Of all the things that have changed since Reagan took office, it's nice to see that 'fiscal responsibilty' still means massive unfunded tax cuts for the people who need them the very least.
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
634 points (95.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1934 readers
498 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They have the most money so they’re the most responsible. Otherwise they wouldn’t have the most money. So the responsible thing is to give them all the money.
Duh.
load more comments
(1 replies)
IMO, it should incorporate a logarithmic target at homelessness in the entire nation. Those in the top brackets have no right to obscene wealth while anyone is lying in a gutter or going hungry.
The crazy thing is, there would still be obscenely rich people. They just wouldn't be quite as obscenely rich.
The real key is, they wouldn't miss it at all. Yet they hang on every bit of it.
This is what I'm always saying. The more dollars you have, the less each one matters. Going from 40k to 50k is a big jump. Going from 400k to 500k is a bigger jump in absolute numbers, but will make far less of an difference.
I knew a guy who told me that "his family struggled, too" when both parents were bringing home mid six figures. I'm sorry but like what. Learn to budget.
When money still means money to someone, it's definitely possible to have a lot coming in and yet still be budgeted bad enough that they could be living a paycheck to paycheck scenario. Or worse, living well past their means because of credit extensions, far in debt. For the very wealthy money becomes less of a thing to worry about and more one of many ways to leverage power and influence. These are the ones where a heavier tax doesn't hurt, because they simply have more than they can lose, even if they don't have most of it as tangible cash. That wealth line is far above the millionaire mark, and there's not a lot of them, but they hold most of the wealth of the world, and also the power they desire. They could change things without a loss, and they don't.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'd argue, since we are an empire and the world's super power both militarily and economically, we shouldn't have any billionaires or even hundred millionaires while people are dying of starvation/malnutrition anywhere in the world.
I hate to break it to you, but as a resident of the former military and economic superpower, having a super wealthy elite class and a dirt-poor underclass is a feature of being said superpower.
A well-fed and housed underclass has no need to volunteer for a large enough military force to be present anywhere in the world within, these days, 48 hours.
And your elite hoarding the wealth in assets they trade and speculate on the stock exchanges gravitates more money into said exchanges from across the world. Without their capital invested in said markets they'd merely be competing with other markets around the world not dominating them.
My advice, enjoy your empire whilst you still have it and do what you can reasonably do to financially prepare for when it starts to dwindle.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Now factor in the impact of tariff driven inflation on the poor and see if Trump's top numbers are still positive.
Classic conservative playbook. Our country gave "everyone a tax break" which equates to $20 a month on average, then added fees to prescriptions, massively defunded public services and has generally made the economy worse, and thus everything cost more...
Somehow they're still popular. That's how powerful the story of "Conservative good for economy" is. Even even they're actively fucking it up, people still want to vote for them because "they are good for the economy"
load more comments
(1 replies)
Trump has a plan?
The heritage foundation has a plan. Why come up with your own when someone has already done the work for you?
Republicans making $35k a year: "but wHeRE is The iNcEnTiVE to bE sUcCeSsFuL????!!!"
They also believe that Jesus might make them rich so best be prepared.
I assume this isn't including some of the other things in Trump's proposals like getting rid of tax credits for having a child.
load more comments
(1 replies)
MAGA voters be like: Red scary, ugh.
Honestly they're hoping you only look at the bottom big numbers and ignore your actual insurance bracket.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Now imagine inflation and the weakening dollar under trumps plan
We need a tax that kicks in when anyone gets a total compensation that is some multiple of the poverty line and some other multiple of the lowest compensation given to anyone working for their company (including subsidiaries, contractors or part time work extrapolated to full time, and not including overtime). The amount should take into account both the lowest pay and the distribution curve of pay, so that the worse the pay inequality is the higher the tax goes.
Suddenly, the only way the executives can actually get the benefit of those bonuses and stocks is if they're raising wages across the board as well.
load more comments
(3 replies)
According to this, those making 100k (33.6% of Americans) will be getting less money. The 66.4% of Americans will be getting significantly more.
Via zippa
As a programmer and my wife is a doctor, I'm in the upper brackets. But I don't care. Also happy to see the millionaires losing even more money!
In my eyes, $3000 goes a long way for someone struggling!
That's because anyone with even a shred of empathy would rather live in a healthy society for relatively cheap.
It's not losing, it's sharing.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
I thought the top 0.1% was more like $3 million. Either way it's still an incredibly large amount of money for 1 in 1000 people to be making. With 131 million households that's 131000 households making more than $14 million per year which is WILD. One in a thousand isn't that uncommon, yet I'd never guess who were making that kind of money. They must just be living in completely separate spaces.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Trump wants me to sell out my country for less than $50k?!? How is that money going to help me when living in the country becomes unbearable and my dollar is worth a fraction of what it does today?
EDIT: The problem is the suburban $139k bracket, living paycheck to paycheck and in debt up to their eyeballs. That $1000 difference might look real juicy to those guys.
load more comments
(5 replies)
The ones that make 14 million or more would have AT LEAST $544,135 to waste on Trump propaganda (comes from 376,910 + 167,225)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Wait. Who am I voting for based on this graph if I'm making 200k, and why?
This is purposely not clear.
Don't forget 2016 when Trump said he was going to cut taxes for all Americans and the plan Congress pushed through raised taxes on average by 4000 a year for middle and working class incomes. But the super rich got back millions and millions.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Do you lack the ability to think of others when looking at the graph?
If everyone was voting what's best for them according to this graph, the election would be a blowout win for Harris.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
What do you mean this is purposely not clear? Is interpolation so hard for folks?
If you make $200k, you're probably going to land somewhere between the $130k and $330k income levels, meaning your tax savings under Trump's proposed plan will be between $4k and $9k, likely roughly $6.5k. For Harris' proposed plan you'll be between $3k and $2k, likely close to $2.5k.
Yes, the amounts aren't linear, so it's hard to say exactly where you will land, but also these are proposed plans, so they're estimates to begin with. I wouldn't be adjusting my personal budgeting off of a wish list from two people who do not control tax laws.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand from the chart that for most Americans (see, median household income $81k), Harris's tax proposal will net more savings on their annual income, while Trump's plan favors people in higher income brackets.
Trump's plan will increase the national deficit because everyone pays less in taxes. Harris' plan tries to be closer to revenue neutral by putting more of the tax burden on the top 1%.
Who you vote for is your decision, but the fact that we have a populous that can't understand fairly straightforward tables to help inform decision-making is part of the reason why we are so fucked.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Now compare that with the inflation their economic plans will cause. 100 or 1000% tarrifs will turn most of Trump's greens to red real quick
What a deceptively shitty chart. What the fuck am I looking at?
I'm disabled and make less than $20k a year in SSDI. What's in it for me? Oh and fuck Trump regardless.
view more: next ›