645
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] j4k3@lemmy.world 105 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 76 points 3 weeks ago

The crazy thing is, there would still be obscenely rich people. They just wouldn't be quite as obscenely rich.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 68 points 3 weeks ago

The real key is, they wouldn't miss it at all. Yet they hang on every bit of it.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 31 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 7 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 3 weeks ago

That's a common feeling among the children of well off parents when the parents are budgeting properly. What happens is that the parents do the smart thing and invest the extra and set aside an emergency fund. Having to dip into either one is psychologically a failure. They have a budget, and they only "struggle" because they want to stay within that budget.

That might mean having store brand mac and cheese for lunch and driving a ten year old Toyota Corolla. To their children, they don't seem well off. In fact, they're the only people who can be properly considered middle class. That is, instead of being one step away from being homeless, they're two steps.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] huquad@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago

Are you asking them to have solid silver statues instead of gold? How dare you \s

[-] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Karjalan@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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)
[-] purrtastic@lemmy.nz 56 points 3 weeks ago
[-] sheogorath@lemmy.world 68 points 3 weeks ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] roscoe@startrek.website 12 points 3 weeks ago

The heritage foundation has a plan. Why come up with your own when someone has already done the work for you?

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 53 points 3 weeks ago

Republicans making $35k a year: "but wHeRE is The iNcEnTiVE to bE sUcCeSsFuL????!!!"

[-] Nasan@sopuli.xyz 16 points 3 weeks ago

They also believe that Jesus might make them rich so best be prepared.

[-] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 50 points 3 weeks ago

MAGA voters be like: Red scary, ugh.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 10 points 3 weeks ago

Honestly they're hoping you only look at the bottom big numbers and ignore your actual insurance bracket.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 50 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Also, what he already did. The home office tax credit was dropped for W2 employees as part of his plan. Wasn't really noticed at the time, but circumstances later on meant that a lot of people could have been taking that credit if someone else was President. Amounts to a few hundred a year--not huge, but not nothing.

IIRC, it automatically goes back to the way it was in a few more years assuming nothing else changes.

[-] nimble 35 points 3 weeks ago

Now imagine inflation and the weakening dollar under trumps plan

It's the tariffs I'm worried about.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] 5oap10116@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 21 points 3 weeks ago

Wait. Who am I voting for based on this graph if I'm making 200k, and why?

This is purposely not clear.

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago

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)
[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago

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)
[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 20 points 3 weeks ago

What a terrible graph. You don't know if the numbers are good or bad at a passing glance.

[-] natecox@programming.dev 15 points 3 weeks ago

Are you perhaps color blind? The shades of red and green were pretty clear for me at a glance.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I think they might be. blue would've been a better choice. it's weird that people still use red and green when it's the best known and most common form of color blindness and it affects as much as 1 in 20 people, give or take. that's not a small percentage. color blindness in general affects 1 in 12 people.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Potatofish@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

What a deceptively shitty chart. What the fuck am I looking at?

[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 17 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 57 points 3 weeks ago

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!

[-] gressen@lemm.ee 8 points 3 weeks ago

It's not losing, it's sharing.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago

That's because anyone with even a shred of empathy would rather live in a healthy society for relatively cheap.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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)
[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] x00z@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

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)
[-] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 weeks ago

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)
[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Wtf? Why am I benefiting most under Harris? Shouldn't that be the guys on the very bottom?

I mean, I'll take it, but...weird?

(also fuck Trump, he can eat dirty diapers)

[-] _stranger_@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago

If the ultra rich pay a fair percentage, the tax burden falls for the rest of everyone.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

Oh boy 2000 extra dollars. That'll really turn things around for me...

[-] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago

That's a month and a half of rent. You know what I would give to be a month and a half ahead on rent right now??

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
645 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

1934 readers
366 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, 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