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.
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
179 points (97.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1882 readers
622 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
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.
Now factor in the impact of tariff driven inflation on the poor and see if Trump's top numbers are still positive.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
Yeah, I would pay less under Trump and so would everyone in my area. The brackets that would pay less under Kamala can't afford to live here. Still a very blue area.
I am in upper brackets, too - I’m happy to pay more if someone who is struggling doesn’t have to.
Dodging taxes is unpatriotic.
Based and "unfunded tax cuts are theft" pilled
Sorry for the brain rot
I think intentionally avoiding taxes should be a very serious crime. It's stealing from everyone.
I guess I am too, maybe it’s my nouveau-ness (not that I’m anywhere near “rich”), but I don’t understand why the attitude isn’t “just go make more money”? (Keeping in mind we’re talking about people who don’t need the money for subsistence and are clearly capable of generating cash)
Same. Oh no I’ll have to cook at home a few more times per year. How will I survive.
It's not losing, it's sharing.
I'm assuming you mean they will be getting a lower portion of the increases? The chart you have here looks more like how many people fall in a given bracket.
It makes plenty of sense to shift things to greater gains on the lower end. A while back there was a study that said somewhere around $75K was the point at which actual income gains start to level off as far as what improvements it makes to your life. At that point you can probably pay your bills and afford to eat without stressing so much over every decision. I forget if that was for a single person or what, but for where I live it would be doable to be sure. Lower than that and you need that extra boost to just meet the basic needs.
My guess is with inflation 75K is no longer the ceiling for the amount you make before you level off as far as happiness and comfort go. Still, billionaires don't really need to exist either way. 🤷🏼♀️