Lemmy: Bestiverse
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • Create Community
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
Jolly Platypus@lemm.ee to politics @lemmy.worldEnglish · 7 months ago

Harris Plan Would Bring Tax Increases for Richest 1% and Cuts for the Bottom 99% | Common Dreams

www.commondreams.org

external-link
message-square
39
fedilink
  • cross-posted to:
  • politics@lemmy.world
413
external-link

Harris Plan Would Bring Tax Increases for Richest 1% and Cuts for the Bottom 99% | Common Dreams

www.commondreams.org

Jolly Platypus@lemm.ee to politics @lemmy.worldEnglish · 7 months ago
message-square
39
fedilink
  • cross-posted to:
  • politics@lemmy.world
"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.
alert-triangle
You must log in or register to comment.
  • Jagothaciv@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Remember if you make under $400k you are poor.

    • Prehensile_cloaca @lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      If you rely on a wage whatsoever, you’re closer to a peasant than a Capitalist

  • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Why stop at 1%, though?

    • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I agree, the top 5% would be individuals with incomes of 290k a year and higher.

      • MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Wtf 5 out of 100 people make 200k??

        I need to immigrate asap.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          7 months ago

          Cancelled by all the money spent on private services that are public elsewhere. The grass isn’t greener when you look at the big picture.

        • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          Sure… half the country also makes less than 75k a year. I guess it depends on what industry you’re in.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Median income is 38k (edit: around 40k depending on source) in the US, not 75k

            • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              https://smartasset.com/data-studies/top-1-percent-income-2024

              First sentence.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                7 months ago

                That’s the household median income

                https://datacommons.org/place/country/USA?utm_medium=explore&mprop=income&popt=Person&cpv=age,Years15Onwards&hl=en#

                • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Oh wow, that is incredibly low.

          • MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Engineering. But I just realized the cost of living is similarly insane XD

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Well this is where mean vs median becomes important…

          • MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            But what if I become a top-5%-er?

            IMG_20241024_153713

          • PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            It’s also important to note than depending on how we define “income”, many of the richest have no “income” or a misleading small income (Zukerburg has, like, a 1$ salary or something) because they don’t their money from a wage… they get it from returns on investment. This is also why income tax is a misguided policy goal a lot of the time. We need to tax the investment income of the rich, not their salary.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months 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.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months 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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months 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.

          • Bob Robertson IX @discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Even then, that depends a lot on where you live. $100k/year in California is a lot different than $100k/year in Mississippi.

            • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months 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.

          • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            They might also use that term because they confuse it with “rich”, and that’s a whole other issue: intentionally sub-par (mis)education to maintain the socioeconomic divide.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        A third of the wealth in 2021, that didn’t increase to 99% since

      • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months 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.

      • pruwyben@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The top 1% have about 42% of the wealth.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      Because 1% hold 99% of the wealth. If you tax 2%, half of that would just be average joes.

      • pruwyben@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months 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.

        • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months 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. 🤘🏼

  • takeda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    7 months ago

    We desperately need tax on wealth.

    • MisterD@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yes. All 1%ers have no income to tax.

      The own billions, and pay nothing!

  • mack7400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months 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!

    • Shark_Ra_Thanos@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Liar.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s a rewrite of the family guy joke

        https://youtu.be/yZpIog7e-R4

  • Encephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    As nature intended.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago
    Common Dreams - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Common Dreams:

    MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
    Wikipedia about this source

    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://www.commondreams.org/news/kamala-harris-tax-plan

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

  • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    Can’t tax income they don’t have

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months 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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Just like real estate tax? If a portfolio can be used as collateral then 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.

          Edit: this is also an easy way to exclude stuff like Roth ira’s and other retirement plans. Just don’t allow them to be leveraged/used as collateral… If this was at all possible. This protects normal pension savings etc.

politics @lemmy.world

politics@lemmy.world

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@lemmy.world

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 3.55K users / day
  • 7.59K users / week
  • 13.5K users / month
  • 28.1K users / 6 months
  • 1 local subscriber
  • 23.4K subscribers
  • 11.9K Posts
  • 225K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
  • aidan@lemmy.world
  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
  • 🌱 🐄🌱 @lemmy.world
  • Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
  • JuBe@lemmy.world
  • Lasherz@lemmy.world
  • BE: 0.19.5
  • Modlog
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org