this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024

474 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19090 readers

3988 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

474

Harris Plan Would Bring Tax Increases for Richest 1% and Cuts for the Bottom 99% (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 9 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 hours ago

But one day I might be in the 1%! And when I am, I'll show people like ME a thing or two.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (3 children)

Problem is a solid 30% of those that vote see themselves potentially attaining that ~~99%~~ 1%, as baffling as that is.

Edit

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

Strangely enough, most people will be in the top 5% at some point in their life. But just for a year, when they sell their house. So you're getting fucked 75 years of your life for maybe 1 year of benefit?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You mean 1%?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

I do, yikes, thank you

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 hours ago

I am not from the US so might be wrong, but I think it works the same as in mine. It is because they tax income not wealth (which would be difficult I guess). Elon can probably live on $0 income very comfortably by his standard. More than 1% of income earners will be affected at some point as you age up, inheritance etc. Maybe not 30%

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 hours ago

Poor people: “Unacceptable!”

[–] [email protected] 35 points 7 hours ago

But that's not what the sign on the side of the road says...skeptical.

[–] [email protected] 70 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

It's hard to tax income if there's no reported income

[–] [email protected] 29 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Unrealized gains tax. Lets fucking go.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Rewrite the laws that if it's collateral, it's realized.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Tax the loans based on collateral as income and you don't even need to figure out the value of the collateral.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 hours ago

Here we go; this guy gets it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Then everyone taking out a home equity loan suddenly has to pay the taxes as if they sold their house.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 hours ago

Ok so make it that equity in a primary residence is exempt.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 hours ago

I just get loans on untaxed offshore collateral and write it off as a business expense like everyone else, don't you?

[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

But then what will trickle down???

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago

Unfortunately, the urine based system where richer people pee wealth on less rich people who then pee on poorer people and so on isn't sound economic theory. Call me surprised, and soaked in freedom pee.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I'm kinda thinking we maybe try trickle-up for a few years.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

We are the workers and the consumers. We are the ones who trickle down.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 hours ago

I am the one who trickles.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

We already have that. It’s called political donations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The data is in. Trickle down doesn’t work.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago

(I was being facetious)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Nothing trickles down, we have seen that for decades.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

(I was being facetious)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

That’s reasonable

[+] [email protected] -25 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

"Hey, I'm in the bottom 99%, I like this promise"

You know who else is in the bottom 99%, your fucking landlord. if you pay 1% less tax you can buy a whole bag of doritos if they pay 1% less tax they can buy your Mum's house.

Government only needs to pay lawyers to go after what the 1% already owe and it would be more than any increase would provide.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

You're being a bit obtuse and misleading here, clearly you didn't read the article.

For starters... its not an income level agnostic tax decrease. Its not a flat tax.

Its graduated. Progressive. And it decreases taxes for all but the wealthiest, whose taxes increase.

The group estimated that under Harris' proposals, the poorest 20% of Americans would see an average tax cut of $1,130 in 2026 while the richest 1% would see an average increase of $121,460.

Sad as it is, our political system offers a binary choice.

Would you perhaps prefer the alternative?

EDIT:

If Harris wins, we can also reasonably expect a continuation of the Biden policy of doing that other thing you want, the IRS actually going after people in the 'landlord' brackets for tax evasion.

Has that been as extensive as you or I would prefer?

No.

But the alternative is Trump, who, along with Elon, might just abolish the IRS, or massively defund those efforts.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Is that the difference per bracket, or the net difference per income level? Because I think it’s the latter but I’m not sure

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

The images I used are, I think, shitty thumbnail versions of whats actually on the article as I only have a shit tier 4g phone.

If you go to the article's page itself, you can make out the bracket definitions better.

That being said: (Threw this all in a spoiler so as to not further wall of text this thread)

These x axis are grouped into income tax brackets.

The US Federal income tax has long been broken up into a sort of stair step, series of brackets.

Declare x amount of yearly income, you fall into bracket 1, earn more next year? y amount of income? You may move up to bracket 2.

The brackets precise income level boundaries of the brackets, are updated each year based off of I think CPI (inflation) according to a known and established law and formulation.

This graph indicates the change in the amount of taxes you pay in percentage terms of your precise income.

I'll attempt to explain in detail.

The way to read this... say you're at the very first income bracket, 0 to $28k ish, and that for the sake of example, you make exactly 28k a year.

Right now, you pay... whatever % and amount of taxes as is currently the norm.

Under Kamala's plan, you'll pay 7% of your 28k, or $1960 less in taxes than in the current schema.

Under Trump's plan, you'll pay 4.9% of your 28k, or $1120 more in taxes.

If we go to the other side of the graph... lets say your income is exactly $1 million bucks.

Kamala plan: You pay $41k more in taxes.

Trump plan: You pay $14k less in taxes.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

That comparison graph needs to be shown to all of those swing state voters. It makes it so obvious the poor right are voting against their interests.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I think you accidentally a word or two there, but yes, I can only hope they have a plan for a week of nonstop adds with basically the second graph, and a concise explanation that these are nonpartisan, independent estimates/assessments.

Trump = Your taxes go up, unless you are Elon Musk. (Happy Elon Jumping Pic, followed by crying laid off Tesla worker lady)

Kamala = Your taxes go down, unless you are Elon Musk. (Sad, Crying Elon Pic, followed by one of his Starships fucking exploding, as all his sycophants cheer)

Granted, the MAGA cultists are quite adept at being impervious to basic facts... who knows if anything would actually work on them.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

It needs to be simplified. You'd be rather shocked at how many people can't read the vast majority of standard graphs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

And most wont even be honest in what group they realy are..

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago

Fuck, you're right.

I consistently forget that the average American has a 6th grade reading comprehension level.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Annnnnd there it is. I recall saying she's yet to play the Tax Card, another over-reaching promise a lot of politicians make but we've yet to see happen.

Come on Harris....

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

There's a lot deleted here so I may have missed it but I'm just curious, what would you prefer her to say? Like you are totally right that politicians famously make promises they don't keep but would you prefer her to just say nothing? Or to say the opposite? The other guy has a plan that will increase taxes/costs on everyone but the top 5%. Is that better? Should he also not say anything?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

This isn’t Harris “play[ing] the tax card”, the article isn’t even referencing anything her campaign said.

FTA:

The new analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) follows its in-depth examination of Trump's tax proposals, which the group found would cut taxes for the richest 5% of Americans and raise them for everyone else.

And directly from ITEP’s “Mission & History” page:

ITEP is a non-profit, non-partisan tax policy organization. We conduct rigorous analyses of tax and economic proposals and provide data-driven recommendations to shape equitable and sustainable tax systems.

Source: https://itep.org/about/

Based on the “equitable and sustainable” piece, ITEP probably slants left, sure, but I’d say that’s far more owing to conservative tax policy having no basis in being equitable or sustainable for the past four decades at least.

That all being said there’s literally no reason to make this a dig at Harris, because, you know, the article isn’t referencing anything she or her campaign has publicly said…

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

"On tax policy, Harris carries forward much of President Biden’s FY 2025 budget, including higher taxes aimed at businesses and high earners"

I don't understand people who make the claim that "uh, they didn't directly say or plan it" when that line I just picked from the article, implies that it is a plan of theirs.

I don't care what you or anyone has to say. You either make the plan happen or shut the hell up and stop promising things you can't deliver on.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 hours ago

Cool. Except the thing is I never said this wasn’t Harris’ plan. I said that the article is about an independent review of her plan, and therefore she’s not “play[ing] the tax card”. I would agree she’s “play[ing] the tax card” if she was making a big deal of this all of a sudden out of nowhere, but that’s not happening here.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 hours ago

Woah now, it's SO much easier to make a dig at anything when you refuse to challenge your own, and your friend/family's, personal views.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 9 hours 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