Was Target's stock negatively affected by their transgender bathroom policy?
On 28 February 2017, Breitbart.com reported that big box retailer Target's stock had "crashed," losing a combined total of $15 billion in investor wealth, because of the chain's announcement in 2016 that it would allow transgender customers and employees to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity: reported Targets stock value is now down by 30 percent since it sparked a consumer boycott by embracing the transgender political agenda. That 30 percent drop has slashed investors wealth by roughly $15 billion. On Tuesday, the stock fell to $58.78, down from its April 19 high of $83.98. In contrast, WalMart is up 3 percent since April, and Kohls is down less than one percent. Company officials indirectly acknowledged the consumer boycott. Our fourth-quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores, Target CEO Brian Cornell said in a company statement. The company also admitted that it would likely continue to experience losses through the year. On 19 April 2016, Target announced that transgender customers and employees were free to use the restroom that corresponded to their gender identity amid a national row on the subject during the 2016 election cycle. The announcement came after North Carolina enacted the controversial HB 2 in March 2016, a law that came to be colloquially termed the "bathroom bill," and required public single-sex restrooms only be used by people of the corresponding biological sex. The controversy, and Target's definitive stance, prompted conservative groups like the American Family Association (AFA) to launch a boycott. Nearly 1.5 million people have signed the AFA's petition as of 1 March 2017. announced HB 2 boycott Target shares did plunge on 28 February 2017, but it wasn't due to its nearly year-old bathroom policy. The drop was due to 2017 guidance announced during an investor day event. Projections were far lower than expected by Wall Street analysts (the term "guidance" means projected earnings). The drop in Target stock corresponds to the announcement made at their investor event: event  Source: Yahoo! Finance  According to Edward Jones analyst Brian Yarbough, Wall Street was expecting Target to project earnings of $5.30 per share, but the company instead gave guidance of $3.80 to $4.20 per share which was "well below" expectations, prompting the drop in share value. According to Reuters, Target's dive dragged others down with it: Targets plunge prompted declines across the retail sector. Wal-Mart Stores Inc was down 2.0 percent, with Kroger Co down 1.2 percent and Macy's Inc off 1.7 percent. Dollar General Corp fell 4.2 percent. What is dogging Target and other retailers has been competition with all-online retailers like Amazon, which do not have the overhead cost of brick-and-mortar locations. Target, for example, has 1,803 stores. "Online players dont have a huge network of stores and since they dont have that cost, they can offer lower prices," Yarbough said. Customers also have the immediate ability to do price-comparisons with smart phones. These changing patterns are reflected in a statement given by Target CEO Brian Cornell: statement Our fourth quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly-changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores. At our meeting with the financial community this morning, we will provide detail on the meaningful investments were making in our business and financial model which will position Target for long-term, sustainable growth in this new era in retail. We will accelerate our investments in a smart network of physical and digital assets as well as our exclusive and differentiated assortment, including the launch of more than 12 new brands, representing more than $10 billion of our sales, over the next two years. In addition, we will invest in lower gross margins to ensure we are clearly and competitively priced every day. While the transition to this new model will present headwinds to our sales and profit performance in the short term, we are confident that these changes will best-position Target for continued success over the long term. Although Target offers online shopping, profit there tends to be lower due to associated costs like shipping and price competition from the likes of Amazon. Retailers are struggling to survive with more profitable in-store sales lagging, and lower profit margins due to a growing contingency of online shoppers: Although its e-commerce operation is growing quickly, Target reported its third straight quarter of lower sales from existing stores, citing "unexpected softness" and raising new questions about the health of large national retailers in the United States. Target also forecast first-quarter profit well below Wall Street estimates. Shares sank 13 percent, on track for their biggest one-day percentage drop in more than 18 years. Target's stock has lost a quarter of its value since the 2016 holiday season started in November, and is now trading at its lowest level since August 2014. Target maintains the bathroom policy has had no effects on its business, with company spokeswoman Erika Winkels telling us in an e-mail, "We have made it clear over time that weve seen no material impact to the business based on the bathroom policy. We dont have anything new or different to share." A poor performance in the 2016 holiday season was also attributed to online sales outpacing foot traffic, but Target is, again, not the only chain feeling the effects: Department stores across the country are paying the price for underestimating Amazon this holiday season. Macy's and Kohl's both reported lower-than-expected sales during the all-important end-of-year retail period, and announced a spate of store closures that will lead to thousands of lost jobs. Sears has even been reduced to selling off one of its iconic brands after a double-digit sales slide. Industry observers blame online competition, as well as department store brands' own shortfalls in adapting to a fundamental shift in consumer behavior. Nevertheless, Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, told us that Target could be worse off than it is: Its in a much better position than some retailers because its balance sheet is still robust whereas Sears and Macy's are in a very difficult position. With Target, it's much more about tweaking and reinvention at the edges. [The guidance] wasnt great, but not as bad other people. Saunders told Reuters that while Wal-Mart has been buoyed by successfully offering groceries, Target has not been able to keep up on that front, calling its grocery offerings "confusing." Reuters "Target is neither a full-line grocer nor a player with lots of niche specialty products; it is neither a high-end player, nor a price focused discounter," he said. It is difficult to say with certainty whether the Target's commerce overall has been negatively affected by its policy on transgender people. Although company representatives have maintained it has not, shortly after Cornell made the announcement, USA Today reported a study that showed the percentage of people who would consider shopping there the next time they needed something dropped from 42 to 38 percent. But the retail industry as a whole is facing a dramatic shift in consumer behavior, and retailers have struggled to keep pace with it. reported Target's late February 2017 stock drop, however, was the result of announcements made during an investor day event, and cannot be attributed to their policy on bathroom use. Huston, Warner Todd.  "Target Retailer Hits $15 Billion Loss Since Pro-Transgender Announcement."
  Breitbart.  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity."
  Press Release.  19 April 2016. House Bill 2.  "Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act."
  North Carolina State Legislation.  23 March 2016. American Family Association.  "Sign the Boycott Target Pledge!"
  Petition.  20 April 2016. Naidu, Richa et al.  "Target's Profit Outlook Sinks Retail Stocks."
  Reuters  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Target Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2016 Earnings."
  Press Release.  28 February 2017. White, Martha C.  "Department Stores Are Paying the Price for Underestimating Amazon."
  CNBC.  5 January 2017. Malcolm, Hadley.  "Target Brand Perception Falls, But It's Not 'Catastrophic.'"
  USA Today.  29 April 2016.
For beingHillary Clintonsurrogates, two Wisconsin lawmakers sounded rather likeBernie Sanderswhen they got on the phone with reporters to denounce Donald Trumps tax plan. Forthe billionaires,bythe billionaires, state Rep.Cory Masonof Racine declared in the May 11, 2016 teleconference, which was arranged by Clintons Wisconsin campaign. Mason was joined by fellow DemocratJennifer Shillingof La Crosse, the Senate minority leader. Her attack was more specific. Shilling stated that with Trumps plan, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers -- people earning multiple millions of dollars a year, on average -- would get more tax relief than the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers combined. Economic inequality has been a signature issue for Sanders, whose presidential campaign has kept Clinton from claiming the presumptive nominee titleTrumphas on the Republican side. When Sanders said in Madison that the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, we rated his claimMostly True. Let's take a look at Shillings one-tenth of 1 percenters claim -- which, as well see, was made at something of a moving target. The figures Standing in the lobby of Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan in September 2015, Trumprolled outhistax reform plan-- which some analysts immediately saw as a boon for the wealthy. He proposed significant cuts across the board,PolitiFact National found, but the wealthiest would get the most in tax cuts. For the highest income earners, the top income tax rate would drop from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. When we asked about Shillings claim, Clintons Wisconsin campaign citedan analysisby the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of two Washington, D.C. think tanks: the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. The analysis found that on average, under Trumps plan, households at all income levels would receive tax cuts -- but the highest-income households would receive the largest cuts, both in dollars and as a percentage of income. More specific to Shillings claim: The highest-income 0.1 percent of taxpayers -- those who had an income of over $3.7 million in 2015 -- would get an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million in 2017. That same group would receive 18 percent of the tax reduction, while the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers would receive 16.4 percent of the reduction. At our request, the liberal Citizens for Tax Justice also did calculations, which came out nearly the same: The top 0.1 percent would get 17 percent of Trump's proposed tax cuts and the bottom 60 percent would get 13 percent of the cuts. To some extent, this isnt a surprise, in that the wealthiest pay the lions share of income taxes. In aJune 2015 report, the Tax Policy Center said the top 0.1 percent pay 21.1 percent of all individual income taxes and the bottom 60 percent pays 1.5 percent. Alan Cole, an economist with the Tax Foundation, also ran the numbers and told us Shillings claim is accurate. But Cole noted that under Trumps plan: -- People in the 40th to 60th percentiles have about 99 percent of their income tax liability removed. -- People in the 0 to 40th percentiles who paid positive income taxes have about 100 percent of their income tax liability removed. So the reason Trumps plan doesnt cut middle-class income taxes by more than that is, well, you cant cut middle-class income taxes by more than that, Cole said. So, the figures back Shilling. The thing is, shortly before she made her claim, Trumps tax proposalwas changing. Sort of. Maybe. Or was it? Trumps equivocation In the three days prior,Trump saidhe might raise, not lower, taxes on the wealthy. Thenhe indicatedthe wealthy would get tax cuts, but the cuts might be less than what is in his plan. And thenPolitico reportedthat Trumps campaign had enlisted conservative economists to revise his plan, and that they were advising a top tax rate of 28 percent -- higher than the 25 percent in Trumps proposal. All of which has caused some confusion as to what Trump would do with taxes. Nevertheless, by the time Shilling made her statement, Trump had not changed histax proposal, which remained on his campaign website. (Indeed, for what it's worth, the day after Shillings claim, a Trump spokeswomantold the New York Times: There are no changes being made to the plan.) Our rating Shilling said that under Trump's tax plan, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers -- people earning multiple millions of dollars a year, on average --  would get more tax relief than the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers combined. A report from a respected nonpartisan research group calculates that the 0.1 percent -- those making more than $3.7 million per year -- would receive 18 percent of the tax cuts under Trumps proposal. The bottom 60 percent of taxpayers, meanwhile, would enjoy only 16.4 percent of the cuts. Another tax group found similar figures. Trump has indicated he might make alter his tax proposal, but he hadnt as of when Shilling made her statement -- so we rate the statement True. Watch the WTMJ-TV PolitiFact segment on this fact check. PolitiFact segments air during the 6 p.m. newscasts Wednesdays and Fridays. Republican gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkin says recent Democratic governors have pushed Virginia into economic decline and people are moving out. Over the last few years, more Virginians are moving away from Virginia than are moving to Virginia from the other 49 states, he said during aMay 21 interviewon WRVA radio in Richmond. Youngkin holds two Democrats responsible: Current Gov. Ralph Northam and former Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who led the state from 2014-2018 and is Youngkins opponent this year. Virginia is the only state that bars governors from serving successive terms. We fact-checked Youngkins talking-point claim that more people are leaving Virginia than coming in and found it to be correct, although the reasons for the outward migration go far beyond any governors control. The numbers The Internal Revenue Service publishes annual statistics on the number of households that moved and filed federal tax returns from a different state than the one in which they lived the previous year. Demographers and economists use these figures to track the net migration of families in the U.S. from year to year. Thedatashow that from 1991 through 2012, Virginia always had more households coming in than going out. That changed in 2013, when there was a net loss of 4,270 households. Virginia had fewer filing households in each of the next five years - an average annual loss of 5,600 families. In 2018, the last year for which figures are available, Virginia lost a net of 4,707 households. This doesnt mean theres been a massive flow out of Virginia. To give some perspective, about4 millionVirginia households annually file federal taxes. The net losses to other states in 2018 came to less than one-eighth of 1% of households. The U.S. Census Bureau also tracks net migration. Itestimatesthat Virginia lost a net 11,994 people through domestic migration during the 12-month period that ended July 1, 2019. The reasons Jobs were the main reason people left Virginia for other states at the start of the last decade. That switched to the rising cost of living at the end of the decade, according to economic and demographic studies. Virginia is home to large military bases, and a fleet of defense and government contractors and federal workers that drive the states economic engine in Northern Virginia. The region was hurt by sequestration programs beginning in 2013 that automatically cut defense and domestic spending when Congress could not agree on a budget. The result was that many Virginians whose paychecks were dependent on federal spending, particularly for defense, left the state to find new jobs, according to a2016 reportby Old Dominion University. More recently, the migration has been mainly triggered by people escaping the high cost of living in Northern Virginia, according to Hamilton Lombard, a demographer at the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia. They are largely young professionals seeking to buy first homes and raise families. Many are heading South to growing regions in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Texas. Lombard also said that Virginia is losing retirees, mostly to Southern states. Youngkin blames the migration losses on McAuliffe and Northam.He prefaced his claim by saying he is frustrated with what the Democratic leadership had done to Virginia over eight years. But Lombard said the governors have had little control over the economic trends that have caused losses. Think of the cost of housing; the state has little control of that, he said. If you could point to anything that could have been done on the state level over the years, maybe it could have focused on making more of Virginia (economically) competitive outside Northern Virginia, Lombard said. Our ruling Youngkin said, Over the last few years, more Virginians are moving away from Virginia than are moving to Virginia from the other 49 states. IRS data backs him up. But Youngkin wraps the data in a questionable political context. He blames the last two Democratic governors for the net migration loss when research shows most of the drop has been caused by problems largely beyond any governor's control: federal budget cuts and high prices for buying a home in Northern Virginia. Youngkins statement is accurate but needs clarification. So, we rate it Mostly True. More than a century after the infamous sinking of the RMS Titanic, which resulted in the death of more than 1,500 passengers, the internet continues to obsess over the tragedy. Case in point: July 2022, a fake video shared to TikTok that claimed to show the sinking of the cruise liner racked up nearly a half-million likes. A caption accompanying the video read, Rare footage of the 1912 sinking of the Titanic. However, the video is a fake.   Titanic left its port of Southhampton, England, for its transatlantic maiden voyage on April 10, 1912. Four days later, the nearly 900-foot vessel collided with an iceberg near Newfoundland, Canada, at 11:40 p.m. Two hours and 40 minutes later, the vessel broke in two and sank, according to the Titanic Inquiry Project. Because many of its passengers were noteworthy individuals, the sinking of Titanic quickly became one of the first international news stories of the 20th-century  and along with it came a slew of misinformation, notes the Titanic Newspaper Archives. Newfoundland, Canada Titanic Inquiry Project Titanic Newspaper Archives Apparently, that legacy of misinformation has followed the wreckage 110 years later. The room that appears in the video presumably contains the Grand Staircase, which was described as one of the most impressive features on board the RMS Titanic and the center of first-class activity. James Camerons 1997 film classic "Titanic" resurfaced the fame of the centerpiece.  described Titanic  Public Domain Back to the TikTok video. How do we know that is is fake? First, listen to the audio. You can hear dramatic screaming in the background, but there are no visible people in the frames. Lets also mention that handheld video cameras werent a thing in 1912. Sure, cameras in the 1910s were more mobile than those of previous decades, but The Living Image vintage camera museum notes that cameras of this era [were] still mainly of wooden, folding construction  heavy and not easily mobile. There is surprisingly little genuine film footage of the Titanic both right before and after the disaster, but it does exist. British Path was a producer of newsreels throughout the 20th century, reported the pop-science website IFLScience. A six-minute newsreel produced in the aftermath of the disaster spans multiple scenes after the vessel sunk and the ensuing search for survivors. The first scenes from the footage below depict the Titanic as it left port for disaster. cameras in the 1910s notes British Path IFLScience the vessel sunk  As you can see, authentic film footage from 1912 is much different than the clips shared to TikTok. Lastly, we checked the Instagram account associated with the TikTok profile. It led us to a person presumably named Taylor Tituss, who has a description in the profile reading, I make video edits for fun.  Taylor Tituss "So, to clear things up, the video is fake," Tituss told Snopes, adding that he took the footage from a YouTube clip posted to the platform in May 2021. A caption accompanying the video, which had over 1.5 million views as of this writing, claimed the following:  Mr Joseph Davies a 17 year old boy who was a Photographer on the Titanic the day it perished down in the Atlantic ocean in 1912.This footage was recovered in 2020 by a historian Investigating the sinking of the titanic.He commented "A camera was found in the Atlantic ocean where the titanic sits to rest. It was a miracle the camera was still intact after it was found in 1989.""After years and years of trying to recover the footage found in the films, they were unsuccessful until in 2020 when they became successful recovering the footage using state of the art technology." Mr Joseph died during the sinking of the titanic, the end bit where the video cuts out is when Mr Joseph drowned to his death trying to capture the sinking of the titanic. His remains were never found. We previously fact-checked the claim that an "old camera" from the Titanic was found deep in the ocean. That's also false, as is the below video: "old camera  As we previously reported, a young girl named Bernice Palmer did capture photographs of the iceberg  that Titanic collided with, as well as images of survivors. The Natural Museum of American History published that Palmer carried a handheld camera on the ship that responded to the Titanics distress call: reported published In 1900, the Eastman Kodak Company came out with the handheld box camera known as the Brownie. An immediate hit, more than 100,000 were sold in its first year. Canadian Bernice Bernie Palmer received a Kodak Brownie box camera, either for Christmas 1911 or for her birthday on January 10th, 1912. In early April, Bernie and her mother boarded the Cunard liner Carpathia in New York, for a Mediterranean cruise. Carpathia had scarcely cleared New York, when it received a distress call from the White Star liner Titanic on 14 April. It raced to the scene of the sinking and managed to rescue over 700 survivors from the icy North Atlantic. With her new camera, Bernice took pictures of the iceberg that sliced open the Titanics hull below the waterline and also took snapshots of some of the Titanic survivors.  We've looked into a number of rumors and claims surrounding the sinking of Titanic (did we mention that the internet is obsessed?). Let's sink these rumors once and for all. Here are some other Snopes fact checks that you may enjoy:  Was the Hidden Truth of Titanic Covered Up for Decades? Is This the Final Photograph of the Titanic? Were These Actual Mistakes in the 1997 Titanic Film? Did Divers Exploring Titanic Make Deeply Shocking New Discovery? Is the Door from Titanic on Display at Disney Springs? Sources Apr 15, 1912 CE: Titanic Sinks | National Geographic Society. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/titanic-sinks. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Cameras of 1910s Era. Old Vintage Cameras, Old Fashion Camera. https://licm.org.uk/livingImage/1910Room.html. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Cameron, James. Titanic. Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, Lightstorm Entertainment, 1997. Grand Staircase. Titanic Wiki, https://titanic.fandom.com/wiki/Grand_Staircase. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Grand Staircase of the Titanic. Wikipedia, 29 June 2022. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Staircase_of_the_Titanic&oldid=1095579315. Interesting Clips on TikTok. TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/@clipz_r_us_/video/7123906717020278062?_r=1&_d=secCgYIASAHKAESPgo8l7jDOO69%2F8FwrVlvu2ep8xdlY7z%2BELF9%2FTqCesNUwIiXYwhQ2PZfUzJ4G27YFO7FJsTC1abD8k5j58W4GgA%3D&checksum=4302d0d8b587eafda1c7e917ee37f34a2a7c46f1be0920292ec1b49166236792&language=en&preview_pb=0&sec_user_id=MS4wLjABAAAA-lkqwAHfStUeZkapDd_k_rjsEJRnnBbKhvq05zi0bVTQSKzFBdqKThheOb99NdEv&share_app_id=1233&share_item_id=7123906717020278062&share_link_id=f95dae62-97b3-4e7b-83c9-248e6b8c6dde&source=h5_m&timestamp=1659422273&u_code=dd6mf0739ffej6&ugbiz_name=Main&user_id=6844018106214646789&utm_campaign=client_share&utm_medium=android&utm_source=copy. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. This Haunting Video Is The Only Genuine Footage Of The Titanic Before And After It Sank. IFLScience, https://iflscience.com/this-haunting-video-is-the-only-genuine-footage-of-the-titanic-before-and-after-it-sank-59628. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Titanic Disaster Newspaper Archive. https://www.paperlessarchives.com/titanic_newspaper_archive.html. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Titanic Inquiry Project - Main Page. https://www.titanicinquiry.org/. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Titanic Real Footage: Leaving Belfast for Disaster (1911-1912) | British Path. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o7sOAjtXE. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o7sOAjtXE. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. On Jan. 4, 2022, a strange Facebook ad appeared that claimed: "The Sudden Loss That Hit 'Little People, Big World.'" It led to a lengthy article that claimed to reveal news of a death, "shocking truth," or some sort of sad development about the Roloff family. claimed However, this was all very misleading. For readers unfamiliar with "Little People, Big World," it's a reality TV show that follows the lives of the Roloff family. reality TV show "Matt and Amy Roloff, both 4 feet tall, face a variety of challenges in raising their four children: twins Jeremy and Zach, who is 2-feet shorter than his brother, and younger siblings Molly and Jacob, who like Jeremy are average height," a synopsis on TheTVDB.com reads. "The family's 34-acre Oregon farm serves as part playground and part moneymaker. As the series ages, Matt and Amy deal with personal strife, embrace their kids getting older and leading lives of their own, become grandparents, and attempt to keep Roloff Farms operational." synopsis The show began airing on TLC in 2006 and is often referred to by the acronym, "LPBW." Matt and Amy divorced in 2015. airing on TLC divorced In the Facebook ad about the Roloff family's "sudden loss," the caption contained several grammatical errors. It said: "Since the allegation were confirmed to the public, the cast of 'Little People, Big World' has ask for some privacy. Here is all the information given to the public so far." In other words, the ad appeared to imply that there were recent developments about a death that involved someone on "LPBW" or in the Roloff family.  This strange Facebook ad came from a page named P-15897-2.  The ad was posted on a Facebook page with a strange name: P-15897-2. It was described as a "clothing store." However, the truth was that this was nothing more than a quickly-created page that was being used to profit off of tragic and outdated news. It was likely managed from outside of the U.S. One of the photos showed a young Zach Roloff in a hospital bed. The picture was a screenshot from a 2006 episode of "LPBW" named "Zach's Emergency" where he experienced a "mysterious illness." episode The ad led to a lengthy slideshow-style article on foodisinthehouse.com. Its headline read: "Little People, Big World: Learn the Shocking Truth About the Roloff Family." article However, the Facebook ad and this article were both misleading. The story was nothing more than an extremely long history of the Roloff family. It mentioned several tragic developments. Matt had a brother named Josh who died at the age of 34 in 1999. He had experienced multiple medical problems since his birth, according to a report. Additionally, the story mentioned the August 2021 death of Felix, who was Amy's dog. She posted about his passing on Instagram. This news, which was reported by People.com and others, was around four months old by the time the misleading article was published and the Facebook ad went live. There's no evidence that the family asked "for privacy" about either of these two past deaths, as the Facebook ad claimed. report posted reported by People.com The lengthy article also documented two unrelated, sad developments about Dr. Jennifer Arnold, the star of the former TLC series, "The Little Couple." According to Chron.com, the show provided a "deeper look into the married life of Dr. Jen Arnold and Bill Klein, who happen to be dwarfs." According to Chron.com In 2013, Today.com reported that Dr. Arnold was "diagnosed with stage 3 choriocarcinoma, a rare cancer that began with a September pregnancy loss." reported In sum, an unknown person was paying Facebook to display an ad about "Little People, Big World" that seemed to indicate there were new and tragic developments. It said that the Roloff family asked "for privacy" and hinted with the words "so far" that more information was coming about a recent "loss" or death. However, this was misleading and appeared to be little more than an attempt to profit from past tragedies from two TLC TV shows. For these reasons, we have rated this claim as "Outdated." attempt to profit Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us As U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy suffered numerousvote losses before being elected House speaker by a deeply divided Republican party, many noticed a particular moment with Rep. GeorgeSantos, whowas already under fire for fabricating much of his life story while campaigning for office. On Jan. 5, 2023, on the third day of voting for House speaker, Santos was seen flashing a signal with his left hand that many interpreted as being the "white power" sign. numerous Santos under fire  A number of our readers sent us messages asking if Santos indeed flashed the "white power" signal, which looks like an "Okay" sign defined by the forefinger and thumb making a circle shape with the remaining three fingers splayed out. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the sign was adopted "first by white nationalists, and then by 4chan trolls intent on 'triggering the libs'." Numerous alt-right figures have adopted this symbol over the years, but there are also many instances where innocuous hand gestures were incorrectly interpreted in this way. We have debunked such instances, as well. Southern Poverty Law Center debunked So did Santos intend to use such a symbol? In the C-SPAN video below he is standing with his arms folded, and when it is his turn to vote, he raises his right hand to vote for McCarthy, his left still folded under his chest with the sign visible (watch the5:53:30 mark).It appeared on numerous re-watches that he could conceivably have just been holding his left hand that way, and ended up waving his right hand instead of the left. He walked away very quickly after voting, putting both his hands down to his sides.  Voting for House speaker took around four days and numerous attempts, during which time Santos signaled his support more than once. The photograph below shows Santos casting his vote on Jan. 4, 2023, where he is not using the symbol. Jan. 4, 2023 (Win McNamee/Getty Images) On Jan. 5, 2023, he was seen casting his vote again, this time with his left hand making an "Okay" sign. Jan. 5, 2023 (Win McNamee/Getty Images) In both instances, he is clearly intending to cast a vote. In the second instance, we do not know for certain if he is making a white power signal with his left hand. We have reached out to a member of his team, but so far Santos has madeno comment on this. made This did not stop Democrats from criticizing him for making the hand gesture. U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres, also from New York, said: Democrats said    MSNBC host Joy Reid addressed this with the right-leaning media outlet The Bulwark's Tim Miller, saying that Santos appeared to "throw the white-power sign." addressed Miller in turn responded "[...]he might have been holding his fingers together. There's plenty of bad things about George Santos without me reading into his body language." After McCarthy was finally elected as House speaker on Jan. 7, 2023, Santos was also sworn into office. In a statement, Santos said: "Now is the time to put political differences aside, stop the finger pointing, and start delivering results. The work of Congress is not about my personal life, this is about delivering results for my constituents, finding bipartisan solutions, and reversing abysmal policies that have caused some of the worst inflation and crime in our nation's history." said We cannot determine Santos' intentions without hearing from Santos directly, and even then he has shown in the past that his word cannot fully be trusted. As such we rate this claim as "Unproven." Evon, Dan. "Do Pics Show Blackburn Flashing 'White Power Sign' in US Senate?" Snopes, 11 Apr. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blackburn-white-power/.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "George Santos Sworn into Office after Selection of House Speaker." News 12 - The Bronx, 7 Jan. 2023. https://bronx.news12.com/george-santos-sworn-into-office-after-selection-of-house-speaker. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Ibrahim, Nur. "Did George Santos' Website Incorrectly Announce He Was Sworn in to US House?" Snopes, 4 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-santos-sworn-into-house-error/.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "Is That an OK Sign? A White Power Symbol? Or Just a Right-Wing Troll?" Southern Poverty Law Center, https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/18/ok-sign-white-power-symbol-or-just-right-wing-troll. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Shoaib, Alia. "George Santos Accused of Flashing White-Power Symbol during House Speaker Vote." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/george-santos-white-power-symbol-speaker-vote-2023-1. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Sprunt, Barbara, and Susan Davis. "Kevin McCarthy Is Elected House Speaker after 15 Votes and Days of Negotiations." NPR, 7 Jan. 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/01/06/1147470516/kevin-mccarthy-speaker-of-the-house-vote.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "U.S. Rep.- Elect George Santos Casts His Vote in the House Chamber..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-elect-george-santos-casts-his-vote-in-the-house-chamber-news-photo/1454230622. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "U.S. Rep.-Elect George Santos Cast His Vote in the House Chamber..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-elect-george-santos-cast-his-vote-in-the-house-chamber-news-photo/1454474088. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Claim:  You can recharge your cell phone using body electricity.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2015] Is there any truth to this video?  i.e. you can charge your phoneusing body electricity?  Seems just too simple:  Origins:  According to the video displayed above (titled "Charge Your Phone with Body Electricity!"), the perpetual modern dilemma of how to ensure your cell phone is always charged or charging can be solved with just two silver coins, a piece of paper, a paper clip, and your hot, sweaty body. In terms of appealing propositions, this one features the advantages of frugality,  ease of use, and the enticing tempt of never suffering a temporarily bricked device again. Mobile users can be spared the shame of ever having to ask  virtual strangers for loans of their charger cords, if they can put aside the notion that body-charging a cell phone phone is a fairly awkward public proposition. Whether the human body can charge electronic devices (such as phones, or pacemakers, or hearing aids) is not a subject that lies entirely within the realm of science fiction. A September 2014 Newsweek article tackled the potential offered by body-based device charging, but with the caveat that the technology was nowhere near accessible just yet: Newsweek Of course, with all due respect to Voix's cool invention, talk is cheap. Piezoelectrics energy harvesters haven't yet made a dent in the real world, for the most part. On the other hand, all of the researchers and industry reps interviewed for this story agree that piezoelectrics is very much poised to become a real commercial forceperhaps within the next three to five years. The gait-powered backpacks and knee braces look likely to break through even sooner. It is perhaps telling that these two last products don't use piezoelectrics and produce somewhere around 1,000 times more electricity. But as electronic devices continue to shrink and need less juice to work, and piezoelectronic ones are tweaked to produce more power, the technologies will likely meet in the middle. While you one day might be able to harness body-generated power to charge a phone, no useful manner of doing so existed when the video in question was posted online. Moreover, its extraordinary claims about harnessing body-generated power to recharge cell phones were not proved within the video; viewers were simply informed that the trick worked without being presented with any corroborating evidence that the phone shown in the video hadn't been charged in some other fashion. Some viewers attempted to replicate the feat shown in the impressive clip with multiple devices, only to come up short:    A Quora user also opined that the body electricity claim didn't wash in terms of the mechanical process of recharging cell phones: This particular video is pure rubbish.  There are 4 contacts in a USB connector, only one of them is power.  You do not make a capacitor with a piece of paper and two "silver" coins, and anyway a capacitor is not what you need.  And you can get a few tenths of a volt if your skin is damp and if you used two different metallic coins, but that is less than a tenth of the voltage you need and less than a thousandth of the current required.  So it's wrong on so many levels it's funny. Whether or not phones could eventually be charged using body electricity, there's no evidence the video shown here managed that feat. No corroborating videos of people charging phones in such a manner have turned up, and multiple viwers have reported that the steps outlined in the video did not work to successfully recharge any cell phone.  Last updated:  27 March 2015 In Gov. Andrew Cuomos 10th State of the State address last week, he claimed that under his administration, We have the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968. New Yorks business climate has for years been thesubject of criticismfrom business groups and conservative lawmakers, so we wondered about this claim. We approached Cuomos office, where spokesman Jason Conwall provided us with historical tax data. The Department of Taxation and Finance maintains this data, and atabletitled History of Corporate Tax Rates in New York State, 1917-2009, shows that between 1968 and 1970, the corporate tax rate, also known as the corporation franchise tax, was 7 percent. The rate did not fall below 7 percent in later years, and in the final year, 2009, the rate was 7.1 percent. Since 2009, the rate changed once, when it was lowered to 6.5 percent, Conwall said. The 6.5 percent ratetook effect on Jan. 1, 2016. Historically, New York has had separate rates for banks and insurance companies. The bank tax wasmergedinto the corporate tax system in 2015. We reached out to observers of the states tax policies for context and to check for any conflicting data. The Tax Foundation, a national organization, studies federal and state tax policy and advocated for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act supported by President Trump and congressional Republicans. The Tax Foundation confirmed Cuomos claim. New York saw remarkable improvement in both its corporate rate - bringing it down to 6.5 percent - and structure - cutting four corporate bases down to three - through tax reform in 2014, said policy analyst Janelle Cammenga. The Tax Foundation advocates for simpler tax codes, and Cammenga noted that New Yorks complex individual income tax code affects so-called pass-through businesses, such as partnerships, sole-proprietorships, and limited liability companies. E.J. McMahon, founder and research director at the conservative Empire Center, also confirmed Cuomos claim. McMahon added that in the 12-county region in downstate New York served by the Metropolitan Transit Authority, a surcharge brings the tax rate to 8.34 percent there. But even with the surcharge, its still the lowest rate since 1970, McMahon said. At the left-leaning Fiscal Policy Institute, executive director Ron Deutsch confirmed Cuomos claim. Dave Friedfel, director of state studies at the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonpartisan research and advocacy organization in Albany and New York City, said that readers should be aware that companies in New York pay more than just the corporate franchise tax. In addition to the MTA surcharge,set by the state, New York City imposes a 8.85 percent corporate franchise tax. Overall, its good that New York States corporate franchise tax rates are lower than they were and arecompetitive nationwide, but its just a small part of the taxes paid by businesses in New York, Friedfel said. Cuomo claims that under his administration, New York has the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968. Though there are other taxes levied on businesses in New York, experts from the left and the right agree with Cuomo's assertion. We rate Cuomos statement True. 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. In late June 2021, social media users shared a meme misinforming viewers that Walmart and other large businesses were taking customers' point-of-sale charitable donations and writing them off on their taxes. Readers have been asking Snopes about this meme since at least August 2020. The meme addresses a phenomenon called "checkout charity," in which many large businesses ask customers to donate a small amount to a charitable cause upon checkout:   according to What happens to the money you donate at the cash register? This is where you round up your bill to give to a charity designated by the retailer, and the donation amount appears on your receipt. The store serves only as a collection agent for your gift. Assuming the business is following the law, it will not include your donation as part of its business receipts, or income, nor will it claim the charitable gift as an expense. In other words, your gift has zero impact on the stores income taxes. Keep in mind that the store chooses the receiving charity, so make sure it is one you can support. As a customer, the donation will appear on your receipt and you can claim it as a charitable deduction when you file your income tax return. But you probably wont. A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations. according to The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it: reported "Checkout charity, as it's sometimes called, has become big business for nonprofits and retailers. Charities love it because it raises money from the masses at little cost. Companies love it because it makes them look caring and generous, even if it comes on the backs of customers." Claim:  Several million fewer dependents were claimed on federal income tax returns the year the IRS started requiring taxpayers to list the Social Security numbers of their children.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] I had read at some point that millions of dependents dropped off the 1040 forms the year that the IRS required social security numbers. This seems incredibly high, but I know that it was a fact that there had been a lot of divorced parents both claiming the same children as dependents and people claiming their pets.   Origins:  The U.S. federal income tax code requires residents to be responsible for their own taxes  that is, it's up to each taxpayer to reckon his income, determine his allowable deductions, and file a tax return with the Internal Revenue Service (or to hire someone to do it for  him).  Such a system allows (some say it even encourages) taxpayers to cheat, engaging in everything from fudging the line between business and personal expenses to hiding large amounts of unreported income.  Although tax fraud may never be completely eliminated, the increasing use of automated record-keeping and tracking technology has made many of the more common cheating schemes quite difficult, if not impossible, to pull off successfully these days. Given how often we're asked to provide our Social Security numbers  (they seem to used for just about everything these days), those of us who began paying federal income tax only in the last twenty years might be surprised to discover that not until 1987 did the IRS begin requiring taxpayers to include the Social Security numbers of all dependent children claimed on their returns.  After all, listing phony dependents in order to claim illegitimate extra deductions has historically been one of the more common forms of tax fraud, so it makes sense the IRS would always have wanted to track such information as closely as possible. This is the notion behind the legend  made familiar to many readers by the 2005 best-seller Freakonomics  that the  year the IRS did begin asking taxpayers to provide Social Security numbers for all dependent children, the number of claimed dependents suddenly dropped significantly: Some cheating leaves barely a shadow of evidence. In other cases, the evidence is massive. Consider what happened one spring evening at midnight in 1987: seven million American children suddenly disappeared. The worst kidnapping wave in history? Hardly. It was the night of April 15, and the Internal Revenue Service had just changed a rule. Instead of merely listing each dependent child, tax filers were now required to provide a Social Security number for each child. Suddenly, seven million children  children who had existed only as phantom exemptions on the previous year's 1040 forms  vanished, representing about one in ten of all dependent children in the United States. The "seven million" figure appears to be accurate, as noted in a December 2000 National Tax Journal article by Jeffrey B. Liebman that drew its data from a 1990 Internal Revenue Service conference report: article Another way in which taxpayers without children might claim a dependent child is to invent a fictional one. The strongest evidence for this possibility is that in 1987, the first year in which taxpayers were required to list social security numbers of dependents on their tax returns, 7 million fewer dependent children were claimed than in the previous year. The suggestion by the Freakonomics authors that most or all of that drop in the number of dependents claimed in 1987 was directly attributable to fraud was an obvious one but not necessarily the only one, as alternative explanations could have accounted for a substantial portion of the reduction in number of claimed dependents.  For example, it was not until 1987 that the IRS first demonstrated a program to allow parents to automatically obtain Social Security numbers for their newborn children when those births were registered, and the program did not become nationwide until 1989.  Since the average citizen doesn't generally keep abreast of all the changes made to the tax code from year to year until they directly affect him, perhaps many taxpayers sat down to fill out their returns in 1987 and didn't realize until it was too late that they had never applied for Social Security numbers for their children. 1987 However, the assumption that many taxpayers had previously claimed non-existent children until the newly-implemented Social Security number requirement made it much more difficult for them to safely do so is certainly an obvious one, and seems to be supported by additional information provided by Liebman: Further evidence that nonexistent children may have been claimed comes from the 1988 TCMP [Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program]. In 1988, taxpayers were required to list on their tax returns the social security numbers of all dependents who were at least five years old. On tax returns where the TCMP auditor disallowed an EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] claim, 39 percent of the disallowed dependent child claims were dependents for whom the taxpayer checked the box stating the child was under five and did not provide a social security number  possibly because the children did not exist. Likewise, although followup reports in subsequent years noted that some portion of the previously claimed dependents who went "missing" in the 1987 tax year were indeed real people who were not claimed as dependents in 1987 for reasons other than their being fictitious (e.g., they were children who had in earlier years been unlawfully claimed as dependents by each of two divorced parents), the pattern of disappearing dependents in 1987 was indicative of widespread fraud: Starting in 1987, the I.R.S. required that taxpayers report the Social Security number of all dependents over the age of 5. That year 7 million American children disappeared from the nation's tax returns, representing a 9 percent drop in the 77 million dependents claimed the previous year and $2.9 billion more in yearly tax revenue. The tax agency said about 20 percent of the vanished dependents were children who had been claimed as dependents by both parents after a divorce. Under the law, only one parent may claim the child as a deduction. Most of the others probably never existed, John Szilagyi, an I.R.S. researcher, said. And some families apparently became quite greedy in creating dependents, each worth a $1,080 deduction in 1986, and $1,900 in 1987. About 66,000 taxpayers who claimed four or more dependents in 1986 claimed none in 1987, after the Social Security identification rule went into effect. And more than 11,000 families claimed seven or more dependents in 1986, but none in 1987. Those returns are now under investigation, with more than 1,000 audits in which the 1986 dependents were disallowed, and back taxes and fines collected. Mr. Szilagyi said some cases of apparent fraud have also been referred to the authorities for criminal investigation.  "In any individual family, you can imagine that one or two children might legitimately have stopped being dependents in 1987, but it's hard to imagine a legitimate situation in which a taxpayer had seven dependents one year and none the next," said Mr. Szilagyi, who drafted the proposal to require Social Security numbers from dependents and baby sitters. Mr. Szilagyi said his research indicates that there are probably four million to five million more dependents being claimed illegally, either because they are fictitious or do not legally qualify as dependents. Last updated:  15 April 2014 Freakonomics    Lewin, Tamar.  "I.R.S. Sees Evidence of Wide Tax Cheating on Child Care"   The New York Times.  6 January 1991.    Liebman, Jeffrey B.  "Who Are the Ineligible EITC Recipients?"   National Tax Journal.  December 2000  (pp. 1165-1186).