Harris Plan Would Bring Tax Increases for Richest 1% and Cuts for the Bottom 99% | Common Dreams
www.commondreams.org
"The contrast between Harris and Trump on taxation could not be more clear," said the executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
  • modifier@lemmy.ca
    151·
    1 month ago

    Problem is a solid 30% of those that vote see themselves potentially attaining that 99% 1%, as baffling as that is.

    Edit

    • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
      2·
      1 month ago

      Strangely enough, most people will be in the top 5% at some point in their life. But just for a year, when they sell their house. So you’re getting fucked 75 years of your life for maybe 1 year of benefit?

      • ApexHunter@lemmy.ml
        2·
        1 month ago

        More like you busted your ass for 75 years then got fucked when you had to sell your house.

    • FerNZA@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 month ago

      I am not from the US so might be wrong, but I think it works the same as in mine. It is because they tax income not wealth (which would be difficult I guess). Elon can probably live on $0 income very comfortably by his standard. More than 1% of income earners will be affected at some point as you age up, inheritance etc. Maybe not 30%

    • elliot_crane@lemmy.world
      26·
      1 month ago

      This isn’t Harris “play[ing] the tax card”, the article isn’t even referencing anything her campaign said.

      FTA:

      The new analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) follows its in-depth examination of Trump’s tax proposals, which the group found would cut taxes for the richest 5% of Americans and raise them for everyone else.

      And directly from ITEP’s “Mission & History” page:

      ITEP is a non-profit, non-partisan tax policy organization. We conduct rigorous analyses of tax and economic proposals and provide data-driven recommendations to shape equitable and sustainable tax systems.

      Source: https://itep.org/about/

      Based on the “equitable and sustainable” piece, ITEP probably slants left, sure, but I’d say that’s far more owing to conservative tax policy having no basis in being equitable or sustainable for the past four decades at least.

      That all being said there’s literally no reason to make this a dig at Harris, because, you know, the article isn’t referencing anything she or her campaign has publicly said…

        • elliot_crane@lemmy.world
          10·
          1 month ago

          Cool. Except the thing is I never said this wasn’t Harris’ plan. I said that the article is about an independent review of her plan, and therefore she’s not “play[ing] the tax card”. I would agree she’s “play[ing] the tax card” if she was making a big deal of this all of a sudden out of nowhere, but that’s not happening here.

      • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
        27·
        1 month ago

        Woah now, it’s SO much easier to make a dig at anything when you refuse to challenge your own, and your friend/family’s, personal views.

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 month ago

      There’s a lot deleted here so I may have missed it but I’m just curious, what would you prefer her to say? Like you are totally right that politicians famously make promises they don’t keep but would you prefer her to just say nothing? Or to say the opposite? The other guy has a plan that will increase taxes/costs on everyone but the top 5%. Is that better? Should he also not say anything?

  • metaStatic@kbin.earth
    940·
    1 month ago

    “Hey, I’m in the bottom 99%, I like this promise”

    You know who else is in the bottom 99%, your fucking landlord. if you pay 1% less tax you can buy a whole bag of doritos if they pay 1% less tax they can buy your Mum’s house.

    Government only needs to pay lawyers to go after what the 1% already owe and it would be more than any increase would provide.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
      40·
      1 month ago

      You’re being a bit obtuse and misleading here, clearly you didn’t read the article.

      For starters… its not an income level agnostic tax decrease. Its not a flat tax.

      Its graduated. Progressive. And it decreases taxes for all but the wealthiest, whose taxes increase.

      The group estimated that under Harris’ proposals, the poorest 20% of Americans would see an average tax cut of $1,130 in 2026 while the richest 1% would see an average increase of $121,460.

      Sad as it is, our political system offers a binary choice.

      Would you perhaps prefer the alternative?

      EDIT:

      If Harris wins, we can also reasonably expect a continuation of the Biden policy of doing that other thing you want, the IRS actually going after people in the ‘landlord’ brackets for tax evasion.

      Has that been as extensive as you or I would prefer?

      No.

      But the alternative is Trump, who, along with Elon, might just abolish the IRS, or massively defund those efforts.

        • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
          61·
          1 month ago

          It needs to be simplified. You’d be rather shocked at how many people can’t read the vast majority of standard graphs.

        • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
          5·
          1 month ago

          I think you accidentally a word or two there, but yes, I can only hope they have a plan for a week of nonstop adds with basically the second graph, and a concise explanation that these are nonpartisan, independent estimates/assessments.

          Trump = Your taxes go up, unless you are Elon Musk. (Happy Elon Jumping Pic, followed by crying laid off Tesla worker lady)

          Kamala = Your taxes go down, unless you are Elon Musk. (Sad, Crying Elon Pic, followed by one of his Starships fucking exploding, as all his sycophants cheer)

          Granted, the MAGA cultists are quite adept at being impervious to basic facts… who knows if anything would actually work on them.

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        2·
        1 month ago

        Is that the difference per bracket, or the net difference per income level? Because I think it’s the latter but I’m not sure

        • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
          2·
          1 month ago

          The images I used are, I think, shitty thumbnail versions of whats actually on the article as I only have a shit tier 4g phone.

          If you go to the article’s page itself, you can make out the bracket definitions better.

          That being said: (Threw this all in a spoiler so as to not further wall of text this thread)

          These x axis are grouped into income tax brackets.

          The US Federal income tax has long been broken up into a sort of stair step, series of brackets.

          Declare x amount of yearly income, you fall into bracket 1, earn more next year? y amount of income? You may move up to bracket 2.

          The brackets precise income level boundaries of the brackets, are updated each year based off of I think CPI (inflation) according to a known and established law and formulation.

          This graph indicates the change in the amount of taxes you pay in percentage terms of your precise income.

          I’ll attempt to explain in detail.

          The way to read this… say you’re at the very first income bracket, 0 to $28k ish, and that for the sake of example, you make exactly 28k a year.

          Right now, you pay… whatever % and amount of taxes as is currently the norm.

          Under Kamala’s plan, you’ll pay 7% of your 28k, or $1960 less in taxes than in the current schema.

          Under Trump’s plan, you’ll pay 4.9% of your 28k, or $1120 more in taxes.

          If we go to the other side of the graph… lets say your income is exactly $1 million bucks.

          Kamala plan: You pay $41k more in taxes.

          Trump plan: You pay $14k less in taxes.