Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928.
Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, lately have aired similar concerns about the future of working-class Americans, though they differ over what to do. In hisJanuary 2015 State of the Union address, the Democratic president said he wants towork with Congress to offer free community college to students while creating other education, child care and retirement savings programs to help the middle class. Funding, hes proposed, would come from a $320 billion tax increase on the nations highest earners and financial institutions including investment banks. After Obamas speech, Cruz told Fox News he was disappointed with Obamas goals to increase government spending and taxes, which he described as hurting hardworking Americans. Then Cruz said the countrys rich and powerful have gotten fat and happy on Obamas watch. Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928, Cruz said. Take that, Mister President! And was Cruz right? Cruz cites West Coast economist By email, Cruz spokesman Phil Novack indicated Cruz does not agree with Obama, who said in his speech he wants to reduce the top 1 percents after-tax income. Novack said Cruz, rather than increase taxes on the wealthy, believes the only way to jumpstart the economyis by championing pro-growth policies like energy development and aflatter, simpler tax structure. And, Novack said, Cruz drew his comparison to 1928 froma reportby the Pew Research Center citing research byEmmanuel Saez, a University of California, Berkeley economics professor who studies wealth and income inequality. Saez helps steer theWorld Top Incomes Database, sponsored by the Paris School of Economics, a research center and conglomerate of French universities offering graduate degrees and post-graduate fellowships in economics. The database, in place since 2011, shows the distribution of top incomes for more than 20 countries using data from millions of tax returns collected over about 100 years. By email, Saez said he and economists includingThomas Pikettybuilt the database from sources including public-use files of individual tax returns. The public-use micro-files are blurred to preserve each payers confidentiality, Saez said. A closer look To check on changes over time for ourselves, we built a chart fromthe database. The resulting data, covering 1913, the earliest checkable year, to 2012, shows 1928 and 2012 to be the top two years where the top 1 percent of the richest Americans (the richest of the rich)earned the greatest share of the nations income, whichthe government breaks downinto 15 categories including wages, salaries and self-employment income plus income from dividends and interest. In 1928, the top 1 percentof earners, then comprised of about 1.2 million residents, together held 19.6 percent of the nations income. In 2008, the year Obama was elected president, the top 1 percent possessed nearly 18 percent. The 1 percent collectively saw its share of the nations income escalate nearly 5 percent through the first three years of Obamas presidency. And in his fourth year, 2012, the 1 percent (nearly 314 million residents) controlled 19.34 percent. According to the database, that was the greatest share these wealthiest Americans had held since 1928, as Cruz said.(No. 3 goes to 1927, when the top 1 percent had 18.7 percent of U.S. income.) Top 15 years the richest American taxpayers had the greatest share of U.S. income 1913 through 2012  Year Top 1% income share 1928 19.6 2012 19.34 1927 18.68 1916 18.57 1929 18.42 2007 18.33 1914 18.16 2006 18.06 1926 18.01 1913 17.96 2008 17.89 2005 17.68 1936 17.64 1917 17.6 1925 17.6 Source:The World Top Incomes Database, 2011 (accessed Jan. 30, 2015) By email, Saez told usObama and Congress (which shifted to Republican control in his tenure) did little to address wealth inequality up until 2012 as the country recovered from the Great Recession -- which officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009. In aSept. 3, 2013, report, Saez wrote that in 2012, average real  incomes per familyin the top 1 percent of earners nationally increased by 19.6 percent, while average incomes among the rest of us grew1 percent. The report said the entire surge in top 1 percent incomes in 2012 could be a result of income re-timing -- when people hold off on making payments so they can report a higher income to take advantage of lower tax rates. By email, Saez said he expects the top 1 percents income share for 2014 to prove slightly lower than in 2012 as a result of tax increasesapproved by Congress and Obama in 2013raising the nations marginal income-tax rate from 35 to 39.6 percent for married couples earning more than $450,000 annually, starting in 2013. That deal, which also whittled tax deductions for high-earning businesses and individuals, helped the government avoidthe fiscal cliff, a term describing the looming impact of tax cuts initiated by President George W. Bush expiring at the end of 2012 at the same time congressionally mandated spending reductions were due to kick in. Questions about income-inequality research The World Top Incomes Database and Saezs work have become popular sources forpoliticiansto cite when discussing income and wealth inequality. Still, some experts have raised doubts about what goes into the Piketty-Saez inequality measurements. By email, Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank, said the Saez-Piketty data understate income growth by the bottom 99 percent. That is, he noted, Piketty and Saez limit their focus to pre-tax private income including wages, self-employment earnings, dividends, interest, rental payments and, in some cases, capital gains. The result, Burtless said, is the database doesnt consider other sources of income such as Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, government reimbursement of medical bills and untaxed fringe benefits such as employer contributions to health and retirement plans. If we include these income items, the bottom 99 percent of income recipients has enjoyed much faster increases in income than whats shown by Piketty and Saez, Burtless wrote. Burtless suggested the best statistics on U.S. income inequality come from the nonpartisanCongressional Budget Office. That's because CBO constructs 3 measures of income -- gross market income, pretax income (gross market income plus cash and no cash government transfers), and after-tax income (pre-tax income minus federal income, payroll, and excise taxes), Burtless said in his email. CBO data indicates that from 2009 to 2010, the top 1 percents share of income increased from 13.3 percent to 14.9 percent. (To refresh, Piketty and Saez say their research shows the top 1 percents share of income escalating from 16.68 percent to 17.45 percent.) Next, we talked to Robert Litan, another economist with the Brookings Institution, about why income inequality escalated so quickly in Obamas first term. By email, Litan said reasons for the rising share of the top 1 percents income include rising CEO pay relative to workers, extraordinary success of tech entrepreneurs in particular, made possible by Internet + globalization, and successful financiers, especially hedge fund managers. AJune 12, 2014 articleby the liberal Economic Policy Institute also highlights inequality in earnings and compensation between CEOs and typical workers. Burtless and Litan also told us by email Congress and Obama could not have done much to affect the percentage increase of the top 1 percents income based on Piketty-Saez measurements. The Congress and president have a bigger direct impact on after-tax income than on pre-tax income because their decisions directly affect the tax burdens and government transfer payments of families in different positions in the income distribution, Burtless said. Our ruling Cruz said: Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928. Cruz accurately recapped calculations of income by respected researchers though this statement fails to note there are some income streams not part of the cited calculations that would tend to help those of us in the bottom 99 percent, relatively speaking. Also, tax changes that took effect in 2013 may slightly be reducing how much of the nations income is held by the top 1 percent. Mark this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
Following the unexpected firing of Fox News personality Tucker Carlson on April 25, 2023, a flurry of claims  both old and new  about the conservative commentator went viral. One long-standing assertion regarding Carson is that his mother left him only $1 in her will: unexpected firing  The claim stems from documents produced amid a multi-generational legal dispute over the inheritance of mineral rights that had been left to Lombardi by her mother. Here, Snopes explains the controversy and the basis for rating the claim  Tucker Carlson's parents were Richard Carlson and Lisa Lombardi. Lombardi, an artist described by contemporaries as a "bohemian," came from several wealthy "pioneer families," including a man, Henry Miller, dubbed the "The Cattle King." At the time of Miller's death in 1916, he owned 3 million acres of rangeland in California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada. described pioneer families  Her family's ownership of this vast expanse declined over the years, but the family retained much of the land's mineral rights. In some cases, real estate transactions allow a person to sell land but retain rights to any profits generated by mining or drilling on the land. Lombardi inherited a portion of her family's mineral rights, which pay or paid out royalties in 1993, when her mother died. some cases Carlson's dad and Lombardi divorced in 1976, when Tucker was 6 years old. The elder Carlson was awarded full custody of both of their children, and Carlson had little to no relationship with his mom after the divorce. As reported ina profile of Carlson published by Insider, Lombardi "disappeared from her sons' lives," according to Carlson's childhood friends. a profile Carlson was later adopted by his father's second wife  Swanson frozen chicken heiress Patricia Swanson. adopted frozen chicken heiress Lombardi died on Oct. 14, 2011, while abroad in France with her husband. Just shy of a year later, a lawyer for Tucker and brother Buckley Carlson filed a petition in Kern County, California, for a court to rule on the succession of property owned by Lombardi. That court was entitled to rule on such a matter due to Lombardi's ownership of mineral rights in that county. on Oct. 14, 2011 With the agreement of Lombardi's surviving husband, Michael Vaughan, the court finalized a settlement ruling that Lombardi died "intestate" (without a will), and that property with mineral interests and royalty shares totaling about $129,684 would be distributed evenly between Vaughan and the two Carlson brothers. That ruling went into effect in July 2013. finalized a settlement After finding a hand-written will in 2013 leaving virtually all of her estate to Vaughn, however, Vaughan's family filed a petition in South Carolina, Lombardi's legal residence at the time of her death, to become the legal representative of Lombardi's estate and officially enter the will into probate. This handwritten document contains the instructions that Tucker and Buckley Carlson receive "one dollar each" at issue in viral claims: handwritten document  The Carlsons at firstobjected to the admission of this will into the South Carolina probate case, describing it as a potential forgery. In addition to instruction to give $1 to each of her estranged sons, the will also provided that Vaughan get all her property, including the aforementioned mineral rights: objected  The Carlsons dropped their challenge to the will's admission in South Carolina probate court. Kern County ultimately ruled that the will, while legally valid, could not affect the past distribution of settlement funds due to California probate law. ultimately ruled Copies of this will were included as exhibits in multiple attempts by Vaughn and other Lombardi family members to overrule the Kern County settlement based on several legal theories, including that the above will invalidated the previous settlement, that Lombardi never gained possession of some or all of the mineral rights in question, and that they were never part of her estate. This latter claim required lawyers for the estate of Lombardi's long-deceased mother to get involved in the dispute. Ultimately, Kern County denied these attempts, finding Vaughn bound by prior admissions in the original case and that the lack of timely admission of the will to the Kern County court was not the fault of the court system. In other words, the Carlson brothers got more than the $1 Lombardi's August 1995 will stipulated, and this decision has been affirmed several times. affirmed several times Just because the will did not affect the Kern County settlement does not mean the document is not valid or not Lombardi's authentic wishes. According to court testimony, Isabell Vaughan, one of Michael's daughters from a prior marriage, "discovered Lisa's handwritten will in Lisa's painting room and office" in the Fall of 2013. As described in an Insider profile: According described "Lisa was basically sort of a hippie and a free spirit," said one attorney who represented the Vaughan family and recalled having conversations about the case. "She was very liberal and she did not agree with Tucker's politics. But she stuck the will in the book, everyone forgot about it, and then she passed away." The Carlsons originally challenged the admission of that will in the South Carolina probate case, arguing that the will "was a forgery" and that Vaughn had already signed documents in Kern County indicating Lombardi left no will. Vaughn's lawyers hired a handwriting expert who concluded it was "highly probable" that the will was authored by Lombardi. The Carlsons voluntarily dropped their objection. originally challenged This left the admission of the will in Lombardi's South Carolina probate case without any objections or challenges. Legally speaking, then, that handwritten document is the last will and testament of Lombardi, and it effectively cut her estranged sons out of her inheritance. For that reason, the claim at issue in this story is true. In practice, however, the Kern County challenges made by Vaughan and their subsequent appeals  some of which were based in part on that will  have all been denied, and the Carlson brothers inherited a third of their estranged mothers mineral interests in spite of it. all been denied Bickel v. Carlson (In Re Estate of Vaughan), F077628 | Casetext Search + Citator. https://casetext.com/case/bickel-v-carlson-in-re-estate-of-vaughan. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. Case N0. S-l 501-PB-62045: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO VOID AND VACATE ORDER DETERMINING SUCCESSION. https://nimbus.kern.courts.ca.gov/case-file/Reply%20to%20Opposition?documentId=qx1M8G. Case No. S-1501-PB-62045 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO VOID AND VACATE ORDER DETERMINING SUCCESSION FILED BY REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF THE MOTHER OF DECEDENT. https://nimbus.kern.courts.ca.gov/case-file/Opposition%20to%20Motion?documentId=rk0JvW. KCSC Portal -- S1501PB62045 LISA M LOMBARDI DECEASED. https://portal.kern.courts.ca.gov/case-details/mYAlG. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. "Mineral Rights on Property." Home Guides | SF Gate, https://homeguides.sfgate.com/mineral-rights-property-7961.html. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. Sherman, Gabriel. "Tucker Carlson Was Blindsided by Fox News Firing." Vanity Fair, 24 Apr. 2023, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/tucker-carlson-fox-news-fired. Short, Aaron. "The Tucker Carlson Origin Story." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/the-tucker-carlson-origin-story-2022-5. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. ---. "Tucker Carlson's Mother, Lisa McNear Lombardi, Was a Free-Spirited Artist Who Mostly Disappeared from His Life When He Was Six Years Old." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/meet-tucker-carlsons-mother-the-artist-lisa-mcnear-lombardi-2022-5. Accessed 26 Apr. 2023. A series of imagespurportedly showinga UFO photographed by several different people began circulating via social media in October 2015: Yesterday afternoon in Memphis 4-6 random people posted these pictures on social media. The weirdest thing is that each of these individuals did not know each other and they all captured the same thing! Why isn't this being broadcasted on all major media outlets?! Somebody has some explaining to do. While the example Facebook post shown above reported that the alien ship was spotted over Memphis, Tennessee, other iterations of the photo set have claimed that the UFO was actually spotted inBenguela, Angola: claimed We'vehad a lot of people visiting the site over the past few weeks looking specifically for information about a remarkable UFO sighting in Banguela, Angola. The sightings were originally reported to MUFON and included a rather stunning image of the gigantic UFO that was not featured here on the UFOMG! copies of the reports. Here it isnow:  Even though these images all feature different settings, the UFO, as well as the surrounding cloud formations, pictured in each photograph are exactly the same. This means one of two things: Either a race of aliens has developed an efficient form of replicating technology, or the above-displayed photographs were created using the same stock image of a UFO. In fact, this series of photographs purportedly showing a UFO over Memphis (or Benguela) was created using a piece of fan art related to the V science fiction television series (about alien visitors to Earth) created bydigital artist Jukka Korhonen: artist   I was a big fan of V when it first came out. My love for the series has been growing bigger ever since they released the show on the DVD. The biggest news for V fans was the possible release of a sequel-series titled "V: The Second Generation". I quickly scetched out a few concept works and a fanmade poster to celebrate the announcement. As with many times in the media-mentality of amercan television, the "V: Second Generation" was not considered a mainstream series and so the network decided to freeze the project at the final meters. For this portfolio, I took out the V model I had made for the poster and combined it with one of my matteclouds. This image was one of the "doom" concept ideas that I had in mind when I first heard about the new series.  Modelled in trueSpace and postwork in Corel GS. This is NOT official art for the series, its merely fan-art from a dedicated admirer of Kenneth Johnson's work. I hope one day we will see the series come to life and see these iconic ships rise again to the LA skies ... On 26 July 2017, supplement and paranoia peddling website NaturalNews.com made a sweeping conclusion about climate change based on a portion of a single chart they found. The post, by Mike "Health Ranger" Adams, uses a time series of satellite sea level data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to argue that climate change is no big deal and that the mainstream media is ignoring data that proves him right: post NASAs own data reveal that world-wide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm. These data, of course, clearly contradict the false narrative of rapid, never-ending rising ocean levels that flood continents and drown cities  a key element of the climate change boogeyman fiction thats used to scare gullible youth into making Al Gore rich. To "prove" this, Adams points to NASAs satellite altimetry data  used by scientists to precisely measure global average sea level change since 1993  which he says busts the whole global warming thing wide open, despite its fairly unambiguous long-term upward trend:    The NASA chart allegedly showing that sea level is not rising. Credit: NASA.  The region of the chart  around the last two years of the record  that allegedly proves global warming is a lie is highlighted above. It shows a period of generally flat sea level rise. Astute chart readers, however, may note that there have been a number of times throughout the record in which sea level rise has been flat, or even briefly reversed, before continuing the more dominant rising trend. According to University of New South Wales climatologist and sea level expert John Church, this is the reason the "media" is "silent" on the issue; in fact, it is in no way newsworthy: The short term fall over the last year or so reported on the Natural News website is nothing out of the ordinary and in fact the fall seems less than several previous examples of sea level fall, such as [the drop documented in 2010-2011]. It does not seem to be a particularly noteworthy event. To understand why the event is not noteworthy, one needs to understand both the short- and long-term drivers of sea level change. From a long-term global perspective, there are two primary drivers of sea level rise: the first is the balance between water trapped in ice and water contained within the ocean itself. Simply put, when ice that is trapped on land melts, it increases the volume of water in the ocean, causing sea level to rise. primary drivers The second major driver is known as thermal expansion  when water gets warmer it expands, increasing its volume. Research suggests that these two contributors alone explain 75 percent of the observed sea level rise since 1971. suggests These larger trends, however, can be dampened (or enhanced) by shorter term weather patterns. The most important factors to consider on this time-scale are the El Nio-La Nia cycle (which affects both water temperature, as well as evaporation and precipitation of moisture) and the hydrological issues associated with where rainwater falls on land. The best illustration of these factors combining to alter the overall trend of sea level rise is the 2010-2011 drop in sea level mentioned above. factors In this instance, the confluence of La Nia and a number of other atmospheric circulation patterns forced an anomalously large amount of rain to fall over the uniquely bowl-shaped continent of Australia, as described by Scientific American: described In most cases, though, water that falls on land eventually drains into the ocean. Even if a whole lot of rain fell in South America's Amazon, for example, it could slow sea-level rise for only about a couple of months, as it slowly made its way to the sea. So in order to make sea levels fall, the water had to be stored in a place where it didn't reach the ocean for a long while. That place, it turns out, was Australia. [...] Lake Eyre is the lowest point in Australia. It's usually a dry, salty flat. But when it rains heavily, the basin fills, and the lake teems with new life, as long-dormant seeds spring to life and birds flock to the lake. From 2010 to 2011, enough rain fell on Australia to fill the lower part of the lake almost completely, and the upper portion at least 75 percent. Australia got about a foot of rain more than normal over that period, said [National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist John] Fasullo. The continent stored that excess water for long enough to change global sea levels. That the world's smallest continent can affect global sea levels this way is pretty extraordinary, said Fasullo. It's also rare. [...] In addition to La Nia, other climate variations also played a role. Together, they forced the extraordinary rainfall and water storage in the Australian continent. Eventually, of course, this water evaporates and returns to the ocean, where it joins the expanding and increasing global ocean reservoir. We spoke to Fasullo  the lead author on the study that documented the cause of the 2010-2011 drop in sea level  about this current hiatus, and he told us it in no way conflicts with our understanding of the connection between global warming and sea level rise: Of course, this leveling does not conflict with our understanding of sea level rise and its main drivers. It is well known for example that sea level falls (in an anomalous sense) at the end of an El Nio due to drought subsiding over many tropical land areas such as the Amazon (water moves from the ocean to land surface) and heat being released from the ocean (as the tropical upper Pacific Ocean releases heat to the atmosphere, causing contraction). [The] recent leveling of sea level rise comes on the heels of an unprecedented rate of rise during the four years that preceded it (2011-14). In addition to global warming, this rise was also strongly influenced by the El Nio-La Nia cycle and so it too should not be oversold. Ultimately, the story published by Adams attempts to disguise a weather as a climatological trend, University of California, Santa Cruz Climatologist Gary Griggs told us: One or two or three years of weather means very little in the long-term record of sea-level rise just as it would have very little meaning for global temperature records. Due to a variety of atmospheric circulation patterns and variations, temperatures vary from year to year as does rainfall, etc., the recent 4 year drought in the west is a good example. Using two years of data to make sweeping claims about trends in the global climate system, especially when such fluctuations are known and understood by science, is misleading and inaccurate, and as such we rank this claim as false. Adams, Mike.  "NASA Confirms: Sea Levels Have Been Falling Across the Planet for Two Years  Media Silent."
  Natural News.  26 July 2017. NASA.  "Understanding Sea Level"
  Accessed 1 August 2017. IPCC.  "Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]"
  2014 (Chapter 13). Boening, Carmen, et al.  "The 2011 La Nia: So Strong, the Oceans Fell."
  Geophysical Research Letters.  4 October 2012.
Ogburn, Stephanie Page.  "A Scientist Explains the Mystery of Recent Sea-Level Drop."
  Scientific American.  20 August 2013. 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. A gun reform group founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, has turned its focus to New Hampshire, running a TV ad that criticizes Republican congressional candidate Marilinda Garcia not only on gun ownership, which is the groups main focus, but also on the minimum wage and equal pay for women. In a 30-second spot titled Strange Ideas, Giffords group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, asserts that Garcia holds views different from a majority of New Hampshire residents. Marilinda Garcia has some strange ideas. Most people in New Hampshire want to raise the minimum wage. Garcia opposes it. Most people support guaranteeing women get equal pay for equal work. Garcias against that, too. Garcia even opposes closing the loophole that allows dangerous criminals to get a gun without a background check. Granite Staters deserve commonsense leadership, not Marilinda Garcia. PolitiFact New Hampshire decided to check the record on those claims. In this item, well check Garcias stance on a minimum wage increase. Garcia, a state representative, is challenging incumbent U.S. Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, a Democrat, for the 2nd Congressional District seat. The Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC unveiled the advertisement in September, just as it stopped airing a controversial TV ad that accused a congressional candidate in Arizona of opposing legislation that aims to prevent convicted stalkers from buying guns. On-screen, the New Hampshire ad cites a WMUR-TVpoll from Februarythat found three-quarters of New Hampshire residents supported raising the state minimum wage to $9 an hour. That provides support for the ads claim, though its worth noting that a federal proposal supported by President Barack Obama and other Democrats would push it higher, to $10.10 an hour. At the time the poll was conducted, the New Hampshire Legislature was considering a bill (HB1403) to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.25 in 2015, and then to $9 in 2016. The poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, found that 59 percent of residents strongly supported the increase and another 17 percent somewhat supported it. Eight percent strongly opposed it and 5 percent somewhat opposed it. Another 11 percent were neutral or don't know enough to say, according to WMUR. New Hampshire is the only state among its neighbors without a higher wage than the federal floor of $7.25, and it has the lowest minimum wage of any New England state. The minimum wage is $8.73 an hour in Vermont, $8 in Massachusetts and $7.50 in Maine. All told, it is one of 18 states have the same minimum wage as the federal minimum of $7.25, according to theNational Conference of State Legislatures. About a month after the poll, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted toincrease the states minimum wageby a vote of 173-118. Legislators voted mostly along party lines, with five Democrats voting against it and four Republicans voting for it. We checked theroll callto see how Garcia voted, but on three successive votes on March 12, 2014, related to the minimum wage bill, Garcia did not cast a vote. Later, in May, the Republican-controlled State Senatekilled the bill, with all 13 Republicans voting against it and 11 Democrats voting in favor of it, a process in which Garcia played no official role. An earlier legislative battle over the minimum wage in New Hampshire also sheds light on Garcias record. In 2011, the New Hampshire legislature, with a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate, passed a bill that deleted the states minimum wage, meaning that the states lowest wage would be the federal minimum. At the time, New Hampshires minimum wage was $7.25 an hour, the same as the federal amount, but critics said the bill was intended to keep the states minimum wage as low as possible. In the House, Garcia was one of 236 legislatorsto vote in favorof that bill, HB133. After passing the state Senate, Gov. John Lynch vetoed the measure. Both the House and Senate overrode Lynchs veto, and Garcia was one of261 members of the House to vote in favorof overriding the governor. So, while Garcia has no voting record on the 2014 minimum wage increase in New Hampshire, she did take a clear stand on the 2011 law tying the states minimum wage to the federal one. As further evidence of Garcias opposition to increasing the minimum wage,  the ad cites an article fromThe Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress,which reported that Garcia opposes a minimum wage hike. That article, publishedJune 9, introduced Garcia -- then considered an underdog in the Republican primary against state Sen. Gary Lambert -- to a national audience. The article reviews her record as a state legislator and points to how some GOP establishment figures had feared Garcia would be viewed as too conservative in a general election race. The article quotes Garcia saying in a March interview that while increasing the minimum wage superficially seemed like a good idea, it wouldnt actually help anybody much more and could in fact hurt. It actually has negative outcomes in many areas. One would be, if were trying to encourage people to educate themselves further so they dont have to stay in a minimum-wage job anymore, raising [the minimum wage] lowers the incentive to do that, she said. Garcias stance hasnt changed since then. In an email message to PolitiFact New Hampshire, Kenny Cunningham, the Garcia campaigns political and communications director, reinforced the position. A one-size-fits-all minimum wage from Washington, D.C., is counter-productive. Economists agree it would increase unemployment, particularly amongst teenagers, Cunningham said. Instead, Marilinda wants to reduce Americas highest-in-the-world corporate tax rates and rein in job-killing regulations. Our ruling An ad from the liberal Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC says most people in New Hampshire want to raise the minimum wage, but Marilinda Garcia opposes it. Polls from when the New Hampshire Legislature was considering raising the states minimum wage showed that a majority of residents surveyed supported increasing the wage from the federal minimum of $7.25 to $8.25 and eventually to $9 an hour. And Garcia has gone on the record criticizing attempts to raise the minimum wage, saying its effects could be counter-productive and could lead to negative outcomes. She also cast several votes in 2011 that effectively kept the state minimum wage the lowest in the region. The claim needs a slight clarification. As backup for the assertion that most people in New Hampshire want to raise the minimum wage, the poll cited a poll that asked residents about a $9 minimum wage. Its not clear whether residents would support a hike to the higher level of $10.10, as the president and congressional Democrats are seeking. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True. Middle ground is a hard thing to find in politics these days. Partisanship, especially at the national level, is almost a sport. And yet, this election cycle there did seem to be one point of agreement: The tax code needs to be reworked and breaks, in particular, need a close examination.In a recent blog post, Our Oregon, an organization backed by several public employee unions and other groups of similar political views, made the same case for the Oregons tax code.Heres part of a recent post their Sockeye blog published on the topic:Oregon's tax expenditure code is a list of 378 different tax breaks, writing exceptions into Oregon's law for certain income, property, and other items. While some of the tax expenditures are good, common sense ideas (like the earned income tax credit, which provides relief for low-income, working families), others appear completely baffling (did you know that boat owners can take a tax credit for each of their boats? )Overall, Oregon's tax expenditure code costs the state $32 billion each budget cycle, while Oregon collects about $14 billion in total taxes and other revenue. To put it plainly: Each budget cycle, the state spends more money on tax giveaways than it receives in tax collection.We decided to check it out.First, we called up the Oregon Department of Revenue. Spokesman Dennis Thompson told us to take a look at the Tax Expenditure Report. This report lays the details out pretty clearly for 2011-13. During the current biennium, the state is expected to bring in some $27.2 billion, while its tax giveaways are expected to total $31.3 billion.The numbers support Our Oregons statement.There is some important context offered in the expenditure report right before these figures. The dollar impact listed for tax breaks is not the amount of revenue you could gain if you wanted to repeal all of them. Take federal land, for example. Oregon has a lot of it -- and its exempt from property taxes. Even though we technically forgo those revenues, we dont have much of a choice. Its also true that certain tax breaks should, if working correctly, generate more revenue for the state than they give away -- inducements to attract business, for example.We called Scott Moore, Our Oregons spokesman, and spoke with him about all of this.We tend to speak pretty generally about the money that the state loses through the tax code because there is a great deal of complexity in individual expenditures, he said. But I dont think that discounts, in any way, the general statement that the revenue impact of this big collection of tax breaks is astonishing.There is clearly room to make that system more efficient and more effective and save money.Hes not the only one who feels this way, of course. The Legislature has already instituted a six-year cycle in which all credits will get reviewed before being renewed. The folks at Our Oregon believe they should go further and statistics like this one underscore that.There was, however, one other detail that caught us. The Our Oregon blog post mentioned $14 billion in total taxes and other revenue. The report we read put the figure at $27 billion, nearly double that. Moore told us the Our Oregon figure comes from a separate2011-13 Budget Highlightsdocument that references the states general fund, leaving out property taxes, beer and wine taxes, gas taxes and others. Moore said they went with the $14 billion figure because thats the money the Oregon Legislature has the most direct control over. Property taxes, for example, usually go to local governments. But if you follow that line of reasoning, theres also a significant portion of the tax code that the Legislature doesnt have control over -- again, federal land.In the blog post, Our Oregon said the state spends more money on tax giveaways than it receives in tax collection. State budget documents back them up.But context matters. In the sentence before the statement were ruling on, Our Oregon compares apples and oranges. You cant count revenues the Legislature has control over  and then compare them with tax breaks that include some the Legislature has no say in. We find that additional clarification is needed.We rate this claim Mostly True. On 18 September 2016, Facebook user Rosemary Thomas shared a four-panel image of what she claimed was a breaded and deep-fried rat served to her at a Harlem-area Popeyes Chicken: shared claimed Friends and family, this is a meal Popeyes in Harlem served my daughter, my niece and sister. This is clearly a rat and they have the nerve to have a 5 rating by the department of health. I've sent this picture to DESK@NY1 and no one has contacted me. People please free to share this picture. Think about all the other rat that have been served and the lasting effect this will have on my daughter, niece and sister. The exact address is 2730 Frederick Douglas Blvd.  The claim was shared over a hundred thousand times, and social media users flooded Popeyes Chicken's Facebook page to express their disgust about the images. Some social media users perhaps recognized Thomas' claim as an iteration of a very old urban legend known as the "Kentucky Fried Rat": Facebook Kentucky Fried Rat The "Kentucky Fried Rat" tale is one of the hoariest of food contamination urban legends, and some elements of its spread are easy to explain. Within the context of fast food restaurants, the offending eatery has to be a fried chicken outlet in order for the rat to be suitably disguised as a piece of food. Once the restaurant is established as one that serves fast-food chicken, it becomes Kentucky Fried Chicken because, as folklorist Gary Alan Fine writes, "The frequency of attachment of an urban legend to the largest company or corporation is so common as to be considered a law of urban folklore." (These days, however, many KFC outlets receive their chicken pieces pre-battered, and thus one of them could not "accidentally" batter and fry a rat.) The choice of a rat as a contaminant is also easy: rats have turned up in food products before; they're the right size and shape to be mistaken for pieces of chicken (especially when fried in batter); and rats are vermin, symbols of filth and decay. The fact that the rat-chicken is usually eaten in the dark is a plot device to prevent premature discovery of the "secret," although some might consider it an important symbolic aspect of the legend. So, what does this legend have to say? As our society becomes more urbanized (and frenetic), we become less and less involved with the preparation of our own food, frequently dining out instead of eating at home, scarfing a quick meal rather than enjoying a leisurely one, and leaving the food preparation entirely in the hands of others. And these others are not local restaurateurs we know well, but anonymous corporate fast food franchisees and their faceless employees. The combination of our guilt at abdicating this responsibility and our mistrust of corporations is expressed as fear that fast food entities who don't care about us will serve us tainted food prepared under unsanitary conditions, due to carelessness, laziness, or sheer malice. Like many other long-circulating urban legends, iterations (and parodies) of the deep-fried rat (or mouse) claim pop up from time to time on social media as first-person accounts. Typically, those claims are determined to be misunderstandings or fraudulent attempts to extort money from large companies. iterations parodies misunderstandings We contacted Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, and spokeswoman Renee Kopkowski told us the customer originally arranged to meet with someone from Popeyes on 19 September 2016 to supply a sample of the item in question for testing but then postponed the meeting, so the company has not yet been able to submit the sample to third-party examination. Kopkowski also stated that Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen conferred with suppliers who suggested the depicted material was actually organ meat, and she added that New York City's Health Department subsequently performed a thorough investigation of the Harlem location and found no evidence of the presence of vermin (i.e., rats): A guest at a Popeyes in Harlem in New York City recently posted on her social media account saying she thought she found something unusual in her chicken. Everyone at Popeyes takes claims like this very seriously.  Food quality is our top priority. When the franchise owner of this restaurant learned of the guests post, he immediately tried contacting her to resolve the issue.  The pictures she posted were also sent to the poultry supplier and the owner contacted the health department to inspect his restaurant that day.   The health department re-confirmed the locations A rating.  Its important to understand Popeyes uses fresh poultry.  Its rare, but there are instances when chicken organs fail to be removed from the final product.  While they may look unpleasant, or sometimes look like non-chicken parts, they do not pose a health risk. The franchisee has requested that the guest in New York and the attorney she is working with turn over the product to have the product tested by an independent third party. Until that testing takes place, we cant confirm her claim is valid Immigration is a sensitive and touchy issue, and never more so than in the United States during an election year. Thus, when stories started to emerge in 2016 about a group of veterans of the U.S. military living in Mexico after they had been deported from the United States (a story we previously reported on) it seemed natural to question what looked like nothing more than a chunk of political kryptonite. Mexico previously reported However, deported veterans exist, although no one  not even the Department of Homeland Security  knows how many. Their issue has been slowly brought into mainstream American consciousness largely by the efforts of committed activists in Tijuana. exist many "The Bunker," also known as the Deported Veterans Support House, is in a small cinderbrick building tucked away on a side street in Mexico's border town of Tijuana, and is frequented by veterans of every branch of the United States military, who fought everywhere from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Former Army paratrooper Hector Barajas, 39, opened it to be a gathering place and a refuge for veterans who, like him, had been deported: The Bunker deported "I started The Bunker because there was a need," Barajas told us. He said since his deportation, he had been meeting others like him living in Tijuana, and discovered that they lived throughout Mexico  but not just Mexico. There are hundreds of deported military vets living in at least twenty countries, he said. Since then, The Bunker has since become less a refuge and more a cause: Our vision is to end the deportations of Deported Veterans, repatriate the ones who have already been deported, and offer support until they all go home. We shouldn't honor our Deported Veterans by allowing them to return upon death. Honor them by allowing them to return home to their families and give them any benefits that they are eligible for. It may come as a surprise to learn that serving in the United States military does not automatically confer citizenship, but it doesn't. It can smooth the way, provided the aspiring citizen is aware of what they need to do in order to apply for citizenship and gets it done within a certain timeframe. However, it's not uncommon for enlistees to wrongly assume (having never been told otherwise) they have done all they need to do in order to be awarded citizenship, and thus all they have to do after their honorable discharge is wait. citizenship timeframe   Sometimes, too, there are bureaucratic foulups. One man was deported after he was unable to attend a hearing, despite his reason: he was in the hospital receiving surgery at the time. Others do everything the way they're supposed to, filing their paperwork and appearing at their meetings, but still get deported, and no one seems to know exactly why. Once they are outside the U.S., they maintain a legal right to VA benefits such as healthcare, and to whatever funds they might be entitled, but they have no way of getting back into the United States to obtain that assistance, and there are no satellite offices outside the country to help them. VA benefits Because these particular veterans are either in the United States on green cards or without documentation after their discharges, they can be deported with cause, or for no reason at all. Past and present members of the armed forces are supposed to receive special consideration during deportation hearings, but the guidelines are inconsistently applied. consideration However, some of these veterans have spent time in prison for assault or drug offenses, which makes their situation more difficult to parse, at least politically. Elected officials (and candidates) who might ordinarily be in full-throated cry about the importance of military rights tend to go oddly silent when confronted with the spectres of undocumented soldiers. Sympathy for those wounded on the battlefield under the American flag suddenly falters when it turns out they had entered the country without documentation years before. Miguel Perez, a United States Army veteran, falls under that category. The 39-year-old Illinois man, who served two tours in Afghanistan and who has been in the U.S. since he was eight, was convicted of a drug trafficking offense in 2008. The green card holder had served half of a 15-year prison sentence when Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement took him for deportation proceedings. After losing an appeal, Perez was deported in March 2018: deported Perez was flown from Gary, Indiana, to Brownsville, Texas, where officers escorted him across the border and turned him over to Mexican authorities, ICE officials said. Perez appeared shocked by his treatment during his final moments on U.S. soil. An ICE agent who described himself as a fellow veteran told Perez they would "fix this" while leading him to a gate, Perez said. "When we go there he just closed the gate behind me and he said, 'OK, we're done here,'" he said. "He said, 'You see those green lights? You go that way and when you get there just ask for help.'" Perez recalls thinking, "Really? This is it?" The veteran said he immediately contemplated suicide but then said he felt he needed to keep walking and continue the fight to let others know how he and other undocumented veterans are treated by the U.S. Unless something changes for them, the only way most of the deported veterans will be able to return to the United States is by dying. By law, all military veterans (except those who have been dishonorably discharged) are entitled to burial in a national cemetery, and immigration laws don't apply to corpses. entitled apply On 20 April 2016, lawmakers introduced a bill to readmit military veterans who were deported and who were not previously convicted of serious crimes. It would also prevent the removal of military veterans from the U.S. in the future. bill On 13 April 2018, Hector Barajas, the deported veteran who was one of the first to shine a spotlight on their plight, received his American citizenship, potentially paving the way for hundreds of other former United States military members:   Kao, Joanna and Vo, Lam Thuy. "Deported Vets: Life in the Bunker."
Al Jazeera.  26 September 2014. Siegal, Erin. "U.S. Veterans 'Banished' to Mexico."
KPBS.org. 12 November 2012. Tobia, P.J. "They Served Their Country. Now They Can't Live In It."
PBS.org.  10 September 2015. "Naturalization Through Military Service: Fact Sheet."
USCIS.gov. Update [13 April 2018, 2:20 P.M.]: Added detail about Hector receiving U.S. citizenship. In late August 2021, some social media users marveled at reports that actor Sylvester Stallone kept two turtles from the 1976 film he starred in, "Rocky," as pets  and that the two turtles are still alive. For example, a popular Reddit post on Aug. 22, 2021, stated Stallone "still has" the reptiles from more than four decades ago. Reddit post   It's true that Stallone posed in a photograph with the two red-eared sliders, named "Cuff" and "Link," which were the original turtles seen in the 1976 movie. In a 2019 Instagram post, Stallone said the turtles also were in the 2018 film "Creed II," an installment in the "Rocky" movie franchise. Instagram post We don't know the current status of the reptiles, as of this writing; however, red-eared sliders that are well cared for are known to live into their 40s and potentially longer. Cuff and Link serve as good reminders that owning turtles as pets could well entail a decades-long commitment due to their long lifespans. potentially long Although many interpreted Stallone's Instagram post to mean that the actor personally kept the turtles as his own pets, that doesn't appear to be the case. interpreted mean kept In 2006, the Philadelphia Inquirer contacted the turtles' original owner, Joseph Marks, who said the turtles are females and were about 5 years old at the time the first "Rocky" movie was shot. Marks, who owned J&M Tropical Fish, lent the turtles for the film's production, and they were returned when the movie wrapped. contacted Marks told the Inquirer at that time that the turtles still lived in the (now-closed) pet store featured in the movie as the place where Rocky's love interest, Adrian, worked. They were cared for there by Marks' nephew, John Stuart, who apparently kept them alive and well for decades. On March 10, 2021, an image started circulated on social media that supposedly showed a statement from former U.S. President Donald Trump in which he implored American citizens to remember that the United States wouldn't have had these "beautiful" COVID-19 vaccine shots for another 5 years (a dubious claim) if it wasn't for him: This was a genuine statement from Trump.  Trump released several statements after he left office on Jan. 20, 2021. Since the former president was banned from Twitter (as well as other social media networks) for posting content that could have incited more violence after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, these statements are being released via email and are then subsequently shared on social media by reporters. Margo Martin, the lead press secretary for the office of the 45th president, confirmed to Snopes via email that this was a genuine statement released by Trump.  banned shared social media lead press secretary While this is a real statement, the claims made within it (that the United States would not have had a vaccine for 5 years if it wasn't for Trump) are dubious at best. The Trump administration attempted to speed up the development of a vaccine via Operation Warp Speed. Although the Trump administration certainly deserves some credit for aiding the development of a vaccine, some companies, such as Pfizer, developed vaccines without funding from the Trump administration. It should also be noted that companies outside of the United States managed to develop vaccines without much aid from the former president.  vaccines without funding managed to develop vaccines