• x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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)

  • Aermis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I might break 140k this year living near Seattle for a single income household with 3 children under 6. Is this graph saying that Trump’s tax plan will benifit me, a middle class, some would argue lower middle class in this location, better than Harris?

    • justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yes the graph says that your income would be around 0.7% higher. What the dramatic increase of the others will do to the value of your income (inflation) and hence the stuff you can actually effort with this, is up to discussion of somebody who knows this stuff better than me.

      • Aermis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I’m not voting for Trump for a thousand dollars on my tax return. Seeing by the down votes people really think any kind of scrutiny shouldn’t be discussed, and no one wants to talk about a family man and his income. This fight between getting income relief for the bottom class and letting millionaires run free leaves the middle class more or less get pulled.

        My income is fine with me, I make enough to survive even with the high prices of groceries. I’m looking for a better life for my family. Something I have many options for, where millions are struggling to put food on the table. So I know where my heart is.

        • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          The issue here is that for those of us who are actually in the middle class a thousand bucks shouldn’t make us betray folks who need the help more than us.

          IMO

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      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.

  • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    131
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      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.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    8 hours ago

    What a terrible graph. You don’t know if the numbers are good or bad at a passing glance.

    • Nate Cox
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Are you perhaps color blind? The shades of red and green were pretty clear for me at a glance.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        I think they might be. blue would’ve been a better choice. it’s weird that people still use red and green when it’s the best known and most common form of color blindness and it affects as much as 1 in 20 people, give or take. that’s not a small percentage. color blindness in general affects 1 in 12 people.

        • el_abuelo
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          1 in 12 men I believe. It’s not as common in women.

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            that’s for red-green, which is why I said about 1 in 20 – maybe closer to 1 in 25 – but in total, all color vision deficiency types add up to around 1 in 12 people.

  • j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      ·
      20 hours ago

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

      • huquad@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Are you asking them to have solid silver statues instead of gold? How dare you \s

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        61
        ·
        20 hours ago

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

        • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          19 hours ago

          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.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 hours ago

            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.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            19 hours ago

            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.

    • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      20 hours ago

      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.

      • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        17 hours ago

        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.

        • ZMoney@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          You forgot about using said military to destabilize the rest of the world and force migration to the metropole to replace your workforce

    • Nasan@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      They also believe that Jesus might make them rich so best be prepared.

  • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    17 hours ago

    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.

    • 5oap10116@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      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.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    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.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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