[civilitty]

Fair enough. I agree that the word count would much better be spent on discussing the relevant legislation and resulting tax codes.

But let me be honest. I wouldn't read that story. I'm not a tax policy wonk, nor am I qualified to opine on the legislative process except to express exasperation at the gridlock. I am however qualified to vote for candidates who are and that first requires awareness of the issues, a topic orthogonal to a precise understanding of the solutions, just like I need a doctor to tell me what to do about my infection after the pain has brought attention to it, not explain the intricate details of how assays work or how antibiotics disrupt bacterial functions.

[bryan_w]

> I'm not a tax policy wonk, nor am I qualified to opine

Which makes it so easy for the NYT to manipulate you into jealous frenzy.

A lot of people see an outrageous headline and too few ask "what's the other side of the story?" The media knows this and can use it to direct your ire at any of their competitors because it's so effective

[civilitty]

The other side of it is what my personal and business's accountants do. I don't need to know the intricate details of their work to look at the final bill and realize that maybe I should be paying more for the benefits I enjoy in this country, especially considering my native tax rate - which gets me a hell of a lot less in Russia than the nearly equivalent effective rate does in the US.

[cascom]

The problem is that the NYT ignored the why almost entirely to generate outrage because they are creating an issue. Most people wouldn’t be outraged if you said “this company didn’t pay tax this year on its $2B in profits because it lost $1B last year, and invested $1B in a new research facility (and got accelerated depreciation)”