616
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.
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)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Are you asking them to have solid silver statues instead of gold? How dare you \s
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
load more comments
(2 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?
I haven't looked into the specifics of these policies, so I could be wrong, but I'd say no.
This graph doesn't really take into account everything it should IMO. The massive tax cuts to the wealthy are going to dramatically screw over people with lower incomes, because there'll be less money overall. I believe Trump's case would involve making up that deficit with really high tariffs on things, especially Chinese goods. This means that, although your taxes would be slightly lower on paper, you're spending a lot more money for literally everything that's made in China (or contains parts or materials from China). Typically tax cuts for the wealthy also involve money leaving crucial areas for lower income areas, like schools and infrastructure. The Harris plan (I believe) is revenue neutral, meaning for you it's literally free money with no downsides. In her case the extra money comes from slightly increasing the tax rates of the wealthy (as you can see here).
It's also worth noting that your income is taxes in the brackets it falls in. The first $39,000 is taxed at that (lower) rate, then the next bit is taxed in the next bracket, etc. Breaking the $140,000 mark doesnt mean all your income is now taxed at a higher rate. I THINK this is taken into account in this graph, but I haven't looked into it to be sure. I wanted to mention it though because it's a constant point of confusion for people.
Hope this helps.
load more comments
(9 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.
I am in upper brackets, too - I’m happy to pay more if someone who is struggling doesn’t have to.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(5 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.
How the fuck do you manage to spend 139k a year? People don't make any god damn sense.
Oh man, it happens without you knowing it. I got caught in that once. Between my wife and I we were making close to $200k and we couldn't survive two months without a paycheck. Mortgage, car payments, school loans, credit cards payments and taxes for start. Then you want to make yourself feel better because your job and traffic to and from work are sucking the life right out of you, so you start buying shit and decorating so you can have a sanctuary, all the while you are strengthening the chains around your neck.
A slave with a nice car and house is still a slave. They just are less aware of it...until they want to quit and realize that they can't.
Huh, being raised poor I hardly ever buy anything for myself. I generally fill out my I-9's with zero dependents so that I get more tax taken out throughout the year and get a little back at tax season. We buy used cars rather than paying interest on car payments. Never had school loans because I knew I wouldn't make enough in the real world to pay for it. Never had debt on a credit card other than a few periods of unemployment, but paying those off when possible was always a priority.
Never had much support from my parents, and I'm naturally good with numbers and statistics, so I tend to think in terms of value gained for purchases.
But I also could pack everything I own onto a pick-up truck and drive off with it, still wear clothes I bought at my frist job at Sears almost 20 years ago.
Just accepted from an early age I was going to be poor, and really leaned into it.
load more comments
(2 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 terrible graph. You don't know if the numbers are good or bad at a passing glance.
Are you perhaps color blind? The shades of red and green were pretty clear for me at a glance.
Sure, but is people making over $14m/year paying more taxes really a bad thing?
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)
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
616 points (95.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1886 readers
827 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