Changing taxes levied on income doesn't change the income itself. Do they mean remaining income after tax?
Are you guys taxed at the source or where does this confusion come from?
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
562 points (96.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1884 readers
804 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
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.
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)
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)
I might break 140k this year living near Seattle for a single income household with 3 children under 6. Is this graph saying that Trump's tax plan will benifit me, a middle class, some would argue lower middle class in this location, better than Harris?
load more comments
(9 replies)
Now factor in the impact of tariff driven inflation on the poor and see if Trump's top numbers are still positive.
load more comments
(2 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.
Are you asking them to have solid silver statues instead of gold? How dare you \s
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
(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.
If the US ever collapses there are no financial plans that will help. The entire global economy will be gone.
You forgot about using said military to destabilize the rest of the world and force migration to the metropole to replace your workforce
What a terrible graph. You don't know if the numbers are good or bad at a passing glance.
load more comments
(9 replies)
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.
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.
It's funny because Americans have been radicalized against taxes saying its wage theft and taking away all their earnings..., but historically, when taxes increase, firms have an incentive to pay their workers more so wages generally increase with tax increases. You're pecking at the reason why tit works that way. It's arguably counter intuitive but that's why the propaganda against higher taxes works so well.
Taxes on wages are theft because you created your labor. Taxes on property and pollution aren't theft because nobody created the earth. The rich have successfully conflated them all as just taxes, and most of us have no idea how tax incidence works.
You're pecking at the reason why tit works that way.
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
(4 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!
If I didn't have to pay taxes, I could buy a house and stop paying rent. I'm above median.
Neither plan is good.
I am in upper brackets, too - I’m happy to pay more if someone who is struggling doesn’t have to.
Dodging taxes is unpatriotic.
So have a look at what amount of taxes the rich in the US (don't) pay, and you know how patriotic they are.
Based and "unfunded tax cuts are theft" pilled
Sorry for the brain rot
I think intentionally avoiding taxes should be a very serious crime. It's stealing from everyone.
I guess I am too, maybe it’s my nouveau-ness (not that I’m anywhere near “rich”), but I don’t understand why the attitude isn’t “just go make more money”? (Keeping in mind we’re talking about people who don’t need the money for subsistence and are clearly capable of generating cash)
It's not losing, it's sharing.
Same. Oh no I’ll have to cook at home a few more times per year. How will I survive.
Yeah, I would pay less under Trump and so would everyone in my area. The brackets that would pay less under Kamala can't afford to live here. Still a very blue area.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm assuming you mean they will be getting a lower portion of the increases? The chart you have here looks more like how many people fall in a given bracket.
It makes plenty of sense to shift things to greater gains on the lower end. A while back there was a study that said somewhere around $75K was the point at which actual income gains start to level off as far as what improvements it makes to your life. At that point you can probably pay your bills and afford to eat without stressing so much over every decision. I forget if that was for a single person or what, but for where I live it would be doable to be sure. Lower than that and you need that extra boost to just meet the basic needs.
The $75k figure is from 2010. The article seems to be https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1011492107.
You acknowledge $75k as a living wage in 2010. How would research from 2010 be used for wage suppression today? Was it wage suppression in 2010?
Actually I didn't specify when. The measure of if a wage is livable is going to vary greatly based on where you are of course. Around here one of the larger employers handing out 'just basic work' level jobs starts off at around $40K which is roughly a $10K increase over the last few years according to their persistent hiring sign and it's regarded locally as being decent pay.
Some very rough math would say that if you made $75K and took home say 60% of that after tax and insurance you would make about 3,750 a month. A rent or mortgage in the $1000-1500 space isn't too abnormal here leaving $2K+ for your other needs, utilities, food, etc
It's not a life of luxury level to be sure, but being someone who has gone from "milk to make mac & chz is a luxury" to actually having a few bits extra to buy some nice toys there is a cutoff out there where cash stops being the main stress in life. In my case it was somewhere around the point when I could just go buy a jug of milk without having to check if that was going to leave enough gas money for the rest of the week...
load more comments
(1 replies)
My guess is with inflation 75K is no longer the ceiling for the amount you make before you level off as far as happiness and comfort go. Still, billionaires don't really need to exist either way. 🤷🏼♀️
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