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)
Times 4 years
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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
Raising minimum wage does not cause inflation.
According to this, those making 100k (33.6% of Americans) will be getting less money. The 66.4% of Americans will be getting significantly more.
Via zippa
I’m assuming you mean they will be getting a lower portion of the increases? The chart you have here looks more like how many people fall in a given bracket.
It makes plenty of sense to shift things to greater gains on the lower end. A while back there was a study that said somewhere around $75K was the point at which actual income gains start to level off as far as what improvements it makes to your life. At that point you can probably pay your bills and afford to eat without stressing so much over every decision. I forget if that was for a single person or what, but for where I live it would be doable to be sure. Lower than that and you need that extra boost to just meet the basic needs.
My guess is with inflation 75K is no longer the ceiling for the amount you make before you level off as far as happiness and comfort go. Still, billionaires don’t really need to exist either way. 🤷🏼♀️
The $75k figure is from 2010. The article seems to be https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1011492107.
You acknowledge $75k as a living wage in 2010. How would research from 2010 be used for wage suppression today? Was it wage suppression in 2010?
Actually I didn’t specify when. The measure of if a wage is livable is going to vary greatly based on where you are of course. Around here one of the larger employers handing out ‘just basic work’ level jobs starts off at around $40K which is roughly a $10K increase over the last few years according to their persistent hiring sign and it’s regarded locally as being decent pay.
Some very rough math would say that if you made $75K and took home say 60% of that after tax and insurance you would make about 3,750 a month. A rent or mortgage in the $1000-1500 space isn’t too abnormal here leaving $2K+ for your other needs, utilities, food, etc
It’s not a life of luxury level to be sure, but being someone who has gone from “milk to make mac & chz is a luxury” to actually having a few bits extra to buy some nice toys there is a cutoff out there where cash stops being the main stress in life. In my case it was somewhere around the point when I could just go buy a jug of milk without having to check if that was going to leave enough gas money for the rest of the week…
As a programmer and my wife is a doctor, I’m in the upper brackets. But I don’t care. Also happy to see the millionaires losing even more money!
In my eyes, $3000 goes a long way for someone struggling!
I am in upper brackets, too - I’m happy to pay more if someone who is struggling doesn’t have to.
I guess I am too, maybe it’s my nouveau-ness (not that I’m anywhere near “rich”), but I don’t understand why the attitude isn’t “just go make more money”? (Keeping in mind we’re talking about people who don’t need the money for subsistence and are clearly capable of generating cash)
Dodging taxes is unpatriotic.
Based and “unfunded tax cuts are theft” pilled
Sorry for the brain rot
I think intentionally avoiding taxes should be a very serious crime. It’s stealing from everyone.
So have a look at what amount of taxes the rich in the US (don’t) pay, and you know how patriotic they are.
It’s not losing, it’s sharing.
Yeah, I would pay less under Trump and so would everyone in my area. The brackets that would pay less under Kamala can’t afford to live here. Still a very blue area.
That’s because anyone with even a shred of empathy would rather live in a healthy society for relatively cheap.
Same. Oh no I’ll have to cook at home a few more times per year. How will I survive.
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
Oh shit, trump would benefit me? Thanks for this I’m switching sides.
He paying for it with an increase of tariffs. 20% on everything and 60% on imports from China. If you want a new computer or TV, buy it this year before your man saves America.
Thought my sarcasm was obvious.
Nope. Should have added: /s
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.
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.
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.
Check out my perky natural pair
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.
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.
Trump has a plan?
Concepts of a plan.
It is a good plan, maybe the best plan that was ever planned.
The heritage foundation has a plan. Why come up with your own when someone has already done the work for you?
MAGA voters be like: Red scary, ugh.
Still wants to turn the country red.
Honestly they’re hoping you only look at the bottom big numbers and ignore your actual insurance bracket.
What a terrible graph. You don’t know if the numbers are good or bad at a passing glance.
Are you perhaps color blind? The shades of red and green were pretty clear for me at a glance.
Sure, but is people making over $14m/year paying more taxes really a bad thing?
For them it is…
I’m sure the post tax income will still be enough to soak up the tears.
Fuck em.
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.
1 in 12 men I believe. It’s not as common in women.
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.
No it isn’t. 1 in 12 men are colour blind. Only 1 in 200 women are colour blind.
Now imagine inflation and the weakening dollar under trumps plan
It’s the tariffs I’m worried about.
But Trump said tariffs don’t impact prices and he’s a completely rational and trustworthy person who most certainly understands economics!
What a deceptively shitty chart. What the fuck am I looking at?
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.
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.
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.
tax/eat the rich B)
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.
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.
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.
If the US ever collapses there are no financial plans that will help. The entire global economy will be gone.
You forgot about using said military to destabilize the rest of the world and force migration to the metropole to replace your workforce
The crazy thing is, there would still be obscenely rich people. They just wouldn’t be quite as obscenely rich.
The real key is, they wouldn’t miss it at all. Yet they hang on every bit of it.
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.
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.
If I had kids I could see how they misinterpret things I say and anxieties I express as implying we’re struggling. I was unemployed for a while last year and had to dip into savings. My new job pays less and our savings haven’t been noticably growing so it’s making me say things like “do we need this?” or “can we spend less on Christmas?” We still have a very large buffer (and we’re fortunate to have it). But I could definitely see a naive child thinking it meant things were very rough for us.
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.
Are you asking them to have solid silver statues instead of gold? How dare you \s
