Categories

Archives

Blurred Vision (Updated)

I was going to write about the Jones/Mascaro Bill, and how I think the Deseret News article regarding it was biasing. However, when I got on the Internet to check it out, the numbers seemed to have changed.

Now before I go any further I must state that I was reading this article in an attempt to help me fall back asleep because I had been woken in the middle of my morning sleep. So, in defense of the Deseret News I could be completely wrong.

I would swear that the chart that is in the web version changed half of the “+” found on the print version to “-“. Is that really so? Did I misread it? I am confused.

I was going to use that chart to show how the presentation in the paper is misleading. And I still think that it is.

I feel that the best way to get an accurate representation of two different tax programs is not in how much more or less you would pay under each tax proposal. The best way would be to show how much total you would pay.

You see, it appears that the rich are getting a huge tax cut. But we forget that they already are paying more than their fair share. But it isn’t as dramitic with those “-“s there. So, I am not going to get into it.

Just note, that I am still in favor of the flat tax. Even if it means that I have to pay more, instead of less.

Update: I am home now, and I have looked at my Friday paper. And sure enough the “+”s are where I thought they were. So, I am not going insane. Also, another read of the articles helps me understand that the graphic on the Online article is wrong.

I would like to further my point about how the Jones/Mascaro bill is wrong. But I am tired, and I need some sleep. Perhaps later today.

Update II: Okay, now that I have been able to sleep on this. Here is my take. This is based on the print version of the graphic for the article by the Deseret News (I have email Bob Bernick Jr. to have which ever is wrong corrected). The difference between the two is that the Jones/Mascaro Bill on the web version should have the last three income changes as “+”s.

So, with that it mind, lets look at the numbers as I think they should have been presented:

Income
Current Tax
4% Tax
4% Change
Percentage
Jones Tax
Jones Change
Percentage
$25,000
$153
$1,000
+$847
+554%
$187
+$34
+22%
$35,000
$794
$1,400
+$606
+76%
$609
-$185
-23%
$45,000
$1,478
$1,800
+$322
+22%
$1,233
-$245
-17%
$55,000
$2,270
$2,200
-$70
-3%
$2,075
-$195
-9%
$75,000
$3,377
$3,000
-$377
-11%
$3,265
-$122
-3%
$175,000
$8,591
$7,000
-$1,591
-19%
$9,206
+$615
+7%
$500,000
$25,209
$20,000
-$5,209
-21%
$28,669
+$3,460
+14%
$1,000,000
$50,475
$40,000
-$10,475
-21%
$58,499
+8,024
+16%

Now I know that looking at this won’t change some people’s mind. They will see the Jones/Mascaro bill and think that it is wonderful, because it redistributes the wealth. However, the government shouldn’t be about redistribution of wealth. All citizens should contribute to the benefit that the government provides it.
Further my chart shows how much the rich are really paying in income taxes. And it helps us realize the inequality of what is really happening in our current tax system.

The original presentation is intended to give a picture that the 4% flat tax is a tax cut for the rich. Which it is. But it doesn’t paint the whole picture. It creates an emotional picture that the flat tax is unfair. When in reality it is fair.

So, if the fact that they can’t even publish the correct chart isn’t proof enough that they Deseret News has a liberal bias, than the way they choose to present the data should be evidence enough.

Possibly Related Posts:


  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Leave a Reply