Right. This story should have been about how the individuals interviews are confused about whether they want to run their businesses based on math or politics.

The important observation is the one Benen buried in the Postscript. The NYTimes business staff should be better than this. Yet in their world, they are caught up with chatter that normalizes right wing political premises so that they are unquestioned.

Sloppy. Is NY Times only hiring from community colleges these days?

Ouch. JohnMesserly, I am not sure why you made a dig on Community Colleges, but I am pretty sure you can graduate from an Ivy League school or similarly lauded educational institution and still be stupid, unethical, a complete liar, and mislead people. Take, for instance, John Sununu, who graduated from MIT. Just sayin'.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

I'm not surprised to discover that you can make a good living, even a wealthy living ($250k is wealthy, I don't care how you cut that) and still not be smart enough to grasp the basics of your own taxes.

Money != smarts.

I did not graduate from an Ivy league or a community college. I have a low opinion of both.

In my experience, Community Colleges deserve their poor reputation for providing the education a citizen needs. That is not to deny that many are excellent at providing people necessary skills for better paying jobs. Nor does it deny that there are some great teachers at those institutions attempting to provide more than that. My brother is one of them. But let's be clear about what they are and are not doing.

They are practically vocational institutions maniacally focused on training, not education. Because there is a huge difference if students leave an institution and has not acquired the fundamental ability to learn how to learn. It is not an educational institution if they have failed to infect people with wonder for the unknown, critical thinking, the instinct to identify and avoid cognitive traps and depart with an unquenchable thirst to drink in the truth of whatever matter is before them.

This is not a goal that many directors of Community colleges truly believe is worth spending their meager budgets on. Stastistics on placement of graduates in high paying jobs is a much more attractive career enhancing move.

Profiteering on student loans has all but become the norm. Higher education (at least a branch) should be socialized.

The public is willing to believe all this crap because it's coming from people that run successful businesses therefore, the public think these "business people" know what they are talking about and is true.

Ron Byers . . . You're absolutely right, and the point you're making goes even deeper than that. We should be teaching these concepts in high school, since many people don't go to college.

On several occasions, I've tried to converse with journalists about situations involving various financial concepts. Their lack of understanding of--and interest in--such topics has really been shocking. It extends to the editors of newspapers and magazines. I've had reporters simply deny facts, including simple math, that should be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain.

Part of the problem is that there's a shortage of business/economics teachers because we've decimated programs at the high school and community college levels over the years. Then, when many of those who go on to become journalists are plying their trade, they don't even understand the most rudimentary concepts of personal finance and economics. And, of course, they generally stay away from the business and management courses in college like the plague because they involve math.

At the very least, university journalism programs need to start requiring courses in basic economics and finance. Newspapers hiring those graduating with other majors need to send their budding investigative reporters back to school to pick up some courses in this area so that they can give us accurate information.

At the very least, it would be nice if those reporters would admit to their ignorance of the subject and be willing to listen to those of us who know something about it.

You really think these NYTimes writers aren't capable of performing an honest balance sheet oriented analysis of the statements made to them? Really? The editors don't find that to be an essential pre requisite for working on financial stories? By the way, this is an elementary business calculation right? It's hardly even business- it's simple math.

So MP- I am skeptical that lack of knowledge of has anything to do with this. They simply aren't interested in doing more than repeating a theme they know is popular in circles they socialize in. They know that the theme sells- and they mistake that popular theme for truth. Their education does not enable them to see through it. SO the writers put together a story that is confirmatory, has drama, and a strong narrative. It sells newspapers. Confronting readers with something they do not want to hear does not sell newspapers.

Sensational journalism has replaced truthfull and investigative journalism. It irks me when lazy reporters interview other lazy reporters as if they are true to their profession......reporting facts, not political spin. It also irks me when the GOP act in such an idiotic manner, these lazy journalist say this is what both parties do...not true! Make no mistake, I am a liberal and proud of it, I am conservative when it comes to my finances. But, the conservative agenda and policies are dumb, crazy and antiquated, my conservative side reject their lunacy! I care about those that are struggling because of "W" and Reagan's affinity to what is best for the wealthy is best for all......did not work and never will. This country was built on the workers productivity and the middle class...numbers don't lie! Simple math, take a small sample of common sense...1M wealthy folk buy 4 houses, 4 cars...that is a 1M each. Now, using common sense.....10M middle class buy 1 house, 2 cars.......demand is created tenfold by the latter. Now multiply these scenarios by millions......the answer should be obvious......folks , this is not rocket science, it simple MATH!!!!

JohnMesserly -

Community colleges have recently begun to take on a new task. In rethinking the structure of higher education, one of the major goals is to maximize value. Now I know how that sounds, but hear me out.

Some of our comm. colleges down here have begun to serve as the freshman and sophomore years of a 4-yr degree. The kids take all there required and basic courses. The classes are smaller and the profs are first rate (incl my husband who teaches philosophy.) They have the opportunity to learn how to be learners, and to experiment with areas of study they may not have considered. The access to faculty and the opportunity to get to know their classmates and other students provides an easier transition and usually much less pressure. There are offerings beyond the ordinary survey classes. And obviously, the costs are much lower.

When the kids finish their AAs, they are guaranteed admission to a state 4yr college or university.

Much to my surprise, I am very pleased with what I see happening. And I'm in Texas. Since the State is quickly pulling funding from higher ed, all parties - kids, parents, schools, faculty - knew that something had to be done. Not all is perfect, but it's start.

JMesserly

You left out one thing community colleges provide...to get course requirements out of the way before you go to a 4yr college for your degree. Universities use basic requirement courses as flunk out courses as they always admit at least 20% more students than they can accommodate assuming that is how many will drop out and/or be flunked out. Speech 75 is a good example etc..

Getting these basic required courses out of the way at community colleges is cheaper and more successful. Other than that I completely agree with you.

Our educational institutions need to turn out more first rate minds.

I can appreciate that community colleges can engage in some strategies at optimizing costs. I apologize if I have offended anyone who is interested in making our educational institutions better. There is an elephant in the room though.

While it is recognized that our economy cannot survive without a steady and reliable source of highly educated workers, the bitter truth is that as consumers of such a vital service, as a society we have a perverse understanding about what eduction does to a mind and what education is for.

My intent was to emphasize that possessing a degree in journalism from an educational institution should mean much more than what it does. The key to an education system that nurtures first rate minds is not a matter of money, though we should be devoting much more resources than what we do. The key involves understanding what real education does with a mind- How it is that a fascination with the violin can have anything to do with discovery of relativity.

Republican math is bad enough, but Steve's postscript is right. Sadly, even the NYT suffers from Journalist Math Deficit Disorder. They should go on a company retreat and have Nate Silver explain it all to them and/or have him proofread anything that has to do with numbers. I've given up on the rest of the MSM.

Republican math? i didn't see the word Republican used in this article. Perhaps I didn't see it....blame the Republicans?

Sorry, a retreat won't help them with arithmetic. There's a reason they're in journalism: most of them went to journalism school and avoided any subjects where you couldn't fudge nonsense into your assignments.

Most of the media are hopeless intellectual mediocrities.

You get the same thing at all rates. I have heard people in lower income brackets swear they are paying 25% of their income and comparing it to (name the person, Romney, Obama, Buffett, et al).

Republican math? i didn't see the word Republican used in this article.

That's OK. We can tell you don't get the rest of the facts in here either.

Sorry Rusty, I do pay 25% of my income in taxes and don't make in 1 year, nearly what Robme & Buffet make in 1 hour. So my issue is that while it may be "fair" to tax me at 25%, then why isn't if fair to tax those making a heck of a lot more than me?

The problem with people like Romney and Buffett is that they make all their income from capital gains. Because of this, they only have to pay up to 15%, while we have to pay up to 35%. I agree with Zora.

Zora- you make a lot of money in a year. I'd suggest you make over $250,000 if you tax is 25% of your income. You've done very well and are in the Top 10%

TJ- what % do you pay in total? I paid roughly 24% last year. If you're truly paying 35%, the Obama has a mandate with your name on it.

I'm just trying to figure out if you and Zora are truly very high income, or if you are both guilty of what they are calling "republican math"

I never said I was paying a full 35%. I fully support the Obama tax plan, and I believe people making over 250k should be taxed at a higher rate. My point was, people making money off only off capital gains should have to pay the same amount as everyone else.

Ok- it seemed as if your statement inferred you had to pay up to 35%. I guess that I got that impression because, well, you said it. And agreed with Zora. The humous part of this is that the blog is detailing out how republicans don't know the difference between marginal rates and effective rates, and Zora jumps in and proves she's in the same boat, then you agree with her. Before you disagreed with her by disavowing what you implied.

"I still always make a profit." And so do small businesses.

That's the part of "don't tax the job creators" line that never made sense to me. If you pay wages to employees, that's' an expense. A business doesn't pay tax on gross receipts--it pays on net income.

What DOES make sense for Mr&Mrs Chiropractor, IF there's a higher marginal rate on income above $250,000, is to invest in some new equipment, or hire a part-time assistant (or an accountant?).

Collins statement makes less sense because she doesn't know where she stands on taxes on personal income until the taxes are done from a business standpoint. It is difficult to get a precise grasp on the taxes because the numbers an accountant would have at this time are guesstimates. If she wanted to keep her income below the cutoff figure, then her accountant would have to begin the tax calculations well before December. And if she did have precise figures then she would know whether to stop working at this moment since we are in late November. At best her statements are grandstanding for the NYT reporter.

I wonder if part of the problem is the way it has been sold. Reading through the entries on this blog, it is apparent that most people understand it is a small amount. And this small amount over only 10% or so of the taxpayers, with the ability to manipulate costs as stated many places here, will yield a very small amount of additional revenue. Seems that is implicit in the arguments here. But, in selling it to the masses, it was made to sound like that is why we have a deficit, those upper income people not paying their fare share.

Maybe if it had been sold as a small adjustment that wouldn't bring in much revenue, then people being affected would have thought of it in that way. You can't blame people for thinking of it as a big increase, just because of the level of importance placed on it by Obama during the last 4 years.

Chiropractors are not doctors. Not even close. They don't have to have even a smidgeon of real medical training . . . the entire field is a bunch of tricked-up hokum to allow them to charge a ton of money to give a back massage.

I was trying to be kind to chiropractors, but I agree with what you said. It seems that once someone goes to a chiropractor, they end up having to go for the rest of their lives.

Chiropractor. Says it all in one word. Quack.

You mean like a dermatologist? My nephew is one...he joked after he got his M.D. that he had the most secure job in medicine. Once a patient signed up with him...he knew that the patient would be coming back forever.

Just to pile on: chiropractic medicine is based on the idea that the alignment of your bones is the cause for all of your health conditions. That's it. It is pure quackery. It should be disallowed for reimbursement by any system that takes insurance premiums. It is completely, 100% a fraud.

This premise is as goofy as the chiro thinking it is important to stay below a certain rate. Would you do the math for us to prove your point on higher wages paid means greater profits merely because of the tax codes? It would be true if the marginal rate was over 100%.

The IRS takes it's cut on a per-pay-period basis. They assume whatever you made that period, is what you make every period all year. So if you get a big bonus get paid a lot of paid overtime on one check, your tax rate looks like it jumped a lot.

What it really means is you will get a big refund.

@Rusty: You don't make a bigger profit by hiring someone, unless of course that hire makes your business more profitable.

For example, if the chiropractors have been doing their own billing etc, and they hire someone to do that which frees them up to see more patients.

With a higher marginal rate, that employee costs them less on an after-tax basis. It's like the gummint is paying 39.7% of their salary instead of 35%.

That's right. December seems to misunderstand write offs.

But, the argument was different on the left when the payroll tax was reduced for newly hired employees. The argument then was the lower cost for new employees would encourage hiring. Now, I would agree with that premise, to the extent that the level of business would support more employment.

The reason that the Payroll tax deduction for new hires works is because the employer cost part of payroll taxes is a upfront non-proportional tax that normally can't be written off in the adjustment from net income to net profit accounting stage.

In layman's terms it's a tax the business has to pay and allot money for in it's budget even if the company doesn't make a positive net income. Anything we do to make taxes move from the cost of business section of the equation to the condition pay only a less than 1 proportion and only pay that if you make a gross profit section of the accounting will have a marked impact on business decisions concerning hiring. That is not to say that it will always be good, but it will happen.

Actually, no, it's not surprising.

I don't know if the NY Times is biased conservative. Judging this "article" I'd say they are. If they soon print some editorials like the ones in this blog pointing out the error then they aren't (so much).

I guess the word "marginal" can be confusing?

Yes exactly!

Who this really hits is those so-called "small businesses" who would never hire anyone and have minimal overhead. Like hedge-fund managers.

But still, it only takes another 4.7% of their taxable income above $250K. So it's not like they're hurting.