Harris Plan Would Bring Tax Increases for Richest 1% and Cuts for the Bottom 99% | Common Dreams
"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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Why stop at 1%, though?
I agree, the top 5% would be individuals with incomes of 290k a year and higher.
Wtf 5 out of 100 people make 200k??
I need to immigrate asap.
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.
Sure... half the country also makes less than 75k a year. I guess it depends on what industry you're in.
Median income is 38k (edit: around 40k depending on source) in the US, not 75k
That's the household median income
Oh wow, that is incredibly low.
Yeah, most of the entire country is a single missed paycheck/health emergency/household crisis away from absolute destitution.
The level of cognitive dissonance in those very same people demonizing & dehumanizing houselessness-related issues is forebodingly despicable — considering they're >this< close to being "one of them". 😶🤦🏼♂️😥
Wake the fuck up, fellow citizens. You're chattel to the rich. Pawns. Playthings.
But, we outnumber them by the billions. We. Are legion.
Engineering. But I just realized the cost of living is similarly insane XD
Well this is where mean vs median becomes important...
But what if I become a top-5%-er?
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.
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.
If there is anyone who thinks that an income of nearly $700k per year doesn't make someone wealthy, you're insane.
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.
Even then, that depends a lot on where you live. $100k/year in California is a lot different than $100k/year in Mississippi.
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.
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.
A third of the wealth, not 99%
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.
The top 1% have about 42% of the wealth.
Because 1% hold 99% of the wealth. If you tax 2%, half of that would just be average joes.
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.
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. 🤘🏼
