Deceive the Children: NYT 'Learning Network' Frames Federal Income Tax Rate Extension as ..

Newsbusters ^ | 12/12/10 | Tom Blumer

[Nachum]

A New York Times "Learning Network" graphic informs us that under the proposed Obama-GOP tax and spending compromise, "rates will not change for at least two years for anyone."

Wow. Somebody at the Learning Network needs to tell the Old Gray Lady's beat reporters, editorial board, and opinion columnists. Just today, reporter Helene Cooper, in noting how Vice President Joe Biden is playing a "bigger role" in the administration (translation: picking up the pieces from President Obama's disastrous ongoing alienation of anyone and everyone, friend and foe alike), twice refers to the compromise as involving "tax cuts." Cooper's defenders may claim that the Times reporter is partially referring to the proposed one-year reduction in the Social Security payroll tax from 6.2% to 4.2%, but that's not a contentious issue at the moment (though given how broke the Social Security really is, it should be). Federal income tax rates for 2011 and beyond are.

Anyway, as far as the Learning Network is concerned, so far, so good. But then it commits its own unforced error:

Who Benefits? All taxpayers, but especially high-income households, which had faced a new, higher rate.

[Nachum]

Deceive the Children: NYT 'Learning Network' Frames Federal Income Tax Rate Extension as Benefiting 'Especially the Wealthy'

[ThunderSleeps]

Vice President Joe Biden ... twice refers to the compromise as involving "tax cuts."

Utter nonsense and mis-use and abuse of language. But then, what do you expect from an administration with a history of lying? The compromise does not involve "tax cuts" in any way. There is no reduction in taxes, period. It merely keeps the tax rates the same, for now. If anything, it should be framed as a tax increase, just delayed two years.

Of course, the liar in chief hussein obama doesn't want to be seen as raising taxes. So even though this is, for all intents and purposes a tax increase in two years, it will be spun as a "tax cut" even though that is an outright lie. Lying just seems to come as naturally as breathing to hussein obama.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

It's absolutely a sick joke to call this ‘tax cuts for the rich’. What defines ‘rich’? What one’s income is during any particular year is not what makes one ‘rich’, and certainly in 2010 making 200-250,000 a year doesn't make one ‘rich’. Truly rich people can have no income (on paper) for any particular year, but are still rich. This is why you have some truly rich liberals supporting income tax increases. It doesn't really affect them. Ascending income tax rates are essentially a way of preventing class mobility.

[9YearLurker]

How about the increase from the current 0% estate tax rate?