NYT highlights the bright side of being poorer

This is kind of beautiful… “Inflation Adjustments Mean Lower Tax Rates for Some in 2023” (NYT):

The rapidly rising cost of food, energy and other daily staples could allow many Americans to reduce their tax bills next year, the I.R.S. confirmed on Tuesday.

Tax rates are adjusted for inflation, which in typical times means incremental movements in the thresholds for what income is taxed at what rate. But after a year that brought America’s fastest price growth in four decades, the shift in rates is far more notable: an increase of about 7 percent.

The implication of the article is that a peasant will enjoy more spending power than in 2022 because his/her/zir/their tax bill goes down (why only peasants? successful Americans are already in the top tax bracket and will stay there). But, of course, this happens only for those peasants whose real earnings went down, eroded by Bidenflation. So the peasant earns less in real terms and also pays a bit less tax, but overall should still have a lower spending power in 2023 than he/she/ze/they had in 2022.

Speaking of spending, at NBAA this week I learned that one can cut costs by renting that mid-engine sports car instead of buying:

Just don’t try to take luggage larger than a 1st grader’s backpack on your weekend getaway. An airline roll-on is at least 3X too large for the frunk (there is no trunk), making this Audio R8 useless as a transportation machine compared to a C8 Corvette.

The seat was also uncomfortable for my 6′ frame. I would be driving with knees on chest. I wouldn’t recommend anyone over 5’6″ in height spending his/her/zir/their massive 2023 tax savings on renting an Audi R8.

8 thoughts on “NYT highlights the bright side of being poorer

  1. It’s $222,100 for the basic Quattro model of the R8 Spyder before options – and I would *never* buy an Audi without the Quattro system. Heresy! The interior may be put together beautifully but I wouldn’t fit in it, either, at 5′ 11″. Why anyone taller would punish themselves while spending nearly a quarter of a million dollars is beyond my comprehension. And those wheels look like they’ll get Road Rash from every pebble. They’re on the razor’s edge.

    On the bright side, they do offer a kind of “rainbow flag” paint scheme – although if you select it on the website, they won’t show it! OoooOoohh, they’re such teases!

    “Audi exclusive special paint color Note: this option is not shown in the vehicle images presented here. – $7,900” So I guess if you’re relatively compact in terms of stature and LGBTQIA+ proud, Audi has the car for you.

    But why can’t they Vorsprung Durch Technik and offer a few more inches of legroom? The whole chassis would probably have to be redesigned. They should offer a long wheelbase version, for Pete’s sake.


    • I was surprised to read that a German car had no legroom.

      It’s listed at 40.3 inches front legroom, compared to the 41.3 of my Audi S5 and 41.1 that my Jetta Sportagen had. At 6’5″ and 36″ inseam, there was plenty of legroom in both these cars for me….in fact, I move the seat forward in my S5 about 1.5 inches for track days and it’s still fine.

      Phil you must have some really long legs.

    • Sam: I certainly wouldn’t question Science as it arrives to us in this official legroom numbers, just as I would not question the efficacy of a fifth Pfizer shot. However, “ The only downside, likely the R8 V10 Spyder’s sole concession, is interior legroom – those over six-foot tall won’t have much room to stretch out.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelharley/2022/09/16/review-2022-audi-r8-v10-performance-spyder-rwd-is-a-swan-song-to-10-cylinders/

    • If you’re willing to sit bolt upright, the legroom in the R8 Spyder isn’t quite as meager. But the whole car is definitely optimized for someone closer to 5′ tall (and whose weekend luggage consists of a toothbrush and a Speedo).

  2. Does NYT knows about Social Security Tax? Every year it de-facto reverse-tracks inflation, collecting more of cheaper currency

  3. Not exactly related but similar logic to NYT, as heard on radio while scrolling station on a long drive.
    Democrat talking points:
    1. inflation is because Biden creates new jobs (apparently not kind of jobs that create value, if we believe the Democrats)
    2. voters care about inflation only because they have children whom they need to feed, close, provide roof above their heads and educate. If voters had access to free abortions on demand they would not care about inflation
    Was not sure whether to cry or to laugh.

    • Is that abortion/inflation thing a talking point or just something the retard Stacy Abrams barked out?

Comments are closed.