The Totally Out Of Touch Graphic WSJ Produced (Like this photo if the WSJ doesn't think you exist!)

[Playinghardball]

What about the family with four kids who makes 50k a year, WSJ?


Found on Working Families Party’s Facebook page/MoveOn.org

[madrchsod]

1. people that 50k do`t exist

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. they exist ...

they just have no place in this "debate."

[SirRevolutionary]

3. What's a poor single parent of two

supposed to do with only $260k per year

[SWTORFanatic]

4. Those are like real incomes if you remove one of the zeroes

[Fumesucker]

5. You can bet that the artist who created this isn't struggling to get by on $260,000 a year n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. I don't use Facebook. Apparently I don't exist :-/

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

7. Oh boo hoo

[Duer 157099]

8. Why do all those rich people look so sad?

Damn. Spoiled brats.

[warrior1]

9. that's bullshit wages

who the think the fucking with?

[pa28]

10. The kids look like they are being forced into a refugee camp.

I wonder if the artist was being a little sarcastic here. I hope so at least.

[LeftinOH]

11. For someone who doesn't exist, I sure am busting my ass a lot. n/t

[Melinda]

12. The Onion couldn't top this....

From Digby's Hullabaloo cause he says it so much better than I ever could:

The Onion couldn't top this. Whether it's the sad faces of all these put-upon dejected rich people, or the elderly minority couple who is depressed despite not paying extra taxes (or was that the point?), or the distressed single Asian lady making $230,000 who might not be able to buy that extra designer pantsuit this year, or the "single mother" making $260,000 whose kids presumably have a deadbeat, indigent dad just like any other poor family, or that struggling family of six making $650,000 including $180,000 of pure passive income and wondering how to make ends meet, mockery is almost superfluous. The thing mocks itself. That $650,000 family in particular is bizarre to the point of incredulity: those people could literally stop working entirely, live extremely well on $180,000 while doing nothing but watching television all day and staying home with their kids, and leave their high-salary jobs with their oh-so-onerous tax requirements to people who actually appreciate them.

Beyond mockery, though, that the Wall Street Journal would even dare publish such a thing without irony is indicative of the reality that the wealthy don't live in the same country as the rest of us. Their experience of life, and therefore of public policy, is on an entirely different plane. These are people who take tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of yearly passive investment income for granted and think they earned that money, deserving to pay very low taxes on it. They're people who see a single individual making $230,000 as struggling to get by, and severely put upon by the loss of a couple thousand dollars to help pay for decrepit infrastructure and basic healthcare for the indigent.

And then we remember that in our tax policy discussions, the only people in this little picture actually being impacted by an increase in the marginal tax rate are that final family of $650,000 paying a nearly irrelevant 4% increase only on every dollar above $400,000. And over this, we have Fox News and the right wing blaring constantly about Stalin, Mao and the advance of Communism.

These folks live in a Versailles bubble, modern day edition. But even they're not the ones with the real money. The real plutocrats outstrip even these jokers by exponential leaps and bounds. And they're the ones who drive public policy in this country.

[bongbong]

13. It's even worse than that

The "lowest" earners on the graphic make $180K, but they're retired, so it's all investment income. To make that much in a typical retiree's portfolio (mostly income generation, not cap gains), they'd have to have millions with today's low interest rates.

So drop them off the list, they could probably buy a Lear jet if they really needed it. So, in actuality, the tag line should be "If you make less than $230K (and you're young), you don't exist"

[DreamGypsy]

14. Not many people making $50K a year or less subscribe to the WSJ...

...so they don't design their infographics for that demographic. That would be my guess,

Note: this topic was raised 2 minutes earlier on DU, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022208230

That post links to an article from which you can get to a WSJ article, How Much Will Your Taxes Jump?, that discusses the infographic.

First a key point:

The most immediate change affects nearly all workers: Congress allowed a two-percentage-point cut for the employee portion of the Social Security tax to expire. As a result, each will owe up to $2,425 more in payroll tax this year than in 2012.

So, in my book, the two single ladies are really seeing tax increases of $931 and $482 dollars respectively, since the FICA holiday just reduced the amount they were paying into a retirement account (SS). If they were wise, at their income levels, they probably swapped the FICA reduction with an increased payment into their 401K or other pension. So, they are seeing a real increase in federal taxes of 1.3% and 0.7% respectively.

What are other changes that result in the small increase for these ladies?

The first concerns the personal exemption, or the amount of money a taxpayer can deduct for him or herself and dependents. In 2013, this exemption is expected to be $3,900, so a couple with three children could deduct $19,500.

In 2013 the exemption phases out for people starting at the $250,000/$300,000 income thresholds, and vanishes completely for couples at $422,500 of "adjusted gross income," or income before itemized deductions, and at $372,500 for singles. So, a couple with three children and adjusted gross income of $300,000 or more will lose some or all of their $19,500 exemption.

The other new provision is called Pease, named after former Rep. Donald Pease (D., Ohio). It is a complex limitation on all itemized deductions—including charitable donations and mortgage interest—that will eliminate up to 80% of deductions for taxpayers above the $250,000/$300,000 income thresholds. Experts say this phaseout effectively adds about one percentage point to the top tax rate, including the top rate on capital gains.

So, the single Mom with 2 kids gets a bit of a hit because her AGI is just over the $250K threshold.

Our $180K retired couple weren't paying FICA so aren't subject to the increase and they are below the $250K threshold. The WSJ probably adjusted their asset numbers so the end up as one the "retired couples with $180,000 of income ... that could see no change in their federal tax next year". Regardless, these retirees probably don't represent a large slice of the retired population - from here:

According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, the average income for people ages 65 and older in 2008 was $29,214. This is up from $28,134 in 2007. Within the same age group, those who had graduate degrees earned $62,777, while those who held bachelor degrees made $45,948

And, yes, the poor, poor couple with ankle-biters aged 3,4,5, and 6 do get hit by all the changes and see an additional 3.3% of that $650,000 go to taxes, because 650 is greater than 422.5 and they lose personal exemptions. Life can be hard sometimes.

On edit: Oops. I meant to comment that three are some interesting additional comments and links in the Unanswered Questions section of the WSJ article that you might find useful in figuring out the impact to your own taxes. Remember, April 15th is only ~90 days away.