Sen. Rubios (tax plan) would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family.
Hillary Clinton outlined her economic vision in detailfor the first time during her presidential campaign, calling for a growth and fairness economy in a speech at the New School in Manhattan on July 13, 2015. She also lambasted a select groupRepublican presidential candidates for their purportedly out-of-touch approach toward the working class.Among the targets were Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. Clinton singled out Rubiosproposed tax plan: Another priority must be reforming our tax code. Now, we hear Republican candidates talk a lot about tax reform. But take a good look at their plans. Sen. Rubio's would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family. We decided to fact-check the somewhat intricate claim. Rubios plan Clintons campaign directed us to ablog postfrom the Tax Policy Center,an independent think tank that analyzes tax policy. The article concerns Rubios plan in general, but the pertinent part reads, Those in the top 0.1 percent, who make $3.3 million and up, would be in line for an average tax cut of $240,000  a boost in after-tax income of 3.8 percent. Is $240,000 more than three times the earning power of a typical family? Her campaign pointed usto U.S. Census Bureau data that showed median household incomeas $53,046 for the period 2009 to 2013. So those numbers back up Clintons statement. But there is one minor complication: The article from the Tax Policy Center is based on an analysis of Utah Sen. Mike Lees 2013 plan,notRubios plan (actually a joint venture with Lee) that was released in 2015 and is similar to the original Lee plan. Generally speaking, the Rubio-Lee plan groups people into two income tax brackets, 15 percent or 35 percent, the higher of which would kick in at an individual income of $75,000. Thats a decrease from the seven brackets currently in place. Another centerpiece of the plan is a $2,500 tax credit given to parents for each child under sixteen. Thats the broad outline, but the plan still lacks some details. There are critical unresolved issues that make it difficult for us to do an analysis of Rubios current plan, said Howard Gleckman, resident fellow at the Tax Policy Center and author of the blog post. For example, Gleckman points out that the Rubio-Lee plannever specifiesexactly what would happen to apersonal tax credit of $2,000, a subsidy that would be available to anybody who claimed it on their tax returns. If it were included as a refundable tax credit (meaning people could get a check back), it would have a significant impact on low-income families. As of now, their incomes would actually decrease under the Lee plan, according to the Tax Policy Centers analysis. Qualitatively, the rough sense is a very generous tax cut for high-income people, said Gleckman, adding, What were not sure about is low-income people. So low-income people might get some kind of tax break under Rubios plan, or they might not. The other thing to know about Clintons statement is that the wealthy get a tax break under Rubios plan because he wants tax reductions, and the wealthy pay the most taxes. The reason why the top is getting whats seemingly a big tax cut is that theyre already taxed at a much higher rate, said Kyle Pomerleau, an economist at the Tax Foundation, a business-backed group. Under the Rubio plan, the top tax rate would drop from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. Pomerleau added that its crucial to remember that the plan proposes tax cuts across all income brackets, not just the top ones, and often at higher percentages for those with lower incomes. Pomerleau, however, did say that he found Clintons claim plausible. Our ruling Clinton said that Rubios tax plan would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family. It is possible to take issue with the statement in some ways. The source of her claim uses an earlier version of Rubios plan in its analysis,  and she said $3 million when she should have said $3.3 million. But the thrust of her statement is sound. An analysis of a plan extremely similar to the one put forth by Rubio would cut taxes for those making $3.3 million and more by nearly $240,000, which is more than three times the U.S. median household income of $53,046. We rate her statement MostlyTrue.
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris recently attacked President Donald Trump over his trade policy, saying it is hurting American workers. The California senator then said as many as 300,000 auto workers were expected to lose their jobs this year, suggesting Trump was to blame. Donald Trump betrayed a lot of people. He came in office, making all kinds of promises to working people, from farmers to auto workers, Harris said in aCNN interviewon Aug. 12. He said he was going to help working people, and it is estimated that as many as 300,000 auto workers may be out of a job before the end of the year. Trumps trade policy, especially the tariffs hes placed on China, have been blamed by economists forhurting farmers. But are as many as 300,000 auto workers really expected to lose their jobs by the end of this year as Harris claimed? Two recent fact-checks called that figure into question. Well review the facts and place a rating on the senators claim. Checking the facts After the interview, Harris campaign told CNN the 300,000 number is from aFebruary study by the Center For Automotive Research, CAR. The research group examined the impact of a 25 percent tariff Trump proposed on all imported cars and auto parts except on Canada, Mexico and South Korea. It estimated that between about 70,000 jobs and 367,000 jobs would be lost across all sectors of the U.S. economy, but not specifically among autoworkers, under a worst-case scenario. In May, Trumpdelayed for six monthshis decision on whether to impose the tariffs. Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor & economics at the research center, or CAR,told FactCheck.orgin an email: 300,000 auto workers out of a job before the end of the year is NOT what CAR is projecting. FactCheck.org added thatDziczekconfirmed the figure was an estimate for job loss across the economy one year after several proposed and implemented trade policies on the auto industry went into effect. Auto workers produce vehicles at Volkswagen's U.S. plant in Chattanooga, Tenn. in 2017. (AP Photo/Erik Schelzig) The CAR report did not specify how many of the up to 367,000 job losses would come from the auto industry.Dziczektold CNN the (auto) sector is starting to shrink, but she added that a rapid loss of 300,000 autoworker jobs would be orders of magnitude worse than what we're expecting to see. The only industry specific estimate was for 77,000 job losses at car dealerships.Dziczektold PolitiFact California there would an overall net loss in auto assembly and parts sectors. How big of a loss depends on how willing consumers would be to switch brand preference from imports to vehicles made in the United States, she wrote in an email. FactCheck.org described Harris claim as wrong, while CNN said it was false. Harris campaign did not respond to our request for comment, including whether the senator has corrected, or plans to correct, her statement. Our ruling Sen. Kamala Harris claimed that as many as 300,000 auto workers may lose their jobs by the end of this year. She relied on a study that predicted, in a worst-case scenario, that between 70,000 jobs and 367,000 jobs could be lost across all sectors of the U.S. economy, but in no way all from the auto industry. The losses would take place one year after President Trump imposes a proposed 25 percent tariff on imported cars and auto parts. Trump has delayed his decision on those tariffs until later this year, meaning the one-year later impact would not be felt until well into 2020, and not by the end of this year as Harris said. Harris claim far overestimates potential job losses for the auto industry, the timing of them and ignores the fact that no decision has been made on the tariffs. We rated her claim False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In February 2016, a meme about the lack of business acumen and experience exhibited by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, began circulating online:  The criticisms offered in meme were a mixture of true, false, irrelevant, and misleading statements. To wit: Never owned a business Right off, this meme begins with a rather nebulous criticism. Although having owned a business is an experience many voters would like to see on the rsum of a potential chief executive, a literal application of that term isn't of much relevance. Technically, a person who once operated a roadside lemonade stand has "owned a business," while a person who has spent his career serving as the CEO of a public multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation has not -- even though everyone would agree the latter has vastly more business experience than the former. And certainly a number of highly-regarded U.S. presidents in the modern era (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan) never owned their own businesses. Moreover, one might validly say that Sanders started and operated his own business (whether he "owned" it is somewhat arguable, as it was a non-profit), the American People's Historical Society, which was created in 1978 to produce educational film strips about the history of Vermont. The University of Vermont has archived several of the brochures produced by the American People's Historical Society, one of which includes a statement from Sanders outlining the purpose of his film strips: includes Director Bernard Sanders explained, "It is our belief that state and regional history has too long been neglected by the audio-visual industry, and we are happy to begin the process of rectifying that situation. We believe that students have the right to learn about the state and region in which they are living." While the financials of the American People's Historical Society are not available, Sanders wrote in his memoir Outsider in the House that the business was reasonably successful and "a lot of fun." A friend of Sanders' told Politico that the film strip business "wasn't just a way to make money ... He made filmstrips about people he admired and believed in. He just thought kids should know the truth of how things really were." Never invented anything Once again, this is a rather nebulous criticism. The concept of "inventing" something could range from simply thinking up a novel idea (but doing nothing more about it), to creating and building a device for personal use (but not marketing it), to actually obtaining a patent for a new product. Bernie Sanders is certainly no inventor and holds no patents, but it's hard to see how that fact is of any relevance, as the same is true of nearly every U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson might legitimately be considered an inventor for having conceptualized various devices (including a macaroni machine, a swivel chair, a spherical sundial, a moldboard plow, and a cipher wheel), although he held no patents because he believed them to be a form of monopoly. Abraham Lincoln was the only U.S. president who ever held a patent, having been issued Patent #6,469 for "A Device for Buoying Vessels Over Shoals" on 22 May 1849. Beyond that, "inventing" has historically had nothing to do with the qualifications or success of candidates for the White House. Never had a 9 to 5 job This criticism is too vaguely worded to allow for much cogent analysis. What does holding a "9 to 5 job" mean? That one literally works from 9 AM to 5 PM (and not some other period of the day)? That one holds full-time employment? That one is paid on an hourly basis? That one toils at what is commonly referred to as a "blue collar" job? That one works for someone else rather than being self-employed? If we assume the most seemingly relevant application of the term  that it refers to holding steady, full-time employment  then one might fairly say it applies to Bernie Sanders. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago in 1964, Sanders primarily worked a series of odd jobs while attempting to get his political career off the ground, and a Politico article observed that he "didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old." However, that same article did list a variety of jobs Sanders held (even if they weren't steady or didn't provide a livable wage) before he finally reached public office upon being elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at age 39  working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications: article Sanders rented a small brick duplex at 295 1/2 Maple Street that was filled with not much furniture and not much food in the fridge but stacks of checked-out library books and scribbled-on legal pads. "Pretty sparse," Gene Bergman, an old friend, said about the apartment. "Stark and dark," said Darcy Troville, a fellow Liberty Unionite who lived around the corner and shared with Sanders homemade jellies and jams. "The electricity was turned off a lot," Barnett said. "I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn't pay his bills." He worked some as a carpenter, although "he was a shitty carpenter," [Liberty Union party member John] Bloch told me. "His carpentry," [Liberty Union member Danny] Morrisseau said, "was not going to support him, and didn't." He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. His writing wasn't a living. The Vanguard paid as little as the rest. "It would've been not more than 50 bucks," said Greg Guma, a former editor. Vermont Life? "Our rate was 10 cents a word," said Brian Vachon, a former editor. "He was always poor," Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington. "Virtually unemployed," said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont. "Just one step above hand to mouth," said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch. Liberty Union "people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work," Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. "Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance." "His work was to be a politician," Guma said. "He put everything into what he was doing." We would also note by that by the standard used here, holding elective office (as Sanders has done for most of the last 35 years as a mayor, a U.S. representative, and a U.S. senator) is as much a "9 to 5" job as any other. Never proposed a bill that has passed This statement is not literally true, as during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted, two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans"). Although that might seem like slight achievement for someone who has spent 25 years as both a U.S. representative and a U.S. senator, we would note that only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted. We would also note that sponsoring original legislation is but one small part of Congress members' duties: they also co-sponsor legislation submitted by colleagues (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills), muster support (or opposition) among colleagues and the public for proposed legislation, review and vote on proposed bills, serve on various committees (Sanders holds six Senate committee appointments), meet with constituents, participate in oversight and investigation of governmental affairs, etc., as detailed in "The Many Roles of a Member of Congress": handful committee detailed First and foremost, the Member is a decision-maker. Members are faced with hundreds of decisions in both recorded and unrecorded votes on matters major and minor. Many decisions must be made quickly. Each decision, whether spontaneous or studied, balances the conflicting perspectives received from private citizens, public officials, party leaders. Decisions are often second-guessed by constituents, campaign opponents, colleagues, lobbyists, and media critics. Meetings are continual, in committee rooms, in private offices, in corridors, and in gatherings on the floor. Daily, sacks of mail are delivered. Faxes flow in a steady stream. Electronic mail jams congressional computers. Correspondence must be written and press releases issued. Highly visible issues are debated on the House or Senate floor, fully televised, and the absence or presence of a Member is duly noted. Scandals require investigation. Programs require oversight. Requests for information, both basic and complex, are received daily. Journalists seek comment. Constituents seek assistance obtaining federal grants, government jobs, and help in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. Over time, these daily tasks and the always-changing expectations of the electorate have come together to establish a multi-faceted job. Lived off welfare before elected to public office As noted above, various acquaintances who knew Sanders in the years before he achieved public office have reported that he was "always poor," and he likely received public assistance at some point during that time, although what form of (and how much) assistance he received is difficult to determine at this remove. A contemporaneous newspaper account from the Bennington Banner reported that in 1974, when Sanders ran for the U.S. Senate on the Liberty Union Party ticket, he was collecting unemployment benefits: Sanders, 32, cares little what 'image' he conveys  and that's part of his image of being a bit rumpled and unshorn. He's on unemployment compensation right now, having worked for the Bread & Law Task Force, as a free-lance writer, and as a carpenter in the Burlington area. But the thing he likes best, and excels at, is 'talking the issues,' and he doesn't mind repeating himself sometimes." 74 year old  personal net worth of $300,000 As 247 Wall St. reported, determining the precise net worth of candidates is difficult for a number of reasons: net worth [R]eporting exact values is not required. Instead, candidates may disclose their assets and income in a range. Further, candidates do not necessarily report all their assets. For instance, candidates do not need to disclose their personal real estate and property values. Jeb Bush opted to omit assets generated by several holding companies, for example. In addition, while some candidates choose to include their spouses in their disclosures, some do not. Carly Fiorinas net worth of $59 million, for example, includes that of her husband, Frank. Hillary Clinton's reported net worth, on the other hand, does not include assets jointly owned by her and former president Bill Clinton, who is worth by some estimates more than $50 million. 247 Wall St. attempted to determine each presidential candidate's net worth in an article published on 24 August 2015. They estimated that Sanders was one of the "poorest presidential candidates" running for office in 2016, with a likely net worth somewhere around $330,000: estimated Bernie Sanders> Net worth: $194,026-$741,030 In 2013, Bernie Sanders had an average estimated net worth of $330,507, well below other prospective presidential nominees and among the lowest compared with other members of Congress. As of late 2019, Open Secrets, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, estimated Sanders' net worth at between $729,000 and $1.8 million, making him neither the richest nor the poorest presidential hopeful in the 2020 field. estimated In any case, the meme's characterization of Sanders as a "loser" based on his net worth evinces a rather skewed perspective. Although many people view financial rewards as a tangible measure of one's success, it is far from the only factor by which accomplishment can be measured. (In fact, highly-regarded President Harry S. Truman had virtually no net worth even after leaving the White House in 1953 and afterwards was largely dependent upon Congress' finally establishing a pension for former presidents.) pension Bernie Sanders might equally be considered a "winner" for persevering at his goal of achieving a political career long after others might have given up, and for succeeding at that effort despite prolonged financial hardship. Unlike many others, Sanders might also be lauded for maintaining a rather plain life and not having enriched himself in public service (especially since candidates at the other end of the financial spectrum are frequently criticized for being "out of touch with the common man"). As 247 Wall St. wrote of Sanders: The Vermont senator, who is the longest-serving independent in U.S. history, is a self-identified socialist. He is seeking the Democratic nomination and is the most popular Democratic candidate after Hillary Clinton. In keeping with Sanders' stated intention of starting a grassroots movement, more than 90% of his campaign contributions have come from individual donors. Sanders' campaign speeches have drawn record numbers of attendants. Most recently, 19,000 people watched Sanders speak at an NBA arena in Portland, Oregon, the largest political event compared with all other candidates so far this election season. All in all, that sounds like quite an impressive career achievement for anyone  regardless of net worth. Kruse, Michael.  "Bernie Sanders Has a Secret."
  Politico.  9 July 2015. Frohlich, Thomas C. et al.  "The Net Worth of Each Presidential Candidate."
  24/7 Wall St.  24 August 2015. Delaney, Arthur.  "Bernie Sanders Ran for Office While on Unemployment."
  The Huffington Post.  29 May 2015. Murphy, Tim.  "How Bernie Sanders Learned to Be a Real Politician."
  Mother Jones.  26 May 2015. OpenSecrets.org.  "Net Worth of 2020 Presidential Candidates."
 Accessed 18 October 2019. Around 5 p.m. EDT on March 16, 2021, a 21-year-old white man allegedly shot and killed eight people -- six of whom were Asian women -- at three Atlanta-area spas. The investigation into the mass shooting remained ongoing, as of this report. allegedly shot and killed investigation As word of the tragedy spread online, however, people flooded social media with messages of sympathy for the deceased. Many posts classified them as unknowing victims of the country's increasing xenophobia, given a surge of attacks against Asian Americans that coincided with the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S, or pervasive violence against women. surge of attacks Among such posters was Aaron Rupar, a journalist at Vox. A couple of hours after the incident, for instance, he blamed former U.S. President Donald Trump's characterization of the coronavirus as a reason for growing hate crimes against Asian Americans, and tweeted: Vox tweeted "[I] don't think it's a coincidence that Trump spent the better part of a year using a virus as a slur against Chinese people while hate crimes against Asian Americans spiked by 150 percent." Rupar was referring to Trump's repeated insistence on calling the coronavirus the "Chinese virus" -- going against widely accepted public health guidelines that warn against titling disease outbreaks after nations or regions of the world to eliminate stigmatization -- and 2020 hate crime statistics in 16 U.S. cities compiled by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University. repeated insistence guidelines 2020 hate crime statistics About 20 minutes later, Rupar added:   The underlying claim was true  as authorities in the Atlanta area embarked on a manhunt to catch the suspect on the evening of March 16, Trump referred to the coronavirus as the "China virus" on Fox News. a manhunt to catch the suspect But let this be clear: No evidence explicitly connected the former president's use of the term on national television with the tragedy unfolding simultaneously in Georgia. Furthermore, it was unclear whether he was even aware of the mass shooting when he said "China virus" while talking about unrelated matters -- specifically, his presidential administration's approach to the American economy. The interviewer did not ask him about the Atlanta-are shooting. Here's what happened: Between roughly 6 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. EDT, according to The Associated Press, the victims' bodies were reported inside massage parlors, and authorities arrested the suspected gunman -- Robert Aaron Long, of Woodstock, Georgia -- as he was driving on the interstate. Meanwhile, at 7 p.m. EDT, Trump called in for a phone interview with Fox News' Maria Bartiromo, a recording of which Snopes obtained via the media outlet's website and is displayed below. Maria Bartiromo Throughout much of the interview, the former president lambasted his successor's approach to immigration, criticized election security, and took credit for the ongoing efforts to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to every American willing to get one. Then, at approximately the 5-minute mark, he said: immigration COVID-19 [The economy] was recovering under my administration -- twice. We got it to a level that the world has never seen before. We were the envy of the world and then when we got hit by the, as I call it, 'the China virus' -- COVID -- it obviously went down along with every other economy. And then we were the first to get it back up. You can watch the segment here: In June 2021, Las Vegas Raiders defensive end Carl Nassib came out as gay, making history as the first openly gay active NFL player. Given the high-profile nature of his announcement, it was perhaps unsurprising that the episode quickly turned political, with claims that Nassib is registered to vote as a Republican. came out as gay On June 22, for example, right-wing activist Brigitte Gabriel tweeted: tweeted "FUN FACT: The first openly gay active NFL player, Carl Nassib, is a registered Republican voter." Some left-leaning and LGBTQ observers expressed disappointment at such claims, and others posted what appeared to be screenshots of voter registration details relating to Nassib.  expressed disappointment at such claims others posted In general, readers should be wary of claims about a specific individual's party affiliation and voter registration, which often crop up in the aftermath of arrests, scandals and other controversies. Links and screenshots purporting to contain such details often come from unofficial and unreliable sources.  often crop up aftermath It should also be noted that Nassib's personal political beliefs and party affiliation are of no inherent interest to the writers and editors at Snopes, and that this fact check is simply in response to widespread and substantive factual claims about a public figure currently in the news.  In any event, Snopes has checked official, reliable voter registration data from Nevada and Florida, and can confirm that Nassib is indeed registered to vote as a Republican, and has been in at least two states, since May 2019 at the latest. We are therefore issuing a rating of  Nassib joined the Raiders in March 2020, and lives in Las Vegas. On June 23, Snopes downloaded voter rolls from the 16th state assembly district, from the official website of Clark County, Nevada. official website That database contains an entry for Carl Paul Nassib, born in 1993, with an address in Las Vegas, and shows that he is an active voter who registered as a Republican on Nov. 3, 2020  the date of the most recent general election. In the screenshot below, we have redacted certain columns which, although public record, contained personal details including Nassib's home address:   Before joining the Raiders, Nassib played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and lived in Hillsborough County, Florida. We checked registration information on the official website of the Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections, and found that Nassib registered as a Republican there on May 15, 2019. We have redacted Nassib's voter registration number, as well as his residential and permanent addresses, from the screenshot below: official website   Before joining the Buccaneers, Nassib played for the Cleveland Browns. Information found on the official website of the Medina County Board of Elections showed that he voted there in the 2016 general election, on Nov. 8, but did not indicate his party affiliation at that time, if any.  official website   As we have shown, Nassib has been registered as a Republican in two different states  Florida and Nevada  since May 2019 at the latest, and he was registered as a Republican for the most recent general election, in November 2020. The claim that Nassib is registered to vote, as a Republican, is therefore undoubtedly accurate, as of June 2021. An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases:  Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list.  These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis.  Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff   The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6%  The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%).  The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%).  Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold.  It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax  filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation).   estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket.  Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income.  (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax.  The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended.  Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill In December 2020, readers asked Snopes to check the authenticity and accuracy of a diatribe against outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump, widely attributed to actor and director George Clooney. The speech has been shared many thousands of times over the past three years, in social media posts, and in the form of memes. For unknown reasons, it enjoyed something of a resurgence in October and December 2020. shared thousands October December 2020 A typical post read: George Clooney's response after Trump accused him of being a "Hollywood elite". "Here's the thing: I grew up in Kentucky. I sold insurance door-to-door. I sold ladies' shoes. I worked at an all-night liquor store. I would buy suits that were too big and too long and cut the bottom of the pants off to make ties so I'd have a tie to go on job interviews. I grew up understanding what it was like to not have health insurance for eight years. So this idea that I'm somehow the 'Hollywood elite' and this guy who takes a shit in a gold toilet is somehow the man of the people is laughable. "People in Hollywood, for the most part, are people from the Midwest who moved to Hollywood to have a career. So this idea of 'coastal elites' living in a bubble is ridiculous. Who lives in a bigger bubble? He lives in a gold tower and has twelve people in his company. He doesn't run a corporation of hundreds of thousands of people he employs and takes care of. He ran a company of twelve people! "When you direct a film you have seven different unions all wanting different things, you have to find consensus with all of them, and you have to get them moving in the same direction. He's never had to do any of that kind of stuff. I just look at it and I laugh when I see him say 'Hollywood elite.' Hollywood elite? I don't have a star on Hollywood Boulevard, Donald Trump has a star on Hollywood Boulevard! Fuck you!"   Some of those posts and memes contained a small number of very minor tweaks in wording, but overall, they accurately and fairly attributed the diatribe to Clooney, who did indeed hammer Trump as a "guy who takes a shit in a gold toilet" and "lives in a gold tower," and did indeed finish his speech by telling Trump "Fuck you!" Clooney's remarks came in the context of an interview with the Daily Beast, published on Sept. 22, 2017. Many of the viral social media posts claimed Clooney was speaking in response to Trump's accusation that Clooney was part of a "Hollywood elite." interview But that's not quite right. The question (or prompt) to which Clooney was responding was, "Trump has been stoking this culture war between "coastal elites" and Middle America  the irony of course being that Trump himself is a "coastal elite." Below is the exchange as it appeared in its original context: In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. Claim:  Congress has eliminated the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit (EITC), and mortgage deductions from the tax code under pressure from lobby groups and the Koch brothers.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Are u kidding!? Congress Eliminates Child Tax Credit, Mortgage Deduction & E.I.T.C   Origins:  On 11 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming a "heavy burst of lobbying" by groups including the Koch brothers' Koch Industries preceded a vote whereby Congress rescinded several common tax breaks long afforded to millions of Americans.  article According to the article, the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction were all forms of "entitlement payouts" that had been eliminated beginning with the 2014 fiscal year to allow "job creators" to flourish: The deeply unpopular congress, whose approval rating hovers around a historic low of 10%, has voted to remove the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction from the tax code starting with the 2014 fiscal year. The move is almost assured to solidify the perception of the 113rd Congress of the United States as deeply disconnected from the struggles and desires of the populace it is supposed to serve.  The move, long championed by entitlement reform advocates like congressman Paul Ryan R-Wisconsin and Ted Cruz R-Texas, will cut entitlement payouts by a staggering 177 billion dollars. 54.33 billion dollars in savings will be realized from discontinuing the earned income tax credit, which generally pays those making less than 12 thousand dollars yearly large cash tax rebates far in excess of the actual tax they paid. 69.7 billion will be saved from the mortgage interest tax deduction, which critics say primarily favors top income earners. The elimination of the child tax credit, which critics say serves no fair purpose, will result in an additional 54 billion dollar savings. The article was nothing but a chain-yanking spoof, however: The National Report is a well-known fake news outlet notorious for publishing click-baiting, completely false stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6." 15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6 The article also quoted economist "Paul Horner" on Congress' purported tax credit repeal.  If that name sounds familiar, it's because Paul Horner is a National Report writer whose name is used as a recurring character in various stories published by the site.     Last updated:  13 November 2014 < On 12 April 2017, the partisan web site Crooks and Liars reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions owns shares in the private prison industry and stands to gain financially from some of his recent policy announcements: reported It's more than a conflict of interest. The more people Attorney General Jeff Sessions sends to private prisons, the more money he shoves in his pockets. From announcing he wants federal law enforcement agencies to bust people for a little bit of weed, to ordering federal prosecutors to find ways to convict more immigrants, Sessions is looking for ways to provide more clients to private prisons that are contracted by the federal government... ...As Attorney General Sessions fills these private prisons, he is making money. According to his latest financial disclosures required by congress, dated December 23, 2016, he divested of other investments that were found to be in conflict. In these disclosures, he also lists numerous Vanguard funds. Vanguard owns more private prison stock than any other investment management company. A popular meme also broadcast this claim:   The article lists three funds that Sessions has shares in, all of which are managed by the investment firm Vanguard, and claims that the funds contain holdings in two leading companies in the private prison industry: CoreCivic and GEO Group. This is true of only two of those funds. The third seems to be listed as the result of a mix-up. The article rightly states that one of these funds, the Vanguard Total International Stock Index fund, contains holdings in "GEO Holdings Corporation". However, this is a Japanese company that has no relation to the Florida-based private prison company GEO Group, as confirmed to Snopes.com by a spokesperson for GEO Group. Japanese company As for the other two investment funds, federal financial disclosure records show that the Attorney General owns between $31,003 and $115,000 worth of shares in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, yielding a total of between $1,403 and $4,500 in income per year for Sessions. federal financial disclosure records Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund And this fund does indeed include CoreCivic and GEO Group:   However, what the article does not mention is that CoreCivic and GEO Group constitute just two out of 3,557 companies in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund. Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund is what's known as an Excepted Investment Fund (EIF) - that means the fund is independently managed (that is, not by Sessions himself), and either publicly traded or "widely-diversified" (that is, it doesn't focus on one particular sector of the economy), according to the Office of Government Ethics.  Office of Government Ethics A brief look at this particular fund shows that its more than 3,500 holdings relate to companies from throughout the economy, including well-known names such as Cracker Barrel, Zillow and Rite Aid.  The same is true of the Vanguard Small-Cap Index fund, in which Sessions has between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of shares, yielding between $201 and $1,000 in income for him, per year. Vanguard Small-Cap Index fund While it does include holdings in CoreCivic and GEO Group, these are just two of 1,422 companies listed in the fund, which come from a variety of sectors and include names like Domino's Pizza and JetBlue Airways. According to Kathleen Clark, a Professor at Washington University School of Law and an expert on legal and government ethics, investments in widely-diversified funds such as these are unlikely to leave a public official vulnerable to conflicts of interest. If it's a diversified fund as opposed to being a sector fund [focused on one sector of the economy], then it's not subject to the conflict of interest statute. Clark told us that even if one or two companies in a widely-diversified fund were to perform well and increase their value, the presence of a large number of other companies in that fund means "It is exceedingly unlikely that such an interest would influence the government official, or that the public would perceive that as a significant risk." This is because income from a widely-diversified fund, like the two we're examining, is based on the aggregate value of the companies within that fund. Remember that in one fund, CoreCivic and GEO Group represent two out of 3,557 companies, and in the other, they represent two out of 1,422. Now remember that the Attorney General's total annual income from the first fund is between $1,403 and $4,500 and from the second fund, it's between $201 and $1,000. So while it's true that Jeff Sessions has some shares in funds that include holdings in two private prison companies, it's misleading to say that this means he stands to gain in any meaningful way from an increase in the value of those companies, or that "The more people Attorney General Jeff Sessions sends to private prisons, the more money he shoves in his pockets." The Attorney General's annual income from these funds - which is relatively low - depends on the overall performance of those funds. A surge in the value of CoreCivic or the GEO Group would very quickly be cancelled out by a dip in the value of just a handful of the thousands of other companies included in those two funds, and because these are widely-diversified Excepted Invested Funds, they don't fall foul of conflict of interest regulations. Budd, Jenn.  "Jeff Sessions Getting Rich Filling Private Prisons."
  Crooks and Liars.  12 April 2017
 Office of Government Ethics.  "Excepted Investment Fund."
  Accessed 17 May 2017.

 Vanguard.  "Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund."
  30 April 2017.

 Vanguard.  "Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund."
  30 April 2017.

 Office of Government Ethics.  "Public Financial Disclosure Report - Jefferson B. Sessions."
  Accessed 17 May 2017. On the evening of Feb. 11, 2024, shortly afterthe Kansas City Chiefs beat the San Francisco 49ers in Super Bowl LVIII,an image of U.S. President Joe Biden with glowing red laser eyes circulated online, along with the caption, "Just like we drew it up."Screenshots of the post indicated that Biden's official account on X (formerly Twitter) made the post. image Screenshots The post referenced the "Dark Brandon" meme  that is, imagerydepicting Biden as a nonhuman villain with laser eyes and is a satirical response to critics. Prior to the championship game, many right-wingconspiracy theorists made posts about Democrats secretly scheming with Chiefs tight Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift to help Biden's 2024 presidential campaign. They believed high-profile Democrats worked with the NFL to rig the season so that Kelce and Swift would end up at the highly watched event and endorse Biden there, CNN reported. Dark Brandon depicting response conspiracy CNN reported (Screenshot via Reddit) Biden's official X account did indeed share the image, a reference to the Dark Brandon meme, along with the words, "Just like we drew it up," after the Chiefs' Super Bowl victory. We thus rated the claim  The original tweet is viewable on Biden's X account and archived here. (The account is distinct from the one he uses for presidential matters, which is @POTUS.) here POTUS Just like we drew it up. pic.twitter.com/9NBvc5nVZE pic.twitter.com/9NBvc5nVZE  Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) February 12, 2024 February 12, 2024  The notion that Biden or Democrats had any role in the outcome of Super Bowl LVIII was nothing but an unfounded conspiracy theory. We reached out to the White House asking what it meant by, or why it authored, the post  which appeared to be trolling people who believed the conspiracy theory to be true. We'll update this report if, or when, we receive a response. unfounded conspiracy theory As wereported before, critics of the president started referring to him as "Brandon" around 2021, and memes depicting him as a cartoonish villain with laser eyessurfacedaround that time, too. As a response, supporters of the president  including White House DeputyPressSecretary Andrew Bates (tweet below) attempted toreclaim the "Dark Brandon" imagery tomock people who genuinely posted it. reported surfaced White House DeputyPressSecretary Andrew Bates reclaim  According to The Associated Press, the "Brandon" name stemmed from an incident in which a reporter mistook a crowd'schant of "F*** Joe Biden" for "Let's go, Brandon" in support of a NASCAR driver. Since then, anti-Biden people have used "Let's go, Brandon" as a rallying cry, putting it on T-shirts, merchandise and more. The Associated Press "Dark Brandon" memes  i.e. images of alaser-eyed Biden  are an apparent attempt by the president's supporters to comment on the conspiratorial nature of some of his critics. Bidenreferencedthe internet trend at the 2023 White House Correspondents Association dinner. referenced Kaczynski, Andrew and Oliver Darcy. "Right-Wing Media Figures Target Taylor Swift with Absurd Conspiracy Theory Ahead of the Super Bowl | CNN Business." CNN, 30 Jan. 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/media/taylor-swift-super-bowl-right-wing-conspiracy/index.html. Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. "'Let's Go Brandon': A Collection of Stories." Snopes, 2 Nov. 2021, https://www.snopes.com//collections/lets-go-brandon/.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. Navlakha, Meera. "Joe Biden's Laser-Eyed Alter Ego Returns for Super Bowl Meme." Mashable, 12 Feb. 2024, https://mashable.com/article/joe-biden-dark-brandon-meme-taylor-swift-donald-trump.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. Romano, Aja. "The 'Dark Brandon' Meme  and Why the Biden Campaign Has Embraced It  Explained." Vox, 11 Aug. 2022, https://www.vox.com/culture/23300286/biden-dark-brandon-meme-maga-why-confusing-explained.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. Sforza, Lauren. "Biden Trolls MAGA Republicans with Super Bowl Tweet." The Hill, 12 Feb. 2024, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4462750-biden-trolls-maga-republicans-super-bowl-tweet/.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024. Thompson, Alex, and Allie Bice. "Dark Brandon Begins: How WH Aides Appropriated the Meme of Their Boss as an Underworld Kin." POLITICO, 8 Aug. 2022, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2022/08/08/how-a-meme-of-biden-as-an-underworld-king-became-appropriated-by-his-aides-00050405.Accessed 12 Feb. 2024.