The Wall Street Journal said in 2013 the tax increase hurt families, this is the ...

[soundforbjt]

Where's their Go Fund Me links? I want to help them out...

 

[soulcougher73]

Wow their lives are over. /wrist

 

[Sonikku]

It's like the poster child for the sentiment that the elite have increasingly become out of touch with the realities of the poor.

 

[BoberFett]

...info graphic they used

The way they draw their frowney faces, you'd think these people were on the lowest rung of the social ladder during the great depression.

LOL, that's blatantly ridiculous. Did nobody do a reality check? $180K/yr is their lowest example? And those are retirees?

 

[boomerang]

Just curious, what is the income level where one ceases to be a victim? Are there different levels depending on race and gender?

TIA

 

[fskimospy]

Just curious, what is the income level where one ceases to be a victim? Are there different levels depending on race and gender?

TIA

Just curious, what makes you think the people 'described' in this image are victims?

TIA

 

[master_shake_]

what fucking single mom makes 260,000??

apparently the WSJ pays pretty well.

 

[BoberFett]

Just curious, what is the income level where one ceases to be a victim? Are there different levels depending on race and gender?

TIA

It has nothing to do with victimhood. It has to do with reality.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Just curious, what is the income level where one ceases to be a victim? Are there different levels depending on race and gender?

TIA

Being the victim of a 1% to 1.5% tax increase is not a victim. That kind of increase is not going to hurt any of those families unless they are morons who spend every dime they have and live month to month on their income.

 

[HomerJS]

That picture illustrates how Republicans sell even modest tax increases for the well off. The rhetoric is the pictures and the title. They ignore the actual dollars involved and their peeps eat it up.

 

[JockoJohnson]

That picture illustrates how Republicans sell even modest tax increases for the well off. The rhetoric is the pictures and the title. They ignore the actual dollars involved and their peeps eat it up.

It is truly pathetic of the WSJ and an eye-opener for me. If this is how they feel or the best that they could come up with on how "middle class" families are being hurt, it is extremely desperate.

 

[PokerGuy]

haha, WSJ must have gotten a hold of the AT forum information to use for their examples

 

[IronWing]

haha, WSJ must have gotten a hold of the AT forum information to use for their examples

No way, there are women and girls in that picture.

 

[alcoholbob]

what fucking single mom makes 260,000??

apparently the WSJ pays pretty well.

It can happen. When i was in college and volunteering with an environmental NGO the CEO was a single mom making $300k. Of course single moms making bank is probably more common in government funded organzations than competitive private sector firms.

 

[ElFenix]

I'm digging the poor downtrodden retired Eric Holder look-a-like...like they're disappointed they didn't get the .01% tax increase as the rest of these struggling, disenfranchised Americans.

no shit, why do they look so downtrodden? clearing $155,000 after taxes, no tax increase, and 'merica is paying for their medical care? i'm sure when they go for their 2 month retreat to a farmhouse in a quaint village in the south of france for the summer they'll be frowning then, too

 

[Fern]

Honest Question: How/why is the OP's link/graphic being associated with the WSJ?

His link doesn't demonstrate that the WSJ used this graphic, nor are my search skills good enough to find it. Why is everyone so sure that this is from the WSJ?

TIA

Fern

 

[dank69]

Honest Question: How/why is the OP's link/graphic being associated with the WSJ?

His link doesn't demonstrate that the WSJ used this graphic, nor are my search skills good enough to find it. Why is everyone so sure that this is from the WSJ?

TIA

Fern

post 23

 

[ivwshane]

Honest Question: How/why is the OP's link/graphic being associated with the WSJ?

His link doesn't demonstrate that the WSJ used this graphic, nor are my search skills good enough to find it. Why is everyone so sure that this is from the WSJ?

TIA

Fern

Some of us posed a similar question. Guess what? It's true, it's from the wsj.

From a previous poster:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323689604578220132665726040

 

[Fern]

Some of us posed a similar question. Guess what? It's true, it's from the wsj.

From a previous poster:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323689604578220132665726040

Yeah. I saw that and tried it. The link says I must sign in to see it. I don't have an account, or whatever, there. I don't subscribe to the WSJ.

If you guys have an account and say it's legit that's good enough for me. If so, that graphic etc. is dumb as h3ll. Talk about "First World Problems".......

Fern

 

[soulcougher73]

Yeah. I saw that and tried it. The link says I must sign in to see it. I don't have an account, or whatever, there. I don't subscribe to the WSJ.

If you guys have an account and say it's legit that's good enough for me. If so, that graphic etc. is dumb as h3ll. Talk about "First World Problems".......

Fern

Hmm i dont have an account and i was able to see the whole article. Weird. No script or adblock have any bearing on that in firefox?

 

[ivwshane]

Hmm i dont have an account and i was able to see the whole article. Weird. No script or adblock have any bearing on that in firefox?

Nope, I'm using safari on my iPhone. Adblocker on or off has no effect. Either way it works for me.

 

[michal1980]

Would any of you lefties be happy with less money?

Are these working folk supposed to be high fiving each other because government is taking their earnings?

 

[Fern]

Hmm i dont have an account and i was able to see the whole article. Weird. No script or adblock have any bearing on that in firefox?

I'm on firefox. Might be one of those things where you get a limited number of views on their site w/o a membership. I hit a lot of links, happens to me often. Some will remind me "this is your 3rd time this month, you must subscribe to view more often" etc.

Anyhoo, I'll take you guys' word on it.

TX

Fern

 

[Fayd]

Nope, I'm using safari on my iPhone. Adblocker on or off has no effect. Either way it works for me.

Wsj allows 5 articles per month.

 

[ivwshane]

Wsj allows 5 articles per month.

Yeah, I tend not to read their articles as most of them tend to be garbage.