this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
109 points (89.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

1898 readers
457 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Potatofish@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

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

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 10 points 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.

[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 12 points 5 days ago (4 children)

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 20 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago

Thank you for the straight answer. I'm financially illiterate.

[–] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Do you lack the ability to think of others when looking at the graph?

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

"but one day I might be a millionaire."

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

"Not if you're paying more taxes than millionaires"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] min_fapper@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Then your income will increase by a little over $2000.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 17 points 5 days ago (1 children)

MAGA voters be like: Red scary, ugh.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 9 points 5 days ago

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

[–] suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml 25 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

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 18 points 4 days ago

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

Wherever each candidate’s darkest green category lies is where the concentration of power that keeps them supported resides.

[–] nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Now imagine inflation and the weakening dollar under trumps plan

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's the tariffs I'm worried about.

[–] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 2 points 4 days ago

But Trump said tariffs don't impact prices and he's a completely rational and trustworthy person who most certainly understands economics!

[–] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

"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.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 4 days ago

Unless your mortgage is totally paid off you aren't necessarily worth that much on paper.

[–] purrtastic@lemmy.nz 8 points 5 days ago (2 children)
[–] sheogorath@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] derpgon@programming.dev 3 points 5 days ago

It is a good plan, maybe the best plan that was ever planned.

[–] roscoe@startrek.website 5 points 5 days ago

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

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (4 children)

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 6 points 6 days ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] x00z@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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)

[–] Tja@programming.dev 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rain_worl@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

tax/eat the rich B)

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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)
[–] carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

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)
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 6 days ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›