So Much of What They Know Just Isn't So
No wonder Times readers are so confused & angry all the time
I recently cancelled my subscription to The Free Press. I had no quarrel with it, it simply wasn't suiting me anymore. I felt it had found product-market fit as a safe space for recovering New York Times readers. Once such individuals emerge, blinking & confused, from something akin to Plato's cave, The Free Press, gently & non-judgementally, explains things to them that the rest of us have known for years. Which is good; it's just not something I want to read, myself.
I was reminded of how terribly confused regular readers of the Times are yesterday morning, when they ran an article on California's proposed "billionaires' tax". Below is the most upvoted comment on the article:
Of course the wealthy pay taxes. In fact, they pay a lot of taxes. A quick Google search turned up this article from last year: the top 1% of earners "across the U.S. earn an average of 19.5% of all income – sometimes garnering criticism from pundits and politicians – but pay 37% of total income taxes (38.6% in California). This article puts it at 40%. Twelve years ago, the Sacramento Bee put it at 50%.
Now income isn't wealth, of course, and it's a lot tougher to get data on tax revenue by net worth, but still: if you're making 7 figures annually, I'm comfortable calling you "wealthy".
It must be extremely frustrating to stumble through life confused about basic facts. No wonder so many faithful NYT readers of my acquaintance are so often surprised by events.
01/21/26 12:39