT’s total weekday circulation is about 725,000, which is misleading because it includes unread papers left in racks, free deliveries to people who simply toss it in the trash or use it to train their dogs, and continued deliveries to people who’ve already canceled their subscriptions. But let’s go ahead and hypothecate that around 700,000 people read that nonsensical rag each day. Including of course those who only pay attention to the sports section, or the entertainment section, or the classifieds. Well, the adult population of L.A. County is well over 7.5 million. Nationally speaking, around 128 million people voted for president last November. You get the numbingly obvious points, right?
William Scalia (89a442) — 5/30/2013 @ 8:06 amThat perspective thing would be important in the LA Times wanted, well, perspective.
MT Geoff (a67ef4) — 5/30/2013 @ 8:10 amUsing an article like this in a bird cage would improve the article at the expense of the stuff that lands on it. Okay, I didn’t have to say that, but I wanted to.
WScalia @#3: The Times may go to 700,000 locations and it may be read by several people at each location. Copies and number of readers correlate only sort-of. You’re right about copies that don’t get read at all, of course.
The Times seemingly can’t decide if it wants to limit online readership. One day I will click on an article and get a notice I have to subscribe. I go away and come back another random day, do the same thing and read the article.
Of course, incompetence could be another explanation.
Mike K (dc6ffe) — 5/30/2013 @ 8:16 amGreetings:
Did you mean besides the “Earned Income TAx Credit” and the other forms of welfare redistribution via the tax code ???
11B40 (30f96a) — 5/30/2013 @ 9:04 amI read the CBO piece on their site. All of it is based on three obviously false assumptions:
(1) All of the money taxpayers earn belongs to the government.
(2) Every dollar the government spends is essential revenue, there is zero government waste and no government operation can be done without.
(3) Ergo, any tax cut or exemption is a cost to the government, an addition to the national deficit, and is, therefore, bad.
Let us see this from the right side, shall we? Here are true assumptions that can stand up to reality:
Fred Beloit (f52a27) — 5/30/2013 @ 9:08 am(1) The money taxpayers earn belongs to the taxpayers.
(2) The government wastes a large amount of money, and many government programs do not work…do not accomplish what was intended, and should be eliminated or drastically reduced. (See the Peace
Corps [there is precious little peace], Public [Democrat propaganda] Broadcasting, The Education Department [states are responsible for education and schools are failing schools where good schools are needed most. The Education Dept. has done nothing to stop this problem, in fact it is getting worse].
(3) Any injustices and complexities in the current tax system could be eliminated by a flat/sales tax, which would be good.
This appears to be the de facto strategery of the left, nowadays—play ‘dumb.’
Next week, the LA Times may finally discover the bombshell that people on welfare receive the most welfare payments. You know, especially in comparison to the people who aren’t on welfare.
Elephant Stone (bcf0e3) — 5/30/2013 @ 9:42 amIf you raise taxes only on those making over $1 million, it is of no consequence. If you then repeal that same tax increase it is “cutting taxes for the rich” and a clear stop on the road to fascism.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/30/2013 @ 9:50 amNow that Fry’s puts their Friday ad online, I see no reason to get the Times at all. When I realized that the Fry’s ad was all I really looked forward to in the paper, it was easy to cancel my 40-year subscription.
They still delivered it for almost a year at no charge, probably to keep their circulation numbers up.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/30/2013 @ 9:54 amTalk is Bennie is looking for the door and Larry Summers is the designated dead raccoon recipient.
We already see Japan in its death throes, here’s the good news:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-30/ecb-warns-calm-storm-ending
Japan won’t be mourned long, another flight of obits are roughed out.
Get your money out of digital format, now.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 5/30/2013 @ 10:51 amThe biggest tax break accrues to the 47% of households that pay NO INCOME TAXES.
DUH!
in_awe (7c859a) — 5/30/2013 @ 11:11 amSpeaking of the dog trainer, is anybody but me thinking “jihad maybe” on the Disneyland bombs and the O.C. car crash?
Patricia (be0117) — 5/30/2013 @ 11:52 amOh no, the (generous) rich benefit disproportionately from the charitable donation deduction!
That’s just awful – all that obviously unneeded money going to charities Democrats may not like, when the money could be taken by the government so liberals can spend it!
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 5/30/2013 @ 1:34 pm…and the reverse of the headline is, “Taxes benefit those who pay the least amount in income taxes !”
Oof !
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 5/30/2013 @ 1:38 pmMike K at #5.. Just delete the cookies for their site. Local paper does the same thing after some number of article views. Delete cookies, back to page view 1. They’re probably limited number of articles per day (or other random time period) or something.
Miguelito (13e5f8) — 5/30/2013 @ 1:41 pmMy parrot is still dead. I wonder whether or not the Times journalists are really as stupid/ignorant as they appear to be? Is it possible they are just trying in their feeble way to mislead their readers?
Bar Sinister (b48c12) — 5/31/2013 @ 7:22 amduoy – when you have all the money, you pay all the taxes.
Isn’t it late in the game to keep using Frank Luntz’ “words that work” in the debate over income disparity?
This was a deflection that successfully won over a majority of right wing rhubarbs, blinking as they repeat the taking points.
When the rich cry that they pay too high a percentage of the overall tax burden, it’s a genius reframing of the reality that they have taken all the new income away from middle and working class families.
Of COURSE they’d pay a higher percentage of taxes if they have snaked average families out of raises, COLA bumps and benefits. But using Madison Avenue’s most brilliant techniques for selling refrigerators to Eskimos, the ploy of painting millionaires as the victim was a home run.
After this was so effective, left wingers started to use charts that showed middle class family incomes flatlining for decades as the incomes of the super affluent rose double digits. So people started to realize WHY the rich pay such a greater percentage of the overall taxes paid – it’s because they acquired money that traditionally went to the middle class.
So you can look at this like a liberal and say the rich bought Congress and made sweetheart tax policies that worsened income disparity. You can look at it like a conservative and say nothing should stand in the way of the liberty of the multimillionaire as they hoard without limit. You can look at this like a devout Catholic, Christian and recognize that hoarding wealth at the expense of others is a sin, as expressed by the Pope.
But ultimately we should look at this like fiscal conservatives and realize that a strong middle class is vital to a sustainable economy, just like any fisherman knows you never overfish your pond.
Mahalia Cab (717d16) — 5/31/2013 @ 9:15 amreality that they have taken all the new income away from middle and working class families
I love it when collectivists and redistribution its state so clearly how they view your earnings.
JD (b63a52) — 5/31/2013 @ 9:24 amZero sum nonsense from Mahalia teh Verbose
JD (b63a52) — 5/31/2013 @ 9:25 amMahalia is a fiscal conservative in the same way that EPWJ hearts Cruz.
JD (b63a52) — 5/31/2013 @ 9:26 amMahalia Person, in other words, do you need me to loan you some money ?
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 5/31/2013 @ 9:35 am“it’s a genius reframing of the reality that they have taken all the new income away from middle and working class families.”
Mahalia – How do they do that? Do they come in the night and take it when people are sleeping or watch and wait until they see the house is empty or do they hack in to bank and saving accounts.
I want to understand this taking process. It was never explained to me in college or graduate school so there is obviously some illegal nefarious activity going on of which I am unaware. Please, please explain.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/31/2013 @ 9:49 amMahalia Person wrote, “…when you have all the money, you pay all the taxes.”
————–
That might be the first true thing you’ve ever written at this blog.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 5/31/2013 @ 9:59 am“it’s a genius reframing of the reality that they have taken all the new income away from middle and working class families.”
Mahalia – Does new income look different from old income? Is it a different color or smell, can you only spend it certain places or is it taxed at different rates? At the end of a year, how does somebody know if they have made a combination of old income and new income and more importantly according to your theory have had some of either old or new income taken by some mysterious group?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/31/2013 @ 10:22 amMahalia – Your ideas intrigue me. Do you have a newsletter to which I can subscribe – The Journal of Stupid Economic Theories, perhaps?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/31/2013 @ 10:26 amDo you think Mahalia might could be Paul Krugman’s sooper sekret internet persona?
elissa (07b801) — 5/31/2013 @ 10:29 am9. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/30/2013 @ 9:50 am
If you raise taxes only on those making over $1 million, it is of no consequence. If you then repeal that same tax increase it is “cutting taxes for the rich” and a clear stop on the road to fascism.
Carried to its logical extreme, the end result – the limit – is a flat tax with a huge deductible.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/31/2013 @ 10:33 amdaley, you took the words right out of my mouth (albeit two days earlier, because I didn’t get to this thread till just now). Thief!
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 2:38 pm