What 71 Million Americans Could Read This Morning

By: Lowell
Published On: 10/12/2008 6:22:38 AM

Parade Magazine is in 400 Sunday newspapers, with readership of around 71 million Americans. The following table is prominently displayed in today's edition of Parade, which means that as many as 71 million Americans will see it. That's great news, because aside from being factual - a concept the McCain campaign can't seem to wrap its collective brain around - the table clearly shows that if you make under $111,600 per year, you'll pay LOWER TAXES under President Obama than under John McCain. Even if you make as much as $227,000 per year, you'll still see your taxes cut with Obama as President. Now, if you make over $603,400, you WILL pay more under President Obama, while getting a big tax cut from John McCain. Same thing if you make more than $2.87 million. But how many people do you know who make $2.87 million per year? Heck, even for John McCain, that might qualify as "rich" (although you never know with that guy!).

So...what's the median household income in Virginia? According to the US Census Bureau, it was $58,950 in 2007. That's right; the median Virginia taxpayer would pay THREE TIMES less money in taxes every year under President Obama than under John McCain ($1,118 per year vs. $325). Even if your income goes up a lot next year, to $100,000 for instance, you'll STILL pay lower taxes under President Obama than under John McCain. Think about that as you consider who to vote for on November 4.


Comments



Great news! (Susan Mariner - 10/12/2008 8:35:57 AM)
You can't get much better free media than this.    


Excellent voter targeting too (snolan - 10/12/2008 9:04:52 AM)
Aside from newly registered voters (many of whom are probably mostly voting for Obama anyway), I think traditional voters are more likely to be readers than TV news watchers; and traditional papers is excellent and affordable targeting.

My landslide projection is now over 400 EVs and steady at 62% of popular vote nationwide.



Very good (Roland the HTG - 10/12/2008 11:44:38 AM)
Besides, how many people making more than $2.87 million a year read Parade magazine?


Haha. I'm sure they need something to line their pet Siberian Tiger cub cages with. (hallcr3 - 10/12/2008 12:26:56 PM)


These numbers have been out for a while, but never anywhere as reaching as Parade. (hallcr3 - 10/12/2008 12:34:02 PM)
But I think the common reaction from Republican-leaning voters will be accusations of bias by the Tax Policy Center or my favorite "well, all politicians will say things to get elected, but will he really do it?"

Another common argument in response to Obama's tax policy I've heard is a rebuttal about taxing businesses - "But he wants to raise taxes on businesses." I don't understand why Republican-leaning voters would sacrifice greater tax cuts for their own families so a Fortune 500 company can avoid another several million dollars in taxes.

I see this in conservative Smithfield, VA where the town should have every reason to vote blue because of labor issues, but they're afraid raising taxes on companies like Smithfield Foods will lead to job losses. Meanwhile, Smithfield Foods' retired CEO just built a several thousand square foot, waterfront garage for his classic car collection.

WTF.



I Wonder Why... (BP - 10/12/2008 2:25:08 PM)
...they're using $227,000 and above in houselhold income to signify the "top 5%"?  The Census Bureau breakdown for 2007 is here:

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro...  

According to these figures, only 3.6% of households have income over $200,000 and the "top 5%" line for household income would be (roughly) somewhere between $180,000 and $190,000.

Unless I'm misinterpreting the Census Bureau numbers, whoever prepared this chart is vastly overstating the small number of households that would benefit from McCain's policies by mistakenly telling us that 5% of American households receive more than $227,000 in annual income.  From the Census Bureau figures, it appears that (roughly) less than 2.5% of all households received income in excess of $227,000.

A minor point, but still, I think it's helpful to provide people with the most accurate information possible.  For decades, Republicans have been able to con quite a few people into voting against their own self interests by lying about the effects of tax increases.  Putting the most accurate numbers possible on the effects of the candidates' tax proposals may help put an end to this particular form of Republican deceit.



I think this table shows individual income (Lowell - 10/12/2008 2:26:15 PM)
not household income. I'm not 100% positive, but that's what it looks like to me...


I Don't Think So (BP - 10/12/2008 3:11:02 PM)
But, in any case, this wouldn't explain the discrepancy with the Census Bureau figures.  Household income, by definition, includes income received by all members of a household.  Therefore, median household income will always be higher than median individual income.


Got me, then. (Lowell - 10/12/2008 3:19:57 PM)
I'm stumped.


I was very pleased (David Campbell - 10/13/2008 9:58:37 AM)
to see this in Parade.  A similar graphic had previously appeared in the Washington Post (which I posted at www.VBDems.org) but this will receive much larger visability nationwide.

One thing I missed, but my wife noticed in the printed version: The headline says "How much would you pay in taxes?"  Under Obama's face, there is a picture of a big stack of cash.  Under McCain, there is a picture of a much smaller pile.  To the casual reader who didn't read the details, it would appear that you would pay more taxes under Obama's plan.  She thought this was deliberately deceptive.