Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Where hondo gets his news
RaceBannon
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,790 
in Tug Tavern
Comments
2018’s Bottom Line: While TurboTax's "What-If Worksheet" indicates that the family would owe $3,896 more in taxes under the new law, I.R.S. guidance is still in flux and TurboTax did not include a sizable deduction for consulting income for which the couple is likely to qualify. That deduction would probably result in a small net decrease in their tax bill next year.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/23/business/how-to-fill-out-1040-form.html
That being said, NY Times is awful. Although I'm still waiting for Obamacare to crater the economy, death panels, Hillary to go to jail, and all the other bullshit you get from the most trusted news source.
The lengthy Feb. 23 feature, headlined, “Get to Know the New Tax Code While Filling Out This Year's 1040,” sought to detail how Trump’s tax plan would hurt middle-class families. A hypothetical couple -- christened Sam and Felicity Taxpayer -- would see their tax bill rise by nearly $4,000, according to the story.
Then came the correction saying the family would actually see taxes go down.
The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman mocked the Times piece before the Old Gray Lady issued the correction.
Well, The Times did reconsider -- but it may still not be 100 percent accurate.
“An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the probable effect of the new tax law on a hypothetical couple’s 2018 tax bill. The TurboTax ‘What-If Worksheet’ that generated the projection for their 2018 taxes failed to indicate that the couple would probably be entitled to claim a sizable deduction for income earned from consulting. As a result of that deduction, the amount they would likely owe on taxes would decline by $43, not rise by $3,896,” the correction states.
The accounting error in The Times’ original piece is quite significant for the family, which reported a combined income of $183,911. Freeman wrote a followup piece, noting that “a liberal law professor says The Times still doesn’t have the story quite right.”
Freeman pointed to University of Chicago tax law professor Daniel Hemel, who said Times editors still don’t understand Trump’s tax cuts.
“Still don’t see why Samuel & Felicity aren’t claiming nonrefundable dependent credits of $500 for their children Luke & Heidi and their parent Sydney, for additional tax savings of $1,500 under the new law,” Hemel recently tweeted.
“The search continues for Americans who will not benefit from the
Trump tax cuts on individual and corporate income,” Freeman wrote.
The New York Times did not immediately respond when asked if it would issue another correction based on Hemel’s analysis.
Doesn't bother me I said all along what the real deal is
You are embarrassing Race.
Own it
HTH but I know it won't.
Own it
How did I change the subject?
And lastly, what bullshit did I fall for?
So, in all seriousness, I give some slack to any news source who will retract. That is the key. Facebook pages like "Trump Conservatives" and "Democrats for _______" make shit up and are not accountable. Say what you will, but main stream papers like the NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, etc. try to get it right, and retract when they don't. Yeah they lean left but it's the best we have. I'm not going to get it from invisible sources who don't have any real skin in the game and can do, and do do, whatever the fuck they want.
This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last, that the Times retracts or corrects itself. That alone in fairly important.