"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.
  • mack7400@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 days ago

    A tax cut for me is just a tax cut for me, but a tax cut for the rich could make anything happen – maybe even a tax cut for me!

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 days ago

      Because the top 1% really isn’t that high and they hold 99% of the wealth. The other 99% of people hold 1% of the wealth. What do you think the annual income to be in the 1% is?

      I’ll put the rest of my response in a spoiler so you can think about it for a second, or comment it if you want, out of curiosity.

      spoiler

      Most people think the top 1% make millions of dollars annually from the conversations and surveys I’ve seen. The actual threshold for 1% varies by state, but in 2023, the national average was $652,657. While it is much higher than the average income of ~$37,500, it is not as high as most people think.

      • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        2 days ago

        Speaking in broad volumetric terms and then switching to simply stating (see: spoiler) the per annum floor for said 1% is sloppy and misleading. Please include the range that the 1% encompasses, earnings wise, to keep your modeling consistent.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        0·
        2 days ago

        If there is anyone who thinks that an income of nearly $700k per year doesn’t make someone wealthy, you’re insane.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 days ago

          We’re not talking just “wealthy”, we’re talking the top 1% of all income.

          Most Americans would probably say people making $100k/yr are “wealthy”. That’s because the average income is less than $40k. There’s a difference between just “wealthy” and the top 1% for most people.

            • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              0·
              2 days ago

              That’s edging toward muddying the point. You could also bring heritage (aka “race”) into the argument, or age, or disability, et al, and risk doing the same. No one’s debating granular data per geophysical location, etc., as this is a median national income bifurcation topic.

      • pruwyben@discuss.tchncs.de
        0·
        3 days ago

        The top 1% have about 42% of the wealth. And in terms of income, which the tax would be based on, the top 2% would still be people making over $400,000 a year.

        • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0·
          2 days ago

          Start with the 1%, and gauge response. Repeat with the 2% and add guillotines as set pieces, guage response. Lather, rinse, repeat until shit gets better. 🤘🏼

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      Your house is taxed… why are stock portfolios not taxed each year against their value on Jan 1st? Or median value over the year or something?

      • anticolonialist@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 days ago

        If a person was to get taxed against the value of stocks every year and that person holds onto those stocks for multiple years, they’re getting taxed multiple times for that same value. The idea of taxing unrealized gains is probably the most ignorant thing to ever come out of her mouth.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 days ago

          Just like real estate tax? If a portfolio can be used as collateral than it should be taxed. The percentage at which it should be taxed is open for conversation but keep in mind there are people holding billions in assets like this.