Says middle-class New York State residents will have the lowest tax rate in 70 years.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo thinks you can win money by making a bet with someone on New York States tax rates. Ask people about what the state has done with the rates, and everybodys going to say, raise taxes, because it is inconceivable that a government actually lowers taxes, Cuomo said. At public appearances recently, Cuomotoutedwhat he called the lowest tax rate for the middle class in 70 years. Wager anyone you know and say, Did New York State raise taxes or lower taxes? Cuomo said. New York State haslowered taxesfor everyone in the state and every income level in the state. Taxes are always a top issue for voters. So does the governors claim check out? Are middle-class state residents taxed at the lowest rate in seven decades? Whos in the middle? No official state definition exists for the middle class. But in the scope of todays tax brackets, themiddle class arethose making between about $40,000 to $300,000 a year. Whos included in the middle class has changed over time with the rate of inflation. A salary today of $80,000 is equivalent to a $9,000 salary in 1953. The tax brackets used today are not the same as those used in past decades. In 1946, anyone making more than $9,000 was taxed at a 3.5 percent rate. The next year the rate increased to 4.2 percent. In 1948, the rate jumped to 6.3 percent, and thats the year the Cuomo administration bases its claim. The Department of Tax and Financesays most- if not all - earners in the middle class in 1948 would have paid the top rate. That year the top rate applied to people making about $9,000. That fits what the state has defined as middle class in todays dollars, and the Department of Tax and Finance says thats how the middle class would have been defined in that year. How low? Since 1948, the lowest top tax rate fell to between 6.45 and 6.65 percent for people in the same comparable income bracket. That was in 2014, and remains at that level. Thats higher than the now-scheduled rate for 2025 as part ofthis years resolution. Anyone making between $40,000 and $150,000 will see their income tax rate drop to 5.5 percent by that year. The tax rate will drop to 6 percent for those making between $150,000 and $300,000. But there are caveats. The rates do not factor in tax exemptions or deductions, as pointed out by E.J. McMahon from the Empire Center for Public Policy. The center researches and analyzes the states economy, including the tax law. To some extent, the tax rates for 2025 and 1948 are like apples to oranges, McMahon said. Its much like saying the 2016 Ford Focus has the best headroom since the 1946 Ford Tudor  the two tax codes and the household situations to which they apply are that different, McMahon said. Hewrote recentlythe new rates will be the largest tax cut since the mid-1990s, when lawmakers passed the Taxpayer Relief Act. At the time, the legislation dropped taxes to the lowest rates since 1954. The new tax rates, once fully phased in, will be even lower, according to the Department of Taxation and Finance data. An analysis from the Fiscal Policy Institute confirms Cuomos claim holds true - but like McMahon, the institute points out the income range that defines the middle class looks different today than it did 70 years ago. The 1958 exception The Department of Taxation and Finance, in adifferent report, reveals another interesting historical nugget. Employers were not required by law to withhold tax until 1959. According to the document, because this would have required two years of taxes to be paid in just one year, taxes were canceled for 1958 - meaning the tax rate for that year was zero. Our ruling Governor Andrew M. Cuomo claimed new tax rates passed by lawmakers during this yearsstate budget processare the lowest in the state in 70 years. Data from the Department of Taxation and Finance backs up his claim. Because of an unusual set of circumstances, there was no income tax rate in 1958 as the state implemented a new system. The first year rates will appear lower than the 1948 rates will be in 2019. We rate this claim as Mostly True.
Claim:  On-line bookseller Amazon.com is partnered with the web site Intifada.com.   Not any more. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] A good friend of mine, while searching the Internet, ran across Intifada.com. OK. Then he sees a promotion right on their web page by Amazon.Com advising the readers that: "You can buy books about the Intifada and Palestine from Amazon.Com. All profits from the referral will go to developing Intifada.com." How great! I would assume that this pretty well eliminates Amazon.Com as a book seller, for those of us that understand that the Intifada is about killing Israeli civilians and driving Israel out of the land of their forefathers. And obviously Amazon.Com is not planning on receiving any more of our business! It would also be nice for us to notify Amazon.Com of our decision and how shocked we were at their evident lack of knowledge of the conflict and the terrorist activities and suicide bombings of civilians that have been the paramount focus of this Intifada. Origins:  Like many other web retailers, Amazon.com operates an associates program under which operators of qualifying web sites can earn commissions by directing visitors to purchase books and other products through Amazon.com's own site.  (We here at snopes.com participate in this program, offering links on our site  to various urban legend-related books which can be purchased through Amazon.com.) associates books An inquiry to Amazon.com about this issue drew the following terse response: Greetings from the Amazon.com Associates Program. Thank you for taking the time to write to us regarding the Web site www.intifada.com. Please note, this account has been suspended pending further investigation, and we have requested they remove all links to Amazon.com immediately. Thanks again for contacting us regarding this matter.  posted policy states that sites which may be found unsuitable for acceptance into their associates program include those that promote sexually explicit materials; promote violence; promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, or age; promote illegal activities; include "amazon" or variations or misspellings thereof in their domain names; or otherwise violate intellectual property rights.  Intifada.com did have Amazon.com associate links on their site at one time (as confirmed by Amazon.com's statement that their account has been "suspended"), but we have no way of knowing whether Amazon.com took them on as an associate site because they didn't feel the site unsuitable under their guidelines, or because they simply didn't screen the site's application as thoroughly as they ordinarily do.  Either way, Intifada.com no longer has any links to Amazon.com that we can find. Last updated:  7 March 2008 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 May 2019, Delta Air Lines came under scrutiny after a photograph emerged on social media that appeared to show a poster encouraging Delta employees to spend their money on video game consoles rather than union dues. Eoin Higgins, an editor and writer at the left-leaning web site Common Dreams, tweeted the photograph on 9 May. The poster contained the following text: "Union dues cost around $700 a year. A new video game system with the latest hits sounds like fun. Put your money towards that instead of paying dues to the union." The poster featured the Delta logo and the URL of the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com: lol fuck off @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG  Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 9, 2019 May 9, 2019   The union in question, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), posted photographs of similar fliers encouraging Delta employees to spend their money on watching baseball and football instead of becoming union members: Oh wow. Theres another one. And its just as bad. Really, @Delta? #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/JsSMg1aBRb @Delta #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/JsSMg1aBRb  Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 9, 2019 May 9, 2019  Safe to say @Delta didnt hit a home run with this one either. Three strikes and youre out. Let em have it, Twitter. #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/veEk8rvtXY @Delta #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/veEk8rvtXY  Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 10, 2019 May 10, 2019  These photographs prompted multiple inquiries from Snopes readers about whether the fliers were authentic and whether Delta was itself responsible for producing them. A spokesperson for Delta confirmed to Snopes that the airline had indeed created all of the flyers mentioned above, including the "video game" one, and that Delta was also behind the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com, which discourages employees  at times in provocative terms  from becoming IAM members: Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com   In a statement, the Delta spokesperson wrote: "The direct relationship we have with our employees is at the very core of our strong culture and it has enabled continuous investments in Delta people. Our employees have the best total compensation in the industry, including the most lucrative profit sharing program in the world. They want and deserve the facts and we respect our employees right to decide if a union is right for them. Delta has shared many communications, which on the whole make clear that deciding whether or not to unionize should not be taken lightly." In a press release on 9 May, the IAM criticized what it called Delta's "union-busting propaganda," writing: press release "Delta Air Lines all-out assault on their employees legally-protected right to unionize with the Machinists Union is confirmation that our campaign to bring the benefits of IAM-representation to more than 40,000 Delta ground workers and flight attendants is succeeding ... Delta has resorted to defaming and spewing lies and misrepresentations about the IAM. They also continually display anti-IAM propaganda in the workplace. These are all hallmark signs of how well the IAM campaigns are doing and how scared Delta is of their employees having a voice in their careers." International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.  "Press Release -- IAM Campaigns Strike a Nerve With Delta Bosses."
  9 May 2019. On 21 August 2017, the conservative non-profit organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) posted a meme juxtaposing a 42-year-old quote by then-former California Governor Ronald Reagan with a 2016 photograph of anti-fascist protesters in Dover, England, intended to create the impression that "antifa" demonstrators represented fascism coming to the the United States in just the way that Reagan had predicted decades earlier:   That quote was taken from a December 1975 interview of Reagan conducted by Mike Wallace for the 60 Minutes news magazine television program:  We've found no record of anyone, other than Reagan himself, having made the "profound" statement that "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism." Most likely the future President was recalling a variant of a maxim (commonly misattributed to author Sinclair Lewis) holding that "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis TPUSA shared the Reagan meme on their official Facebook feed at a time when anti-fascist activists, or "antifa," had garnered both notoriety and heightened media scrutiny following violent incidents at white supremacist rallies in Berkeley, California, and Charlottesvile, Virginia (in April and August 2017, respectively). After white supremacists (who have adopted the moniker "alt-right") were widely condemned for an outbreak of deadly violence at a protest in Charlottesville, some conservatives responded by claiming "antifa" protesters deserved equal condemnation. antifa The bottom image in the TPUSA meme (which has been shared thousands of times) wasn't taken in the United States, despite the implication created by its inclusion here. The photograph was taken in Dover, England, on 30 January 2016 by Press Association photographer Gareth Fuller and depicts anti-fascists who clashed with nationalists during an anti-immigration rally in the Kent County town. rally The connection between "liberals" and the "antifas" suggested by this meme isn't quite so apt, as most "antifa" activists are anarchists and/or subscribe to political philosophies that are much further left on the political spectrum than those of mainstream "liberals." Likewise, although the Reagan quote sought to draw a connection between liberalism and fascism, the latter is generally considered to be a form of extreme right-wing ideology. anarchists extreme !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/ucxbq"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video": "v3t27p","div": "rumble_v3t27p","autoplay":2}); ITV.  "Far-Right and Anti-Fascist Groups Clash at Protests in Dover."
  30 January 2016. Penny, Daniel.  "An Intimate History of Antifa."
  The New Yorker.  22 August 2017. Beinart, Peter.  "The Rise of the Violent Left."
  The Atlantic.  September 2017 issue. KentOnline.com.  "Dover Riots of January 30, 2016  Police Hunt for Far Right and Anti-Fascist Thugs Goes On."
  30 January 2017. Sepulvado, John, and Bert Johnson.  "Californian Who Helped Lead Charlottesville Protests Used Berkeley as a Test Run."
  KQED-TV.  14 August 2017. McCreesh, Shawn.  "Antifa and the 'Alt-Left': Everything You Need to Know."
  Rolling Stone.  18 August 2017. In March 2017, an assortment of dubious online advertisements masquerading as People articles declared that Joanna Gaines, costar of the HGTV home improvement series "Fixer Upper," is suing to break her contract. The ads claimed that Gaines, who hosts the show with her husband, wanted to leave "Fixer Upper" to start her own cosmetics line: declared Joanna Gaines Fixer Upper   HGTV has had enough. Joanna has been showing up late to the construction sites as well as the filmings and now have found out Joanna has been leading a double life. Her disinterest in the show "Fixer Upper" with her hilarious husband Chip Gaines has fallen to the wayside due to her side business. Here we reveal the truth behind what this side business is really all about... The star of HGTVs hit TV show, Joanna Gaines, has shocked us all and 2017 has only just started. In recent developments, the reality star revealed that she just started a side beauty business because she is a serial entrepreneur and it's just in her nature. She never expected it to grow as fast as it did. HGTV and the network as a whole was not happy when they found out about this (to say the least) and they made Joanna decide on which direction she was going to go. Being so turned off by the reaction of HGTV and their "power move" she decided to pursue her new skin care line.   The article went on to promote VLamorous, a purported "anti-aging serum."  Another version of the scam hawks a product allegedly created by Gaines called Bella Serata Anti-Aging Serum (the text is otherwise identical). version The ads prompted a spate of rumors that Gaines is abandoning the popular TV show and questions from concerned viewers. Gaines responded to these in a 21 April 2017 blog post entitled "Don't Believe Everything You Read": post At the end of the day, weve learned its impossible to control all the information thats out there. We care about you guys, and the best way we can protect you from false information is to direct you to our official channels. Follow our social media accounts, ... sign up for our newsletter, and keep up with our blog. These are the spots where well tell you about our new partnerships, projects, and even personal news. Always remember: if youre reading big, exciting news about us, and we did not confirm it on our official sites, then proceed with caution. We are so thankful for your supportwe wouldnt be here without you! And just in case you were wondering, YES! We are currently filming season 5 of the show. No! I am not getting into the business of facial creams. And No! We are not expecting baby #5. And no worries, believing some of these stories happens to the best of us. In summary, dont buy the facial cream, friends. As often happens, however, the false reports continued to propagate via social media, eliciting this taciturn tweet from Chip Gaines a few weeks later:  tweet No https://t.co/mWxcQAzDud https://t.co/mWxcQAzDud  Chip Gaines (@chippergaines) May 8, 2017 May 8, 2017 However, just shy of five months later, the Gaineses announced on their blog that they would be quitting Fixer Upper at the end of season five, which is scheduled to begin airing on the HGTV network in November 2017: announced It is with both sadness and expectation that we share the news that season 5 of Fixer Upper will be our last. While we are confident that this is the right choice for us, it has for sure not been an easy one to come to terms with. Our family has grown up alongside yours, and we have felt you rooting us on from the other side of the screen. How bittersweet to say goodbye to the very thing that introduced us all in the first place. They did not specify their reasons for leaving the show. Gaines, Chip and Joanna."Our Last Season."
MagnoliaMarket.com.26 September 2017. Gaines, Joanna. "Don't Believe Everything You Read."
 MagnoliaMarket.com. 21 April 2017. IMDb.com. "Fixer Upper."
 Visited 9 May 2017. Update [26 November 2017]: Added information about Chip and Joanna Gaines's announcement that they will be leaving "Fixer Upper" at the end of its fifth season. In April 2007, a dark brown leather sofa set (couch, loveseat, and chair) obtained from Vanaik Furniture and Mattress store in Toronto was discovered by the Brampton family that purchased it to bear a startlingly racist descriptor, tags pronouncing the items' chocolate shade to be "Nigger-brown":  The set had been manufactured by a furniture maker operating in Guangzhou, China. The offensive labels escaped notice both at the Toronto furniture store and at its supplier, Cosmos Furniture in Scarborough. Each of the three pieces had a similar label affixed to the woven protective covering wrapped around them.  A Chinese software company, Kingsoft Corp., acknowledged their translation program was at fault. When the Chinese characters for "dark brown" were typed into an older version of their Chinese-English translation software, the offensive description came up. (The program's 2007 version no longer produce that result.) The software had been programmed with terms garnered from a Chinese-English dictionary.  A similar controversy erupted in 2017 when consumers reported seeing a wig base cap offered for sale on web sites such as Amazon.com and Walmart.com whose description identified it as being "nigger brown" in color:  Words aren't dropped from a language in the blink of an eye: While new terms can swiftly become part of the common lexicon, that which has fallen from linguistic favor departs far more slowly. Though now widely regarded as one of the words one must not say, it wasn't that long ago that Western society routinely used "nigger" as a color descriptor of various goods, even well after it was no longer used as a descriptor of people. Around 1914, Lady's Pictorial a London magazine, routinely presented ads for soft taffeta hats in "nigger-black." A 1915 edition of the British Home Chat magazine described cloth as "nigger-brown." Writers D.H. Lawrence and John Dos Passos wrote about "nigger-grey" and "nigger-pink." And, as late as 1973, The Times of London wrote of autumnal colours in a shade that "used to be nigger brown." While Western society has now eschewed the word, in some parts of the world it continues to be used as a descriptor of an item's color. In China, "nigger-brown" pigment was available for purchase in 2007 from the Wenzhou Kunwei Pearly-Lustre Pigment Co., Ltd., and men's shoes from the Nanhai De Xing Leather Shoes Habiliment Co., Ltd., were described on its web site as: "This product is comfortable for wearing, it looks very simple and artistic. Size: 39#-46# Color: nigger-brown." described Such are the pitfalls of dealing with a global economy: goods produced and labeled in one part of the world are sold internationally, and terms that are irredeemably offensive in some places barely give anyone pause in others. Until the epithet falls out of use everywhere, look for more gobsmacked Western consumers ending up with "nigger brown" couches and shoes. Other descriptive labels commonly used in times past have since been dropped by the wayside as awareness of their potential to offend grew. In 1962, Crayola renamed as "peach" the crayon it had until then vended as "flesh," and in 1999 it changed to "chestnut" what had previously been labeled "Indian Red." (The company asserted Indian red was not meant to represent the skin color of Native Americans, but rather referred to a reddish-brown pigment found near India.) Kopun, Francine.  "Seeing Red Over Brown."
  The Toronto Star.  14 April 2007  (p. A1).
 Noronha, Charmaine.  "Racial Slur on Couch Label Blamed on Chinese Company's Faulty Software Program."
  Associated Press.  19 April 2007. Wilkes, Jim.  "Racial Slur on Sofa Label Stuns Family."
  The Toronto Star.  6 April 2007  (p. B1). Willis, Kiersten.  "Amazon and Walmart Investigating After N Brown Hair Cap Sparks Backlash."
  Atlanta Black Star.  17 July 2017. Commercial:  Viral ad featuring the Volkswagen Polo employs suicide bomber imagery. Example:    [Collected on the Internet, 2005] [Note: This video clip is a 2.6 MB file  please be patient while it downloads.]  Origins:  The availability of the Internet as a tool to spread information quickly, cheaply, and (mostly) anonymously has enabled the advent of "viral marketing": buzz-generating  advertisements whose content is unsuitable for traditional media (such as television), distributed through "unofficial" channels such as web sites   and e-mail forwards.  Viral ads may not be obvious about what product they're promoting, or even obvious as advertisements at all.  (BurgerKing's "subservient chicken" promotion is a good example of the latter category.)  subservient chicken  Companies often try to obscure the connections between themselves and their viral ads, sometimes claiming that promotions were "unauthorized" or "accidentally released."  Though this technique may be effective in generating publicity, it can also backfire: If someone does indeed produce an unauthorized viral ad that creates negative publicity for the business it supposedly promotes, how can a company prove they weren't behind it?  This is the dilemma currently faced by Volkswagen regarding a viral ad seemingly calculated to offend as many human beings as possible. The spot begins with a motorist leaving his house and hopping into his Volkswagen Polo  a motorist with a distinctly Middle Eastern appearance who sports a black-and-white checkered kaffiyeh like the one commonly associated in the public mind with the   late Palestinian chairman Yasser Arafat (and thus, by extension, with terrorists and suicide bombers).  After a short jaunt, the driver pulls up in front of a busy restaurant with curbside seating (as women holding babies, talking on cellphones, and just strolling down the street flash by in the background), pulls out a detonator, and depresses the button.   Rather than causing widespread death and destruction, however, the muffled blast is completely contained by the car, leading to the end slogan: 'Polo. Small but tough.' So just who produced this offensive spot?  The ad doesn't appear to be a spoof put together by some rogue amateur filmmakers, as its production values (e.g., shot on 35mm film, probably at a cost in the tens of thousands of dollars) would indicate.  Paul Buckett, a Volkswagen spokesman, has denied that the automobile manufacturer had anything to do with it: Two creatives known to our advertising agency, DDB (Doyle Dane Bernbach) London, sent in this work on spec. The agency wouldn't have anything to do it. I can only assume the people who made it put it on the web.  We were horrified. This is not something we would consider using: it is in incredibly bad taste to depict suicide bombers.  It gives the impression we've condoned or supported it, and is potentially very damaging to Volkswagen. Our legal department is planning an action . . .' According to the UK newspaper The Guardian, the "suicide bomber" spot was created by the Lee and Dan team, a British pair who have produced a number of other advertisements (including virals) known for their quirkiness.  The duo maintained that the clip was a self-promotional work not intended for public viewing: Lee and Dan We made the advert for Volkswagen. We never really intended it for public consumption. It was principally something we made to show people in the industry but it got out somehow. About half the work we do is for our own purpose, it is self-promotional. The ad's a comment on what's happening at the moment. People see this on the news every day. The car is the hero that protects innocent people from someone with very bad intentions. The ad got out accidentally and spread like wildfire. We're sorry if it has caused any offence. Others quoted by the Guardian concurred with the self-promotional nature of the spot, if not necessarily about its release being an "accident": Matt Smith, of the ad agency Viral Factory, said he thought the advert had been made as a "test" in order to get work. "My suspicion is that it was made for a very small audience in order to get work. It's such a risky piece  it wasn't meant to be seen by a mass audience."  A spokesman for Volkswagen said the company was considering legal action and blamed the advert on "two young creatives who are trying to make a name for themselves". "We don't take these sorts of risks with our advertisements. We regard ourselves as honest and respectable." On 26 January 2004, the Guardian reported they had located the director of the clip, Stuart Fryer, who disputed Lee and Dan's claim its production had cost 40,000 and affirmed that the spot was not meant for public viewing: Both Lee and Dan have apologised for the film, which they said had a 40,000 budget, but have refused to identify themselves or explain how it was funded. But in a new development, MediaGuardian.co.uk has tracked down the director of the spoof advert, Stuart Fryer, 35. Breaking his silence for the first time, he said he was horrified by the reaction to the ad and had only ever meant it to be used on a showreel and never seen by the public. He disputed Lee and Dan's estimate of its 40,000 cost, saying the cost had been "more like 400". "If it cost that much I would like to know where the money went," Mr Fryer said. "It was made in my spare time. It's remarkable what you can do for such a low budget. "I just wanted it for show reel purposes, not seen by millions of people around the world. "I don't want to offend people, I just want to make advertisements.I wanted to show it to the Saatchis and BBHs of this world. "Little did I know that the advert that I made would be sent out on the internet and create such a fuss - it's shocked me." Volkswagen also announced that they would be going ahead and pursuing legal action against the video's creators: After a week of prevarication, the car giant has decided to go ahead and sue the people behind the advert on the grounds that it was damaging its reputation around the world and falsely linked the VW with terrorism. "We are taking legal action but because it's early stages we cannot comment further," a Volkswagen spokesman said. But the company privately admitted that it cannot locate Lee and Dan, the London based advertising creative partnership who dreamed up the film, which has been seen around the world via the internet.  "We are prepared to pursue the two individuals but need to locate them to ensure the success of our legal claim," the company said in a private memo, details of which have been obtained by MediaGuardian.co.uk. Last updated:  26 January 2005    Sources:   Brook, Stephen.  "Spoof Suicide Bomber Ad Sparks Global Row."   The Guardian.  20 January 2005.    Brook, Stephen.  "VW to Sue Polo Bomb Ad Duo."   The Guardian.  26 January 2005.    Sanders, Holly M.  "VW's Ad Is Spoof on Terror."   New York Post.  19 January 2005.    Sanders, Holly M.  "Riding the Auto-Bomb."   New York Post.  20 January 2005.    Smith, David.  "Suicide Bomber Sells VW Polo."   The Guardian.  23 January 2005. Ever since Melania Trump delivered an oddly familiar speech at the Republican National Convention in 2016, the First Lady has been dogged by accusations of plagiarism (many of which were nothing more than fake news). A new batch of allegations surfaced in May 2018, as keen-eyed readers noticed that a pamphlet linked to Trump's new "Be Best" campaign was nearly identical to a document released by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2014: familiar speech nothing more fake news   It is true that the "Be Best" campaign linked to a pamphlet that was nearly identical to material published by the FTC in 2014. You can see the FTC's pamphlet, "Net Cetera. Chatting with Kids About Being Online," here, and the "Talking with Kids About Being Online" from the White House here. These two documents are nearly identical (with the exception of an introduction from the First Lady), but it's disingenuous to say that Melania Trump "plagiarized" this material.  here here The main piece of evidence supporting the "plagiarism" charge is that the pamphlet was originally presented on the White House web site as a booklet "by First Lady Melania Trump and the Federal Trade Commission," in reference to the First Lady's having contributed an introduction to the "Talking with Kids About Being Online" pamphlet.  That wording was soon updated to describe Talking with Kids about Being Online" as "a Federal Trade Commission booklet, promoted by First Lady Melania Trump."  At no point did Melania Trump take credit for (or claim she had written) the entire pamphlet. presented Nearly every page of the "Talking with Kids About Being Online" pamphlet contains a link to the FTC's web site about Internet safety, and the final page lists web sites for both the Be Best campaign and the FTC's internet safety page: safety   The White House released a contentious statement on 8 May 2018 about the plagiarism accusations: statement Mrs. Trump agreed to add Be Best branding and distribute the booklet in an effort to use her platform to amplify the positive message within. As she said in yesterdays speech, she is going to use Be Best to promote people and organizations to encourage conversation and replication, and helping the FTC distribute this booklet is just one small example. Despite providing countless outlets with ample background, information, and on-the-record comments from the FTC, some media have chosen to take a day meant to promote kindness and positive efforts on behalf of children, to instead lob baseless accusations towards the First Lady and her new initiatives. As stated by Nathaniel Wood, Consumer and Business Education Division Associate Director, FTC, We frequently work with members of Congress, the White House, other government agencies, and the private sector. As a small and independent civil law enforcement agency, the FTC encourages our partners to help spread our message to consumers. We were excited that Mrs. Trump distributed this important information about staying safe online. We look forward to continuing to work with her and others to help parents and children use the Internet safely and responsibly. Our office will continue to focus on helping children and I encourage members of the media to attempt to Be Best in their own professions, and focus on some of the children and programs Mrs. Trump highlighted in her remarks yesterday. Economic stagnation is an issue that has become a major talking point for both parties. Take President Barack Obamas most recent State of the Union address, in which he said that during the past four years, average wages have barely budged. We rated that claimTrue. Now, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, has offered an even more ominous statistic for working Americans. The average family, he said in the March 8, 2014, weekly Republican address, is now bringing home $4,000 less than they did just five years ago. We wondered whether Portmans claim was correct, so we turned todata from the U.S. Census Bureau. The bureau collects data on family income and found that Portman is correct as long as the dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation. We looked at both the mean family income (that is, total family income divided by the number of families) and the median family income (the middle value when all family incomes are lined up from biggest to smallest). For the inflation-adjusted mean, family income fell from $87,312 in 2007 to $82,843 in 2012, the most recent year available. Thats a drop of $4,469, making Portman correct. In fact, he underestimated a bit. The difference is even more stark if you use the inflation-adjusted median. By that measure, family income dropped from $67,943 to $62,241 over the same period. Thats a drop of $5,702 -- an 8.3 percent decline over five years. So Portmans only shortcoming is to lowball the size of the family-income decline. We should note that choosing 2007 as the starting year maximizes the decline, since the last recession began in December 2007. But we have no quarrel with the use of this period, because when looking at income trends, it seems reasonable to look at how big an impact the recession has had. Well also note that Portman wouldnt be correct if non-inflation-adjusted figures are used. Without an inflation adjustment, both mean and median family incomes went up from 2007 to 2012 -- about 5 percent for mean family income, and 1.4 percent for median family income. But economists generally prefer inflation-adjusted data for situations like this, since the adjusted data takes into account the most important aspect of income -- what it can actually purchase. Our ruling Portman said the average family (is) now bringing home $4,000 less than they did just five years ago. According to Census Bureau data, the decline is even greater, making Portmans overall point even stronger than the data he offered. We rate his claim True. The Social Security "middle digit" rumor is yet another Big Brother conspiracy theory, this one purporting that the federal government and its policies help promote racism. We're told the fifth digit of Social Security numbers denotes race, thus identifying blacks and minorities to mortgage lenders, university admissions officers, employers, and others in application processes that should be color blind. Armed with the foreknowledge of who is black and who is white, perhaps the resumes and applications of African Americans are being shuffled to the bottom of the pile. It's a chilling thought because we know in our heart of hearts if an exploitable resource did exist for pegging sight unseen what color any of us was, there are bigots out there who would not hesitate to use it. Thankfully, it doesn't.   The e-mailed warnings quoted above are bunk; none of the digits in a Social Security number has anything to do with race. The only information 'hidden' in an SSN is where and when it was issued.  Each SSN is composed of nine digits, commonly written as three fields separated by hyphens: AAA-GG-SSSS. The first three-digit field is the area number and indicates what state was listed in the applicant's mailing address when the number was issued. Someone with a mailing address in Oregon, for instance, would have a SSN beginning with 540 to 544, while the SSN of someone with a mailing address in Alabama would begin with 416 to 424. The second set of numbers (a grouping of two, which includes the supposed infamous 'race' digit) shows when the SSN was issued, not to whom. Note that it does not directly correspond to the year of issue: a 42 in this field does not indicate this particular SSN was handed out in 1942. Different states go through this two-digit code at different rates.  Moreover, when a state is done with a particular group number, the next one it begins using comes off the line according to a numbering system which makes perfect sense to the government, but to no one else. (Even so, we're going to attempt to explain it here.) Before 1965, only half of the potential group numbers were used: odd numbers below ten and even numbers above nine. In 1965, the system was changed so that assignments continued with the low even numbers and the high odd numbers. Therefore, group numbers for each area number are exhausted in the following order:   Odd numbers, 01 to 09 Even numbers, 10 to 98 Even numbers, 02 to 08 Odd numbers, 11 to 99 The last four digits on an SSN are unique to the individual and are known as the series numbers. They are handed out in chronological order within each area and group number. Simply put, if two people living in the same area apply for a SSN during the same year, the first five digits of both numbers will be identical. If their applications hit the desk at the SSA at the same time, there will be a one-number difference, say, 3456 vs. 3457. Getting back to the 'race' digit  possessed of a better understanding of how the SSA assigns that number, we find that prior to 1965, a bushelful of SSNs with even numbers in this position were  generated (45) as compared to a mere handful of odd (5). The more densely populated the area, the greater the amount of group numbers exhausted, resulting in SSNs in highly-populated areas more closely patterning themselves to the pre-1965 nine-to-one optimal result for this field. In less populated areas, however, the discrepancy between odd and even is less noticeable, because the five odd numbers are used up first (e.g., if in Alaska only twenty group numbers have been used up, then five are odd and fifteen even, resulting in a three-to-1 ratio.) From 1965 on, group numbers continue to be assigned on the above basis, but now with the second set of potential codes (49 only this time; there is no 00) being called into service when the first fifty are used up. Consequently, group codes have to achieve a ten-to-one even-to-odd imbalance before the numbers begin resetting themselves towards parity. So how does this impact the rumor? At the wildest point of the numbering swing, the odds are 10-to-1 any given person's SSN group code is an even number. Therefore, the claim that "I polled 35 African-Americans, 34 had an EVEN fifth digit in their SS#, the 35th person was White/Puerto Rican," isn't all that surprising. Especially when you consider that the five odd group numbers were handed out first, it's almost a leadpipe cinch that the SSNs of most of the people you meet will contain an even group code. All of the foregoing can be summed up thusly: The first five digits of an SSN say nothing about who the number is assigned to  they merely reflect the state and year of issue. The last four digits are particular to the individual subscriber, but they're handed out randomly, with the sole determining factor being when the paperwork is processed. Other than his state of residence at the time of application, nothing about the SSN-holder's identity is coded into the number assigned to him. Let's face it, many of us don't trust the government. Any random tidbit that seems to confirm the rightness of that stance will be seized upon by those who already believe the worst of Uncle Sam. In this case, because Social Security numbers are constructed to conform with certain arcane and almost incomprehensible numbering schemes, it's not that far of a stretch to conclude that some of the 'secret information' encoded into them could be used against us. We already harbor mistrust over being identified by a number, and the revelation that secret stuff is going on with how the numbers are handed out only serves to heighten that anxiety. White, black, or green, no one likes being reduced to a number; it smacks too much of governmental impersonalization, and its Orwellian overtones disturb us. In the case of African-Americans, this more general unease is further enhanced because of how their government treated them in the past, as Patricia Turner, a University of California-Davis African-American and African Studies professor noted in her book, I Heard It Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture:  There is no denying that African Americans have suffered unduly at the hands of the government. The Social Security number theory's got that sort of element of the government wanting to track Black people.  It's a theory typical of a suspicion or mistrust of the government that also exists in the non-Black community. Segments of the white community initially resisted implementation of the Social Security card system because they didn't like the idea of Big Brother government nationally numbering people" Additional information:  The SSN Numbering Scheme  (Social Security Administration)    A Myth About Social Security Numbers  (Social Security Administration)   Blocksma, Mary.   Reading the Numbers.
  New York: Penguin, 1989  ISBN 0-140-10654-5  (pp. 162-164).
 Reading the Numbers Johnson, L.A.  "Cyberconspiracy Theories."
  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  30 July 1998  (p. E1).  Turner, Patricia.  I Heard It Through the Grapevine.
  Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, 1993.   ISBN 0-520-08185-4  (pp. 103-104). I Heard It Through the Grapevine