SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Mar 30, 2016
The website Vox (3/25/16) has what editor-in-chief Ezra Klein describes as an "excellent tax calculator" that, in its headline's promise, "Tells You How Each Presidential Candidate's Tax Plan Affects You."
Actually, it does no such thing; it's a gimmick that is entirely useless except as a deceptive advertisement for Hillary Clinton.
As a gimmick, it's pretty simple. You put in your annual income (actually, your "expanded cash income," which you probably don't know even if you know what it is), whether you're single or married and whether you have no kids, one kid, or two or more kids. And then it tells you what Donald Trump's, Ted Cruz's, Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders' "plans mean for your federal tax liability."
Let's try it out with the US median household income ($43,585), married, two kids. You get a graphic that looks like this:
"Pay $5,110 more"--holy smokes! Stop the revolution, I want to get off! Why didn't someone (besides Vox's Alvin Chang) tell me that "Sanders wants to implement massive increases across the board, including on the poor"?
Maybe because he doesn't--and you wouldn't pay $5,110 more, or anything like it.
Mostly, that big number you get for the Sanders tax hike when you plug in your income is the payroll tax that employers will pay to cover the cost of a single-payer healthcare system. As the Tax Policy Center, which worked with Vox to create the calculator, explains:
We're including payroll taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes as well as individual income taxes.... Most economists think employers pass their share of the tax on to workers in the form of lower wages.
With all due respect to most economists, this is dubious. Unless you work at the rare enterprise that does not have profit as its primary goal, your bosses are already paying you as little as they think they can get away with. If they get a new cost associated with your employment, they may try to raise their prices. They may look for other areas where they can cut costs. They may even decide that they can no longer afford to employ you. But what they won't do is suddenly realize that they could have been paying you thousands of dollars less all along without you quitting. (They may even be forced to accept a lower profit rate, though that's something "most economists" seem to exclude a priori.)
But that's not even the real problem with Vox's calculator. Sanders' plan is based on using a new payroll tax to pay for a single-payer healthcare system, which will relieve businesses of the considerable burden of paying for employee healthcare. Since just about everyone agrees that single-payer is cheaper than what we have now (including Ezra Klein, before Sanders started running against Clinton on a single-payer platform), in theory business as a whole should come out ahead. But certainly you need to take into account that business would be getting a big break on expenses at the same time that it's getting a new tax, right?
No, Vox thinks you don't need to take that into account. From the calculator's FAQ: "The Tax Policy Center's model does not include spending programs and thus can only show the effects of tax changes."
Imagine a website--maybe one that seems to have a pronounced pro-Sanders tilt--creating a "Benefits Calculator" that promises to tell you how each candidate's benefits plan affects you. The calculator guesstimates how much your employer will save with a single-payer plan and, using the same dubious economics, implies that that savings is money in your bank account. What about your employer's big tax hike? It's a benefits calculator--it can't show the effect of tax changes!
Ezra Klein would be the first to say that a website that constructed a machine for telling people that Bernie Sanders would give them thousands of dollars was engaging in partisan hackery. Yet when Vox does the same thing in reverse, it's data-driven journalism. Or something.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
The website Vox (3/25/16) has what editor-in-chief Ezra Klein describes as an "excellent tax calculator" that, in its headline's promise, "Tells You How Each Presidential Candidate's Tax Plan Affects You."
Actually, it does no such thing; it's a gimmick that is entirely useless except as a deceptive advertisement for Hillary Clinton.
As a gimmick, it's pretty simple. You put in your annual income (actually, your "expanded cash income," which you probably don't know even if you know what it is), whether you're single or married and whether you have no kids, one kid, or two or more kids. And then it tells you what Donald Trump's, Ted Cruz's, Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders' "plans mean for your federal tax liability."
Let's try it out with the US median household income ($43,585), married, two kids. You get a graphic that looks like this:
"Pay $5,110 more"--holy smokes! Stop the revolution, I want to get off! Why didn't someone (besides Vox's Alvin Chang) tell me that "Sanders wants to implement massive increases across the board, including on the poor"?
Maybe because he doesn't--and you wouldn't pay $5,110 more, or anything like it.
Mostly, that big number you get for the Sanders tax hike when you plug in your income is the payroll tax that employers will pay to cover the cost of a single-payer healthcare system. As the Tax Policy Center, which worked with Vox to create the calculator, explains:
We're including payroll taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes as well as individual income taxes.... Most economists think employers pass their share of the tax on to workers in the form of lower wages.
With all due respect to most economists, this is dubious. Unless you work at the rare enterprise that does not have profit as its primary goal, your bosses are already paying you as little as they think they can get away with. If they get a new cost associated with your employment, they may try to raise their prices. They may look for other areas where they can cut costs. They may even decide that they can no longer afford to employ you. But what they won't do is suddenly realize that they could have been paying you thousands of dollars less all along without you quitting. (They may even be forced to accept a lower profit rate, though that's something "most economists" seem to exclude a priori.)
But that's not even the real problem with Vox's calculator. Sanders' plan is based on using a new payroll tax to pay for a single-payer healthcare system, which will relieve businesses of the considerable burden of paying for employee healthcare. Since just about everyone agrees that single-payer is cheaper than what we have now (including Ezra Klein, before Sanders started running against Clinton on a single-payer platform), in theory business as a whole should come out ahead. But certainly you need to take into account that business would be getting a big break on expenses at the same time that it's getting a new tax, right?
No, Vox thinks you don't need to take that into account. From the calculator's FAQ: "The Tax Policy Center's model does not include spending programs and thus can only show the effects of tax changes."
Imagine a website--maybe one that seems to have a pronounced pro-Sanders tilt--creating a "Benefits Calculator" that promises to tell you how each candidate's benefits plan affects you. The calculator guesstimates how much your employer will save with a single-payer plan and, using the same dubious economics, implies that that savings is money in your bank account. What about your employer's big tax hike? It's a benefits calculator--it can't show the effect of tax changes!
Ezra Klein would be the first to say that a website that constructed a machine for telling people that Bernie Sanders would give them thousands of dollars was engaging in partisan hackery. Yet when Vox does the same thing in reverse, it's data-driven journalism. Or something.
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
The website Vox (3/25/16) has what editor-in-chief Ezra Klein describes as an "excellent tax calculator" that, in its headline's promise, "Tells You How Each Presidential Candidate's Tax Plan Affects You."
Actually, it does no such thing; it's a gimmick that is entirely useless except as a deceptive advertisement for Hillary Clinton.
As a gimmick, it's pretty simple. You put in your annual income (actually, your "expanded cash income," which you probably don't know even if you know what it is), whether you're single or married and whether you have no kids, one kid, or two or more kids. And then it tells you what Donald Trump's, Ted Cruz's, Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders' "plans mean for your federal tax liability."
Let's try it out with the US median household income ($43,585), married, two kids. You get a graphic that looks like this:
"Pay $5,110 more"--holy smokes! Stop the revolution, I want to get off! Why didn't someone (besides Vox's Alvin Chang) tell me that "Sanders wants to implement massive increases across the board, including on the poor"?
Maybe because he doesn't--and you wouldn't pay $5,110 more, or anything like it.
Mostly, that big number you get for the Sanders tax hike when you plug in your income is the payroll tax that employers will pay to cover the cost of a single-payer healthcare system. As the Tax Policy Center, which worked with Vox to create the calculator, explains:
We're including payroll taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes as well as individual income taxes.... Most economists think employers pass their share of the tax on to workers in the form of lower wages.
With all due respect to most economists, this is dubious. Unless you work at the rare enterprise that does not have profit as its primary goal, your bosses are already paying you as little as they think they can get away with. If they get a new cost associated with your employment, they may try to raise their prices. They may look for other areas where they can cut costs. They may even decide that they can no longer afford to employ you. But what they won't do is suddenly realize that they could have been paying you thousands of dollars less all along without you quitting. (They may even be forced to accept a lower profit rate, though that's something "most economists" seem to exclude a priori.)
But that's not even the real problem with Vox's calculator. Sanders' plan is based on using a new payroll tax to pay for a single-payer healthcare system, which will relieve businesses of the considerable burden of paying for employee healthcare. Since just about everyone agrees that single-payer is cheaper than what we have now (including Ezra Klein, before Sanders started running against Clinton on a single-payer platform), in theory business as a whole should come out ahead. But certainly you need to take into account that business would be getting a big break on expenses at the same time that it's getting a new tax, right?
No, Vox thinks you don't need to take that into account. From the calculator's FAQ: "The Tax Policy Center's model does not include spending programs and thus can only show the effects of tax changes."
Imagine a website--maybe one that seems to have a pronounced pro-Sanders tilt--creating a "Benefits Calculator" that promises to tell you how each candidate's benefits plan affects you. The calculator guesstimates how much your employer will save with a single-payer plan and, using the same dubious economics, implies that that savings is money in your bank account. What about your employer's big tax hike? It's a benefits calculator--it can't show the effect of tax changes!
Ezra Klein would be the first to say that a website that constructed a machine for telling people that Bernie Sanders would give them thousands of dollars was engaging in partisan hackery. Yet when Vox does the same thing in reverse, it's data-driven journalism. Or something.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.