• suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    167
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      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.

      • Karjalan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        And it’s worth it, because then they get hoard it in off shore accounts and spend it on politicians who will give them more money to hoard in off shore accounts… You know. Trickle down economics.

  • j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days 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.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        71
        ·
        6 days ago

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

        • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          6 days 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.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 days 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.

            • JackbyDev@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              If I had kids I could see how they misinterpret things I say and anxieties I express as implying we’re struggling. I was unemployed for a while last year and had to dip into savings. My new job pays less and our savings haven’t been noticably growing so it’s making me say things like “do we need this?” or “can we spend less on Christmas?” We still have a very large buffer (and we’re fortunate to have it). But I could definitely see a naive child thinking it meant things were very rough for us.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 days 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.

      • huquad@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

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

    • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 days 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.

        • ZMoney@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          You forgot about using said military to destabilize the rest of the world and force migration to the metropole to replace your workforce

        • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          If the US ever collapses there are no financial plans that will help. The entire global economy will be gone.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I’m disabled and make less than $20k a year in SSDI. What’s in it for me? Oh and fuck Trump regardless.

    • Karjalan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days 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”

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    5 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days 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.

  • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    4 days ago

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

    This is purposely not clear.

    • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days 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.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      4 days 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.

      • vxx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 days ago

        If everyone was voting what’s best for them according to this graph, the election would be a blowout win for Harris.

      • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        You couldn’t have just spent that time explaining it rather than being snarky? This graph either says Donnie is raising my tax or my income will go up more.

        Not everyone is always on top of their game and the smartest person on the Internet…

    • Nasan@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

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

  • COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 days 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.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      I think nearly 10% of the US population is millionaires (by wealth, not income) and the percentage is even more if you take home equity into account.

      Say what you will about the country, but there isn’t a prosperity problem, only a rampant inequality problem.

      • COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 days ago

        Millionare in assets is vastly different than $1 million per year in income. It’s pretty much a requirement to have $1 million in assets to be able to retire lately and assuming years of compounding growth in the market this is pretty easily attainable by retirement for most (I know this is a big assumption but our whole economy is built on it).

        • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 days ago

          “Millionaire in assets” is even less impressive when you factor in someone’s home value. Like, Zillow keeps telling me my condo is worth $350k. I guess I am worth that on paper, but it’s not liquid or “walking around” money.

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 days 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)

  • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days 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)

  • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    5 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days 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.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.