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

United States | News & Politics

1934 readers
484 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
[–] suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml 25 points 3 weeks ago (1 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.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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)
[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

MAGA voters be like: Red scary, ugh.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 9 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] Potatofish@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 12 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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)
[–] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

"but one day I might be a millionaire."

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Now imagine inflation and the weakening dollar under trumps plan

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's the tariffs I'm worried about.

[–] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 2 points 2 weeks ago

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

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

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

[–] roscoe@startrek.website 5 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?

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 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 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)
[–] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 2 weeks ago

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

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks 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)
[–] x00z@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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)
load more comments
view more: next ›