Media Bias

[mooby]

Speaking of agendas let's look at this Business Insider article that MSN picked up and stuck on their page:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxe...x2f?li=BBnb7Kz

The first paragraph (which analysts say is the 2nd most read part of the article after the headline, which most people read without even clicking the article nowadays:

Originally Posted by Business Insider

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has touted a plan that would tax multimillionaire Americans 60-70% to fund massive energy and infrastructure overhauls related to a plan that aims to reduce the country's carbon emissions to zero and eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years.

This sentence conveniently leaves out the fact that her plan is based on a marginal tax rate, which means anything under 10 million wouldn't be taxed at 70% and only profits above 10 million would hit that tax rate. So if you make more than 10 million in a given year that first 10 million isn't taxed at 70 percent. Anything above it is. That's a major difference then people believing if you made 10 million it would be taxed at 70%.

Now granted, the 2nd paragraph focuses on that detail, but in an age where readers barely skim headlines I believe that makes a big impact.

Hell, if you read the whole article you will see if she did that it wouldn't even be the first time in American history that would be done. Eisenhower had it at 90% in the 50's, JFK/LBJ at 70% through the 70's, and Reagan dropped it to 50% in the early 80's before it bottomed out near its' current rate of 39.6% in 1986. Imagine a world where corporations might be allowed to move all of their profits offshore to horde wealth, but the owners of those companies couldn't.

I can't wait to hear why you think the gov't should leave their hands out of these innocent multi-millionaire's pockets Chico. Because the current system is soooooo effective.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

Speaking of agendas let's look at this Business Insider article that MSN picked up and stuck on their page:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxe...x2f?li=BBnb7Kz

The first paragraph (which analysts say is the 2nd most read part of the article after the headline, which most people read without even clicking the article nowadays:



This sentence conveniently leaves out the fact that her plan is based on a marginal tax rate, which means anything under 10 million wouldn't be taxed at 70% and only profits above 10 million would hit that tax rate. So if you make more than 10 million in a given year that first 10 million isn't taxed at 70 percent. Anything above it is. That's a major difference then people believing if you made 10 million it would be taxed at 70%.

Now granted, the 2nd paragraph focuses on that detail, but in an age where readers barely skim headlines I believe that makes a big impact.

Hell, if you read the whole article you will see if she did that it wouldn't even be the first time in American history that would be done. Eisenhower had it at 90% in the 50's, JFK/LBJ at 70% through the 70's, and Reagan dropped it to 50% in the early 80's before it bottomed out near its' current rate of 39.6% in 1986. Imagine a world where corporations might be allowed to move all of their profits offshore to horde wealth, but the owners of those companies couldn't.

I can't wait to hear why you think the gov't should leave their hands out of these innocent multi-millionaire's pockets Chico. Because the current system is soooooo effective.

It’s socialism and a garbage ass plan. I hope to god you don’t honestly believe this is viable and numbers work out? Jesus Christ