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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you asking them to have solid silver statues instead of gold? How dare you \s
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.
You forgot about using said military to destabilize the rest of the world and force migration to the metropole to replace your workforce
If the US ever collapses there are no financial plans that will help. The entire global economy will be gone.
Now factor in the impact of tariff driven inflation on the poor and see if Trump’s top numbers are still positive.
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”
As long as I can remember, Republicans would inevitably crash the economy, Democrats would set it back on a good course (which of course takes a while), and the Republicans would go and crash it again. They got pretty good at timing the crash so it was right as they were leaving power.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html#
Trump has a plan?
Concepts of a plan.
It is a good plan, maybe the best plan that was ever planned.
The heritage foundation has a plan. Why come up with your own when someone has already done the work for you?
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.
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.
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.
MAGA voters be like: Red scary, ugh.
Honestly they’re hoping you only look at the bottom big numbers and ignore your actual insurance bracket.
Still wants to turn the country red.
Now imagine inflation and the weakening dollar under trumps plan
It’s the tariffs I’m worried about.
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.
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.
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.
Check out my perky natural pair
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!
deleted by creator
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.
So have a look at what amount of taxes the rich in the US (don’t) pay, and you know how patriotic they are.
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)
That’s because anyone with even a shred of empathy would rather live in a healthy society for relatively cheap.
It’s not losing, it’s sharing.
Same. Oh no I’ll have to cook at home a few more times per year. How will I survive.
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.
Deleted.
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.
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)
Times 4 years
Times so much more :P
What a deceptively shitty chart. What the fuck am I looking at?
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.
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.
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).
“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.
Unless your mortgage is totally paid off you aren’t necessarily worth that much on paper.
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
