Posted on 03/08/2018 1:29:52 PM PST by MarvinStinson
A New York Times analysis of how the recently enacted tax reform law could affect a hypothetical couple's taxes was corrected to admit their taxes would actually go down, not up.
In the story from late February, the Times collaborated with TurboTax vice president Bob Meighan to lay out how the Republican-backed tax overhaul would affect "Samuel and Felicity Taxpayer," an imaginary couple from suburban New York that makes $183,911 a year. Samuel is a self-employed engineering consultant, and Felicity is as an employee of a design firm.
The "bottom line" of their analysis: "The family would owe $3,896 more in taxes under the new tax law."
But as a University of Chicago law professor noted on Twitter, the Times had missed a tax deduction in the bill that would drastically reduce the couple's burden by virtue of the fact that "Samuel Taxpayer" is self-employed.
Daniel Hemel
NYT has a really nice infographic explaining the ways in which the new tax law will play out on the 1040. Unfortunately, the bottom line conclusion -- that Samuel & Felicity will owe $3,896 more in taxes under the new law -- appears to be wrong. They'll actually owe less. 1/ https://twitter.com/nytimesbusiness/status/967885437095301122 …
Daniel Hemel
I say this as someone who is generally happy to point out the ways in which the new tax law produces unattractive results. But this couple appears to be among the winners -- largely on account of the fact that Samuel is self-employed. 2/
Daniel Hemel @DanielJHemel Replying to @DanielJHemel I say this as someone who is generally happy to point out the ways in which the new tax law produces unattractive results. But this couple appears to be among the winners -- largely on account of the fact that Samuel is self-employed. 2/
Daniel Hemel @DanielJHemel The Times calculates the couple’s taxable income in 2018 as $116,097. But it omits the § 199A deduction that Samuel can claim as a self-employed engineering consultant. That’s 20% x $89,454 = $17,891, and reduces their taxable income to $98,206. 3/
Hemel's tweets were highlighted by the Wall Street Journal‘s James Freeman, who wrote, "This must be some package of tax cuts, if even fictional characters invented by the New York Times are getting one!"
A few days later, the Times admitted its error and added a correction.
"An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the probable effect of the new tax law on a hypothetical couple's 2018 tax bill," the correction dated March 2 reads. "The TurboTax ‘What-If Worksheet' that generated the projection for their 2018 taxes failed to indicate that the couple would probably be entitled to claim a sizable deduction for income earned from consulting."
"As a result of that deduction, the amount they would likely owe on taxes would decline by $43, not rise by $3,896," the Times admitted.
So they put the fake story on page one. The corrected and true version goes on page D34.
I love it when libs eat crow.
My take home went up a whopping $25/mo. Party time! Woo hoo!
This analysis may not be correct. If you are self-employed, and get all your income from personal services that you perform, you can’t deduct the 20%.
Walter Duranty ?
They lie because they hate Trump.
“So they put the fake story on page one. The corrected and true version goes on page D34.”
Yes, because threads concerning the NYT and their antics should always have a reminder of that man.
Hemel’s tweets were highlighted by the Wall Street Journal‘s James Freeman, who wrote, “This must be some package of tax cuts, if even fictional characters invented by the New York Times are getting one!”
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Love it!
Your take home has little to do with your 2018 taxes. Anyone can adjust that based on exemptions.
But I think I can guarantee that your "take home" would have gone down if Herr Hillary had been elected.
Moral of the story?
Don’t use TurboTax.
“Samuel is a self-employed engineering consultant, and Felicity”
If Samuel married an American FEMINAZI named ‘Felicity’, the Sam deserves EXACTLY what he gets.
No reasonable conservative would EVER marry an American Woman...billions more overseas, who make GREAT WIVES.
“Yes, because threads concerning the NYT and their antics should always have a reminder of that man.”
Having read some books detailing just what that man, Duranty, is responsible for, I agree with posting his picture whenever possible.
But for most Americans, and sadly most FReepers, this man means nothing to them - they are clueless as to the THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS who were killed in the Soviet Union because of his (now-proven) Fake News.
Bottom line - please include some context...otherwise people will simply ignore it.
Paul Krugman most affected.
Not a problem, I will provide a Wikipedia link along with photo. Cheers.
Don’t be a smart ass. $25 a month is very helpful to alot of people.
Thanks...thousands of Americans went to the Soviet Union in the 1930s, thinking it was truly a ‘Workers’ Paradise’, based mainly on Duranty (i.e., New York Times). Many were hard-core Communist union types, so screw them, they deserved what they got. But many also dragged their wives and kids with them...people who clearly did not deserve the fate that happened to virtually all of them - which was slavery and then death.
To THIS DAY, the New York Times will not disavow or even apologize for Duranty - for them, I guess, he served their purpose, which was to make Communism look ‘wonderful’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.