More Dishonest Income Reporting By The New York Times...

Rarely does the leftist robots at the New York Times use average incomes in the US to further its "soak the rich with taxes to give it away to the poor" theme since average income statistics in the US are a very unreliable indicator of true income for Americans. Average incomes can be misleading and vary widely as the very wealthy income earners consistently produce volatile incomes even over a very short period of time. Tax year 2000 was a particularly interesting year to use as the base since their was so much taxable income generated by the super-rich through IPOs and huge compensation packages associated with the Internet and stock market bubble that year and the few preceding years.

So, what does the New York Times do? Uses tax year 2000 average incomes and compares them to tax year 2005 average incomes to claim that the average American's income have not risen during that period on an inflation adjusted basis. OK.

Why is this dishonest? Because a more accurate measure of the average American's income is the median income figure not average income and this is primarily due to the volatility of super wealthy tax payer's income. Furthermore, people do not have their average income to spend but their AFTER TAX average income. Since tax rates have fallen for everyone, as the inane New York times typically laments, the figure that they sport in their typical class warfare style of leftist journalism has no bearing on the actual experience of the typical average American. If they pay lower taxes on income, then they have more to spend, everything else being equal.

The New York Time agenda laden 'journalism' is smacked down further, here. I just do not understand this newspaper. They invest so much of their time, energy and money in being a fine journalistic organization and then print tripe this this that reduces the value of everything else that they write. A sad commentary on the left in the US today.