this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19134 readers
5485 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Common Dreams - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Common Dreams:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.commondreams.org/news/kamala-harris-tax-plan
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Hey, I'm in the bottom 99%, I like this promise"

You know who else is in the bottom 99%, you're fucking landlord. if you pay 1% less tax you can buy a whole bag of doritos if they pay 1% less tax they can buy your Mum's house.

Government only needs to pay lawyers to go after what the 1% already owe and it would be more than any increase would provide.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

You're being a bit obtuse and misleading here, clearly you didn't read the article.

For starters... its not an income level agnostic tax decrease. Its not a flat tax.

Its graduated. Progressive. And it decreases taxes for all but the wealthiest, whose taxes increase.

The group estimated that under Harris' proposals, the poorest 20% of Americans would see an average tax cut of $1,130 in 2026 while the richest 1% would see an average increase of $121,460.

Sad as it is, our political system offers a binary choice.

Would you perhaps prefer the alternative?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That comparison graph needs to be should to all of those swing state voters. It makes it so obvious the poor right are voting against their interests.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It needs to be simplified. You'd be rather shocked at how many people can't read the vast majority of standard graphs.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Fuck, you're right.

I consistently forget that the average American has a 6th grade reading comprehension level.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I think you accidentally a word or two there, but yes, I can only hope they have a plan for a week of nonstop adds with basically the second graph, and a concise explanation that these are nonpartisan, independent estimates/assessments.

Trump = Your taxes go up, unless you are Elon Musk. (Happy Elon Jumping Pic, followed by crying laid off Tesla worker lady)

Kamala = Your taxes go down, unless you are Elon Musk. (Sad, Crying Elon Pic, followed by one of his Starships fucking exploding, as all his sycophants cheer)

Granted, the MAGA cultists are quite adept at being impervious to basic facts... who knows if anything would actually work on them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Is that the difference per bracket, or the net difference per income level? Because I think it’s the latter but I’m not sure

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The images I used are, I think, shitty thumbnail versions of whats actually on the article as I only have a shit tier 4g phone.

If you go to the article's page itself, you can make out the bracket definitions better.

That being said: (Threw this all in a spoiler so as to not further wall of text this thread)

These x axis are grouped into income tax brackets.

The US Federal income tax has long been broken up into a sort of stair step, series of brackets.

Declare x amount of yearly income, you fall into bracket 1, earn more next year? y amount of income? You may move up to bracket 2.

The brackets precise income level boundaries of the brackets, are updated each year based off of I think CPI (inflation) according to a known and established law and formulation.

This graph indicates the change in the amount of taxes you pay in percentage terms of your precise income.

I'll attempt to explain in detail.

The way to read this... say you're at the very first income bracket, 0 to $28k ish, and that for the sake of example, you make exactly 28k a year.

Right now, you pay... whatever % and amount of taxes as is currently the norm.

Under Kamala's plan, you'll pay 7% of your 28k, or $1960 less in taxes than in the current schema.

Under Trump's plan, you'll pay 4.9% of your 28k, or $1120 more in taxes.

If we go to the other side of the graph... lets say your income is exactly $1 million bucks.

Kamala plan: You pay $41k more in taxes.

Trump plan: You pay $14k less in taxes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

But then what will trickle down???

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm kinda thinking we maybe try trickle-up for a few years.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We are the workers and the consumers. We are the ones who trickle down.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

I am the one who trickles.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

We already have that. It’s called political donations.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The data is in. Trickle down doesn’t work.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

(I was being facetious)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nothing trickles down, we have seen that for decades.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

(I was being facetious)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Unfortunately, the urine based system where richer people pee wealth on less rich people who then pee on poorer people and so on isn't sound economic theory. Call me surprised, and soaked in freedom pee.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Poor people: “Unacceptable!”

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

But that's not what the sign on the side of the road says...skeptical.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Problem is a solid 30% of those that vote see themselves potentially attaining that ~~99%~~ 1%, as baffling as that is.

Edit

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

I do, yikes, thank you

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Strangely enough, most people will be in the top 5% at some point in their life. But just for a year, when they sell their house. So you're getting fucked 75 years of your life for maybe 1 year of benefit?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

More like you busted your ass for 75 years then got fucked when you had to sell your house.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

But one day I might be in the 1%! And when I am, I'll show people like ME a thing or two.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Well hell, sign me up!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's hard to tax income if there's no reported income

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

I just get loans on untaxed offshore collateral and write it off as a business expense like everyone else, don't you?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Unrealized gains tax. Lets fucking go.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Rewrite the laws that if it's collateral, it's realized.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Tax the loans based on collateral as income and you don't even need to figure out the value of the collateral.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Here we go; this guy gets it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Then everyone taking out a home equity loan suddenly has to pay the taxes as if they sold their house.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Ok so make it that equity in a primary residence is exempt.