• COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

      • COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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).

        • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          38 minutes ago

          “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.

  • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Changing taxes levied on income doesn’t change the income itself. Do they mean remaining income after tax?

    Are you guys taxed at the source or where does this confusion come from?

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 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
    ·
    9 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?

    • Corndog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I haven’t looked into the specifics of these policies, so I could be wrong, but I’d say no.

      This graph doesn’t really take into account everything it should IMO. The massive tax cuts to the wealthy are going to dramatically screw over people with lower incomes, because there’ll be less money overall. I believe Trump’s case would involve making up that deficit with really high tariffs on things, especially Chinese goods. This means that, although your taxes would be slightly lower on paper, you’re spending a lot more money for literally everything that’s made in China (or contains parts or materials from China). Typically tax cuts for the wealthy also involve money leaving crucial areas for lower income areas, like schools and infrastructure. The Harris plan (I believe) is revenue neutral, meaning for you it’s literally free money with no downsides. In her case the extra money comes from slightly increasing the tax rates of the wealthy (as you can see here).

      It’s also worth noting that your income is taxes in the brackets it falls in. The first $39,000 is taxed at that (lower) rate, then the next bit is taxed in the next bracket, etc. Breaking the $140,000 mark doesnt mean all your income is now taxed at a higher rate. I THINK this is taken into account in this graph, but I haven’t looked into it to be sure. I wanted to mention it though because it’s a constant point of confusion for people.

      Hope this helps.

    • justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 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
        10
        ·
        6 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.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 hours ago

          It only goes so if Trump doesn’t place the tariffs he says he wants to place, because then prices on all goods increase across the board…

          He wants 100% tarrifs which is just a tax on us in the end on everything from China and Mexico. And 20% on everywhere else.

          So every item you buy, mark the price up by such, and then ask yourself if you spend $1000 that year.

          Note: never has he mentioned food being exempt.

          Throw in the deportations and you look at the building unions who say they are 400,000 workers short, and you realize labor shortages will increase building costs which in turn drive up insurance costs for houses…

          So your income will go up by a $1000, and your expenses will go up dramatically

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            He wants 100% tarrifs which is just a tax on us in the end on everything from China and Mexico. And 20% on everywhere else.

            I legitimately think he doesn’t understand that.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              To be fair if someone worded it to him like I worded it there, it isn’t very clear. I really need to take more time to phrase sentences more clearly. (Off topic but just needed to criticize myself there)

        • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 hours 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

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    12 hours ago

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

    • Nate Cox@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 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
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        11 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.

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

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    20 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
      7 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
    139
    ·
    1 day 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
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      22 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.

      • Karjalan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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.

    • Karjalan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      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”

  • j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day 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.

      • huquad@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 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
        67
        ·
        24 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
          29
          ·
          24 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
            6
            ·
            7 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
            ·
            23 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
      17
      ·
      24 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
        9
        ·
        21 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
          ·
          14 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
      ·
      23 hours ago

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