When the Fact Check Isn't . . . .

Recently, a post on Facebook listed 31 effects of Project 2025, based on the proposals by the project's authors: Mandate for Leadership. The proposals list policy changes that a conservative president should promote. This is the post and the Facebook warning:


The fact check was performed by The Dispatch, which boasts that it is "the home for fact-based reporting on politics, policy, world events, religion, culture, economics, and law informed by conservative principles." Meta employs several fact-checkers for content, and The Dispatch is one of them.

So, let's check the fact checker. The claim is that the effect of proposals relating to income taxes is to "higher taxes for the working class."  

Alex Demas, author of the fact check, rates the statement: “Partly False. Under the plan’s tax proposal, Americans making less than $168,600 would pay a 15 percent income tax. While this rate would be a tax cut for many working Americans, individuals currently in the lowest two marginal tax brackets—those making less than $47,150 per year—would see a slight increase in rates.” https://thedispatch.com/article/viral-claims-about-project-2025-are-mostly-false/

The proposal in the Mandate for Leadership (p. 696) follows: 
"Intermediate Tax Reform. The Treasury should work with Congress to sim­plify the tax code by enacting a simple two-rate individual tax system of 15 percent and 30 percent that eliminates most deductions, credits and exclusions. The 30 percent bracket should begin at or near the Social Security wage base to ensure the combined income and payroll tax structure acts as a nearly flat tax on wage income beyond the standard deduction."

Checking the Fact Checker:

Using the income tax rates in 2023 and the median income for Texas ($45,970), a married couple, who each earned the median income, with no dependents and filing jointly would pay 10 percent on the first $22,000 (i.e. $2,200)and an additional 12 percent on the remaining $42,240 (i.e. $5,061). Consequently, after the standard deduction of $27,700, their taxable income would be $64,240. And their income tax would be $7,261.

Under the Project 2025 proposal, the same couple would be taxed at 15 percent for the entire $64,240 (i.e. $9,636).

The increase in their taxes is $2,375. That is a 32.7 percent increase in their taxes. Is that a “slight increase in the rate?” Perhaps the rate increase is slight, but the post doesn’t mention a tax rate increase. It maintains that the proposal results in higher taxes for the working class. The 32.7 percent increase in their tax bill is not “slight” by any means. That’s nearly $200 a month which is not disposable income.

Sources used in the calculation of taxes above:

2023 Income Tax Rates (IRS Form 1040)

Tax rate

Single filers

Married couples filing jointly

10%

$11,000 or less

$22,000 or less

12%

$11,001 to $44,725

$22,001 to $89,450

22%

$44,726 to $95,375

$89,451 to $190,750

24%

$95,376 to $182,100

$190,751 to $364,200
 

The median annual income for workers in every state: MAP: Median annual income in every U.S. state (cnbc.com)
  • Alabama: $41,350
  • Alaska: $56,140
  • Arizona: $47,680
  • Arkansas: $39,060
  • California: $54,030
  • Colorado: $54,050
  • Connecticut: $56,130
  • Delaware: $49,280
  • Florida: $45,070
  • Georgia: $45,480
  • Hawaii: $50,510
  • Idaho: $44,240
  • Illinois: $48,730
  • Indiana: $45,470
  • Iowa: $46,460
  • Kansas: $45,250
  • Kentucky: $43,730
  • Louisiana: $41,320
  • Maine: $47,590
  • Maryland: $55,810
  • Massachusetts: $60,690
  • Michigan: $46,940
  • Minnesota: $50,880
  • Mississippi: $37,500
  • Missouri: $45,080
  • Montana: $45,690
  • Nebraska: $46,440
  • Nevada: $44,810
  • New Hampshire: $49,980
  • New Jersey: $54,860
  • New Mexico: $43,620
  • New York: $56,840
  • North Carolina: $45,440
  • North Dakota: $48,830
  • Ohio: $46,690
  • Oklahoma: $41,480
  • Oregon: $50,010
  • Pennsylvania: $47,430
  • Rhode Island: $50,970
  • South Carolina: $42,220
  • South Dakota: $43,680
  • Tennessee: $43,820
  • Texas: $45,970
  • Utah: $47,020
  • Vermont: $49,630
  • Virginia: $49,920
  • Washington: $59,920
  • West Virginia: $39,770
  • Wisconsin: $47,590
  • Wyoming: $47,250

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whither the Republican Party?

Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes write in The Atlantic magazine: So we arrive at a syllogism: (1) The GOP has become the party of Trumpism. (2) Trumpism is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. (3) The Republican Party is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. A syllogism is, according to dictionary.com: 1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”. 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. Which definition applies here?   First, has the GOP become the party of Trump? Has he taken control of the party apparatu
Read more

The Battle for Texas (Part II)

In the first part of this post, I explained what happened in the 2014 general election in Texas. Democrats lost badly statewide and in legislative contests. What is necessary to reverse the results? I strongly believe that the only way to reverse the Republican dominance of Texas state and local elections in to organize precincts in urban and suburban areas of Texas on a multi-block level within voting precincts. What do I have in mind?  As you know, political scientists agree that the most effective method of getting registered voters to vote is face-to-face contacts, preferably by people who they know and who share their values. That means, someone who lives in the neighborhood and whom they see frequently in the neighborhood. Can an organization at this level be created? I have had the good fortune of seeing an operation like this in several precincts in southwest Austin during a runoff election campaign for a city council seat in District 8. Last weekend, precinct c
Read more

In Defense of a Theory

I’m a big fan of political scientist Seth Masket, but what he wrote in defense of the theory of presidential nominations expounded in The Party Decides intrigues me. First, he notes that his initial defense caused some blowback: Last week at Mischiefs of Faction , I wrote about the book The Party Decides and the extent to which the 2016 is causing trouble for it. I argued that the Republican race isn't providing a very clean test of the theory, while the Democratic race is. This invited substantial pushback from Jonathan Chait , Justin Grimmer , and others, suggesting that I was either protecting the theory from actual testing, or that the theory itself was untestable. So I'd like to clarify a bit and suggest just what evidence we've gathered this year. Then, he goes on to explain more fully: Now, in my recent post, I focused on what I see as the central claim of the book: The party generally gets what it wants. That is, when party elites have selected a
Read more