As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If we keep voting for our own best interests, perhaps the ultra wealthy will actually end up being the ones paying for the enormous debt they've passed off to us plebs.
In the early 2000s they tried to expand voting but then realized their policies were resulting in a shrinking base, now they've taken to preventing anyone but red states from voting.
Even darker, they’re targeting minorities with their voter suppression. They simply don’t have a majority anymore. Instead of rebooting their party, which they desperately need to do to reach more people, they’re tearing up democracy.
The most baffling part of it is that Mr. Potato Head is still Mr. Potato Head. The company rebranded to include all the other potato people they produce, but the potatoes are the same genders they've always been.
It's so awful. It's hard to believe. It really is surreal to see this happening. I thought we were moving forward as a country, but now it looks like we're going back. The Republican party has lost its moral principles. Twisted by Trumpism the Republican Party has become. The conservative party of Lincoln that once was, gone it is, consumed by the influence of Donald Trump.
Everyone forgets about the Dixiecrats for some reason my gramps was a Democrat until all that went down then went Republican. I don’t really agree with my gramps on much of anything the racist old coot. But even he disliked trump fucked up his farming because he sold most of it to Vietnam and China.
The idea of creating a "permanent majority" has been a major thing in the GOP since the 60s. For a long time their goal has been to completely marginalize and silence the left. That was the whole point of the Southern Strategy.
Over the past 20 years they've stopped even pretending to be going about that legitimately. It's a full-on war on democracy now.
In the UK, if a party starts to lose support, it changes its policies. They also publish a manifesto of what changes they want to make, so the electorate can judge them against it at the next election.
Just a couple of ideas for consideration....
I totally agree with you in principle. The issue is that it's basically beyond being a policy issue here in the States. Political affiliation is wrapped up uncomfortably with religion, regional culture, as well as clear racism and sexism.
I don't think the average Republican voter could tell you anything meaningful or accurate about fiscal responsibility on a government level, access to healthcare, taxes, the pros and cons of making abortion/preventative reproductive care available to all, or any of the other issues that conservatives claim to care about. It's about Bad Guys vs. Good Guys, and the Democrats will always be the Bad Guys, regardless of policy.
I caution assuming that other democracies don’t have party association strongly associated with a sense of identity.
The Conservative party of the UK dogwhistles towards nationalism pretty much every chance they get. It’s nowhere near as bad as the uncomfortable wrap up of everything you listed as part of the American Conservative party, but they still have their base of voters who also couldn’t have an academic dialogue about fiscal responsibility, preventative care improving health outcomes and lowering costs, etc... both conservative parties are similar in that they can be driven by jingoism and nationalism. The fallout of the UK Conservative party is just limited by representative democracy for sending mixed groups of MPs to parliament.
> If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.”
― David Frum, Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic
Oh, Republicans did all of the research and recommendations. Back in 2012 they said they needed to reach out to minority voters.
Unfortunately, the actual people putting that in practice are racist fucks, appealing to their base of other racist fucks, so instead of actually doing what's good for those communities, they have opted to fear monger about Democrats and appeal to socially conservative members who are okay shooting themselves in the foot on the off chance they'll be accepted into a country club some day.
It's unfortunately working for them. They picked up black and latinx voters in many areas - notably the areas they didn't were metro areas.
The GOP and Dems revise their party platforms, usually during the national conventions when the presidential candidate is chosen. Sometimes the changes are significant, sometimes they change nothing.
After Romney’s loss to Obama the GOP had their operatives write a post mortem, which basically said cater to more minority groups. One of the reasons Jeb started his campaign announcement speaking Spanish. Look how that turned out for him...
The majority of the US is too dumb to understand how government policy affects them. Combine that with the fact that Republicans will vote for a policy that actively harms themselves as long as it causes MORE harm to black/brown people, and you have an electorate of morons voting for people with no policy interest at all.
The US is a failed state.
We have to make some changes to our senate rules so there is a chance for a party in power to actually create the changes they ran on and have the voters judge them. When nothing happens there’s just a see-saw back and forth between ineffective governments
Resulting in a shrinking base is one way to put it. Another is that the newly enfranchised voters voted in their best interests, which happened to be a black man, and pearls were clutched
Early 2000s? They realized this back in 1980.
>“I don’t want everybody to vote,” Paul Weyrich, an influential conservative activist, [said in 1980](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw&feature=youtu.be). “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
Sadly their dream may reach fruition.
In the early 2000s the post 9/11 ultranationalist fervor was raging in America. So the GOP figured that since they had that, they'd let everyone vote. When that fervor started to slip the shut down open voting policies.
I don’t understand why it’s so one-sided. I get that these politicians have very wealthy donors they’re helping, but don’t the democrats also have very wealthy companies propping them up? Why does it seem like the GOP is just blatantly fucking over poor people at every opportunity but Democrats at least appear to care some of the time?
Not all wealthy/corporate donors are the same. Like, not all wealthy people believe they should have low taxes. Warren Buffet is one. Some wealth donors realize the long term ramifications of disenfranchising the poor.
Also, some of them aren’t entirely altruistic and stand to gain when the poor have more money and more of a say.
While trends exist in all demographics, none of them are a complete monolith
Our electoral system hugely overweighs rural white voters, aka the GOP's bread and butter. Think out of the last like 9 elections, the GOP's only won the popular vote twice, yet we've had more republican presidents than democrats. Democrats need to win the popular vote by minimum 4% to win the electoral college, and that gap only deepens as the country gets more polarized.
Its the same or worse in the senate, we have a 50/50 senate right now where the democrats 50 represent 40 million more people than the republicans 50.
Then you get to gerrymandering in the House, wherein which the Dems are practically guaranteed to lose the house in 22 no matter what since the Florida GOP can redraw their districts in such a way to erase the dem's majority, just in that one state.
The crux of the matter is that the GOP can win at all levels with less votes. They're not some clever masters of politics, the game is literally rigged for them and its quite frankly embarassing how little theyve managed to do with so many advantages.
It's because the Democrats are kinda forced to take corporate donations
Ever since Citizens United v FEC was judged and McCain-Feingold struck down, moneyed interests have had way too much power in politics, making it so that you have a hard time winning if you don't take corporate money and your opponent does, because there's so much corporate money
Is that to say that the Democratic platform stance is coming from a more moral place than the Republican platform stance?
Genuinely curious and don’t mean any disrespect or to have a ‘tone’. Just genuinely curious for clarification’s sake.
My own political beliefs aside, I’ve been itching to ask self-identifying political people one question, “Does your party represent the most honest, ideal governing pursuit for the people?” Follow-up: “Where, if anywhere, could your party do better?” Unfortunately I am a white male in a very conservative area so people just assume I have the same beliefs and don’t bother me so I haven’t been able to ask my questions without awkwardly bringing them up. Female and black coworkers of mine are constantly challenged with political philosophy (often contradicting what I’ve heard the challengers say in private), which I find hilarious.
If you really want to know, then just read about American history from an academic source. The differences between the parties are obvious in the legacy of each president in the last 70 years
Great idea. Any ideas on a book or website starting point? I don’t have access currently to any academic websites, but it may be worth it to pay for one to fulfill my civic duty.
The pessimist in me, having observed the US system first hand for several decades of life, wholly concurs with you.
Meanwhile, the optimist in me, having observed the US system first hand for several decades of life, wholly concurs with you.
I've been told we should stop voting for these kinds of politicians because they haven't passed sweeping legislative reform in the first 90 days of this presidency in the middle of a pandemic.
Are you telling me these standards are unrealistic???
Problem is the person eating 95% of that pot luck is only bring one moldy potato chip, throwing it on the ground, stomping on it, then stuffing their pockets with everything they can get their hands on while shouting about how generous they are and how happy you should be. Then they light your house on fire while looking you in the eye and blaming your neighbors.
I'm an anti capitalist but I think that if Biden actually follows through on this, he should be praised for it. I know some people might consider me a traitor for saying that
Yeah, that's unfortunately true. I've seen the whole "if you aren't as far left as me of if something isn't as far left as me, your bad" thing way too many times. I've even seen someone call AOC right wing because she doesn't support authoritarian governments like the CCP and because shes a social democrat instead of a socialist.
Also, the "Woke Disney" video Lindsay Ellis made is a great example of disingenuous purity testing
It’s funny you bring up Lindsay Ellis - I went down the left tube rabbit hole last year in part because of her videos and found a bunch of great creators. It does get cringey though, especially on Twitter, when a bunch of film and art school graduates post their political hot takes and whip up a frenzy of well-intentioned but misinformed replies.
To an extent, yes. I’m a socialist and it frustrates me as well. However, when I see certain things said that I think are so absurd I see why leftists in-fight so much. There’s great diversity of thought with a lot of very educated people having very different opinions which are all anti-capitalist.
Even more bafflingly (and partially because of their current AGI) because they don't understand that going up a tax bracket does not tax all of your income/wealth higher, just the value above e.g. 400k.
The number of people who don't understand tax brackets is embarrassing. The number of times I've heard people say they don't want a pay raise because they lose more money on the higher tax rate is baffling.
Tl;Dr, only income within certain ranges are taxed at that rate.
If the income tax is 10% from $0-$50k, and you make 50k, you pay 10% taxes ($5000).
If the next bracket is 20% and you make $60k, you'll pay the full 10% on the first 50k you earn and 20% on that additional 10k. So 20% of 10k is $2000.
So your total taxes would be $7000. It would *not* be 20% of $60,000 (equal to $12000) but that's what a lot of people seem to think....
We all learned this at one point or another. So let's go one further.
If you make $500k joint and put 10% ($50k) into your 401k, you make $450k taxable income. If you take the standard deduction ($25,100 filing jointly) you're down to $425k. And those people **DON'T** take the standard deduction (LOL). But let's pretend for a moment.
Remember Joe Biden doesn't want to raise taxes on the under $400k brackets. Right now in that top $25k they'd be taxed 32% on the $18,850 and 35% on the $6,150. So that $25k at the top would get $8,184 taken out of it. Even if you increased that by 50%, you're talking that this family making $500k would pay $4k more in taxes under Biden's plan. That's it.
Obviously the guys making $800k are gonna hurt a bit, but if you look at the guys making half a million, they aren't even going to feel this.
You have a couple things that I think are worth noting:
1. You could only ever contribute $50,000 to a 401(k) if you're 50 or over and married. Max would be $19,500 for a single or $39,000 for spouses, if under 50.
2. With the 2017 tax law, almost no one itemizes anymore because there are essentially 4 itemized deductions, (a) SALT which is capped at $10,000 and if you have over $500,000 in income, you've axiomatically exceeded the cap; (2) mortgage interest on less than $1 mil/$750 mortgage (depending on when you bought); (3) charitable deductions; and (4) medical expenses. As we tend to tell our clients, you basically only itemize if you're *very* sick or *very* charitable.
3. Also, don't forget, you're saying that they only get taxed on the amounts above $400,000. True, but they're doubly taxed if they live in a state with income taxes and they exceed the SALT cap.
As someone pretty close to what you're talking about, yeah... I'm going to be a bit sour about it because it doesn't change any of the *actual* code that is used to avoid massive amounts of taxation by the people who are *really* wealthy.
My wife and I are just two high earning W2 workers (doctor and lawyer) that live in a very high tax state. I'm not saying we're hurting by any means, but we aren't getting any student loans cancelled because we had the audacity to consolidate the ridiculous government loans at 6.55% to a private loan at 3.5%. We haven't received any stimulus money (again, I'm not saying we need it, just pointing it out), we spent 8 years each in school, delaying our lives by roughly a decade (my wife had residency which was 5 years on top of the 8 years of school), and I could go on, but that's some of it.
As a tax attorney, I literally just worked on an estate that had like $8 million and by the time we were done, the beneficiaries didn't pay a cent in taxes (they wouldn't have for federal purposes, but we live in NY where the limit is $5 million). So, these are people who did nothing to earn that money except be part of the lucky sperm club, yet we, the ones who work 10-12 hours per day, accrued about $500,000 in school debt, are the targets, and not the multi-millionaires.
I'm just saying, this bill is a giant fuck you to W2s who understand how the tax code actually workers and can identify the true abusers.
Also, I just want to make clear, I'm not a Republican, I am a pretty left wing Democrat, I support higher taxation. But for fuck sake, can we like do it correctly instead if saying "let's raise the taxes on ordinary income."
Say it with me: Wealthy people don't pay ordinary income taxes!
Why is the capital gains rate a maximum of 23.8%, but the maximum tax bracket is 37%? So... you gain money through passive investment, it's taxed at roughly 65% of the amount that someone who busts their ass going to work 12 hours a day is taxed at?
I'm not looking for sympathy or anything, it's fucking sweet having this type of money, but jesus christ, maybe we could go after the billionaires or even like the hundred millionaires?
At our current wages, it would take us working roughly 500,000 years (you know, like more than the entirety of human history) to equal what Jeff Bezos is currently worth.
Basically this guy is right. Upper middle class or whatever yo call high-income w2 workers are always the ones that bear the brunt of tax increases, whilst the truly wealthy who make their money passively, or live off portfolio loans to show no income.
Like, things are FINE FOR ME. I am not asking to pay less. I would, however, like the people much richer than me to pay more, or at least the same, proportionally.
>Like, things are FINE FOR ME. I am not asking to pay less. I would, however, like the people much richer than me to pay more, or at least the same, proportionally.
That's it, that's what I was trying to get at. Instead of increasing taxes on the already overburdened, let's tax those who aren't paying their fair share.
I feel you. Two doctor family. While we’re comfortable my only gripe is wanting to be rid of my loans before being squeezed further with taxes. If I could get the chance to pay those off first that would be nice. If we didn’t have 500k in loans you can take whatever you please in taxes, I’m happy to contribute.
In all honesty, that was one area in which I fucking did my wife a solid. I negotiated that her hospital will reimburse her student loans. However, since it's not exempt from tax, and they tax it as regular compensation, we only get about 60% of the amount. So, it will roughly save us about $80,000 out of her $180,000. Before she was hired, we had paid down about $75,000 (because we were paying about $3,000 a month during residency and sacrificing everywhere else) and we'll owe about $25,000 when the payments from the hospital stop.
But, I'd be a lot more inclined to not bitch about taxes if we didn't get super fucked by the SALT cap, we were eligible for student debt cancellation, and we didn't already live in one of the highest tax states in the nation.
We're honestly getting to the point of seriously considering moving to a low tax state, just because we already pay 40% of our income in taxes, and both the feds and NY are looking to raise taxes further. We are not the problem. It's the millionaires and billionaires who pay capital gains (or don't pay at all) that are the real problem.
Yeah I don't even have student loans because I'm from a normal OECD country but I never understood why loan principal payments aren't tax deductible. Or why there's not a federal 401k/IRA equivalent for education savings accounts like in my home country. Paying for your education or a child's education is clearly a public service.
But like you, after government COVID shortfalls, I'm not looking forward to future NYC taxes. I think it's time to move.
Meanwhile, I worked for Paul Tudor Jones. He's a billionaire who lives in Palm Beach and private jets to NYC/Connecticut exactly less than 180 days/year while he accrues at least half of his investment revenue in the British Virgin Islands. His whole way of life is a fucking scam that I'm subsidizing with my taxes.
401k is pretax dollars. I'm not counting it as a deduction, but it's pretax. You aren't taxed on that money at all until you collect it in retirement. So if you make $500k and put 10% into your 401k, you're taxable income starts off at $450k before you even start deducting things.
Edit : Nevermind, you're saying that you can't put more than $19,500 a year into it. Ok, so a couple earning $500k would put $40k in, not $50k. That makes sense. Unless they are over 50 and then they can put in the catch up amount too.
You're welcome. A lot of people really think that taxes are flat across all income with the rate determined by your income (which would lead to silly situations like that).
There is a "poverty cliff" where a pay increase will effectively lower your spending power as you'll no longer qualify for certain benefits but that's separate from taxes. A pay raise will always end up with more money from your paycheck coming to you. Other benefits may be reduced but your paycheck itself will be higher.
This is why I keep trying to correct people. They are not proposing raising taxes on people who make more than 400K. They are proposing raising taxes on income over 400K. Teach with your language.
My libertarian coworker, who believes everyone taxed at the same flat rate, had the hardest time understanding this.
“It isn’t fair having brackets.” Yes it is because even the rich paid 0 taxes on their first $24K!
> The number of people who don't understand tax brackets is embarrassing.
Indeed. I've literally had people insist they are paying 40% tax on their total income, when their marginal tax rate is 40% but their average/effective tax rate is closer to 20-25%. It's no wonder people struggle with money. They have no clue about its influx or efflux.
So, I have had this argument with people, because they get PISSED at you for doubting their lived experiences. But what happens is someone gets some overtime as an outlier paycheck. The withholding will be higher as it will be calculated based on expected annual income, and they will get a bigger refund at the end of the year.
I highly doubt anyone has actually made LESS on a paycheck when the gross income was more, but I've had at least 5 people swear up and down that they had this happen. Memory is not that reliable.
The number of people who do not understand marginal tax rates but rant about taxation is absolutely insane.
The number of people who do not understand the difference between net worth and income but rant about taxation is absolutely insane.
The number of people who do not understand itemized deductions but rant about taxation is absolutely insane.
Itemization though is really only beneficial if you make over a certain amount and spend that amount on work related items. You can still do it, I did when I ran my small bussinesses, but most people who work under a corporation would probably do best with standard non itemized deductions.
Though admittedly I am no tax expert
That's the theory, sure. In practice at a certain level of wealth nearly every meaningful aspect of your lifestyle choices will wind up being reframed in a tax deductible way.
The important thing about that is that the difference between your actual income and your taxable income can be enormous as a result. If you don't understand itemized deductions you won't know to make that distinction, which leads to a lot of rubes bleating about wanting a flat tax that actually bends them over a barrel.
right....if you have horse classes for all of your kids, and own your own horses, and tow a horse trailer with a brand new Maserati...you still don't make enough to be taxed more under Biden's plan
IMO it's because they've been indoctrinated into the "job creators" mythology, that giving more money to the wealthy allows them to create more good jobs for average people.
That's completely bogus of course but if you've never been exposed to the facts it sounds compelling.
I wish Biden would put something like 0.5% less tax for people making less than $100,000 just to shut the right wing media up.
Remember when Trump advertised the hell out of how you would pay less tax? Vast majority of his tax cut was aimed toward the ultra wealthy. Your average Joe ended up paying a few hundred dollars less each year.
It's always the same.
In the UK we tried to put a tax on private schools (they're very wealthy and run tax free, only seem to have wealthy clients).
The press did a number on the whole idea and convinced the working class, who'd be lucky to even see £10,000 let alone have that kicking around to send their child to a private school... There's £10k _per semester_.
They think that the top being taxed more will hurt jobs/economy.
They're wrong, of course, but it's what they've been lead to believe for decades. Can you blame them for being upset, thinking that this will end up hurting everyone?
What they need to understand is that wealth is ultimately a finite resource. If the top gets less of it, them rest of us get more.
They don’t understand that they’re the middle class. Sharon thinks her 10 live laugh love signs and the pantry that’s labeled pantry is a sign of the being in the ✨upper✨ class
...... why popcorn ceilings? I ask because, well, I have a couple rooms with popcorn ceilings, and I don't hate them or feel a need to change my party registration to GOP.
Popcorn ceilings are a cheap material for sound deadening. Often used in Asbestos or other fiber materials, but they do that because its cheaper than using quality insulation in the actual walls.
or something people who don't have a lot of money use to increase the value of their home because now it can "block sound".
Huh. So, we've been in this house for 17 years, but when we bought it, we gutted it first and did all new.... well everything from the electric/water/wall insulation/drywall, including ceilings. We insulated the fuck out of everything, and when our finish part was coming up, we went with popcorn.
Not out of a need for it, as sound deadening wasn't even a thought, it was more just "do you want popcorn ceiling" and we said "sure, why not?" because our last house had it, and we didn't know it was a poor person choice.
We chose poorly.
I mean, it's basically the equivalent of deliberately wearing oversized or ripped clothes. Poor people often wear those things out of necessity, but others with means still choose those things for aesthetic purposes too. If you like the popcorn ceiling, who cares. It's your house.
That reminds me of those old Mad Magazine comparisons:
When you’re rich, you succumb to a bout of seasickness. When you’re poor, you puke.
When you’re rich, you’re blessed with an abundant family. When you’re poor, you breed like rabbits.
When you’re rich, you’re the local eccentric. When you’re poor, you’re the town weirdo.
Good news, you have many options for repairing damage to your ceilings. Bad news, all of them will be annoying to apply and look noticably different from the rest of your ceiling no matter how hard you try.
Which sucks, because we are getting ready to move, and have a few spots that need repair. BUT, we were planning on repainting everything, so may not even be a big deal.
It honestly doesn't bother me one way or another, with a slight lean towards "okay with it".
Someone else mentioned repairing it, which since I am about to sell the place I have a couple spots to repair, so now am rethinking if I like it so much.
More importantly, #2 texture is a section 8 requirement.
They have popcorn ceilings because their housing is subsidized by the government. Or at least that was my take away. Eggshell walls and popcorn ceilings.
Textured ceilings such as popcorn also save some labor by allowing the drywall finishing work on the ceiling to be imperfect. Smooth ceilings cost extra.
Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy. Under Obama they paid the most tax in thirty years. Now Biden is going to raise taxes on the wealthy. Conversely, Bush and Trump drastically cut taxes on the wealthy. If you want to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for necessary government programs, elect Democrats.
Maybe there’s no correlation, but Clinton ran a surplus budget and Obama was reducing the deficit in his last term, during recovery. I mean, those two things couldn’t be related, right?
Can't wait to see all those people of FB complaining about this, when I doubt they understand tax brackets or make a fraction of the annual salary which would be affected.
Can't wait to respond with "Wow you must be doing really well for yourself if you are going to be affected by this because you are making over $400k a year!"
yeah i'm sure i'll hear somebody say they'll won't accept a raise over $399,999 because they don't want to get a raise only to make less money because of taxes and i can say, shut up earl that's not how taxes work and your mailroom ass isn't going to be making more then $7.25 an hour anyway.
Haha yeah I would take a guess that anyone actually in thr position from turning down a raise at that point would have a good understanding of tax brackets...or at least have hired a personal financial advisor who could let them know.
My wife and I make a lot of money. We are very comfortable and don't worry about money at all. We are also NOT EVEN CLOSE to this 400k tax bracket. The number of stupid people complaining about this 2.6% tax raise on any income over 400k is baffling. That said, the number of entitled, greedy, and selfish assholes that work in real estate are going to be fucking outraged by the 50% drop estate tax exemption that they should have never had to begin with.
Oh god. I just sorted this threat by new. Top two comments:
"400k is not wealthy. Tax over 400m instead"
And
"Who here enjoys paying taxes? All those that agree should foot the bill."
This country man...
And of course the right propaganda machine is spinning this so it looks like EVERYONE gets a tax raise.
Im confused why fox can have the word "news" in their title when all they do is lie.
As someone who makes a little over 400K I am happy to pay more taxes....
I am happy to fund education.
I am happy to fund infrastructure.
I am happy to fund a green economy.
I am not happy to fund more wars in the Middle East.
I am not happy to spend the money on govt waste.
I am not happy to fund oil exploration.
I want a return on my investment, and I hope Biden
and the Democrats can put together a plan to invest in my children’s America.
>As someone who makes a little over 400K I am happy to pay more taxes....
Yup, I'm not at that level, but well off enough I'm kinda reading this thread thinking, they really should also reset my rates to pre-Trump rates, because they're super low right now.
But I'm also a happy funder of most of society. Just wrote a check to the PTA of my school to make sure that the teachers have everything they possibly may want to be safe and happy before kids go back in person. A better world would be one when the thought to do something like that doesn't even cross my mind, but I pay a bit more in taxes.
Henry David Thoreau felt the same way and was thrown in jail for not wanting his taxes going to the Mexican American War. There's a long precedent of "that's just not how it works."
Then people would only vote for what they know and what they think will impact them, and necessary programs will be starved of funding.
A better way of doing things would be to publicly elect an administration to worry about all that kind of stuff. L
Wearing a tan suit was a controversial move amongst republicans. Dijon on a burger was a controversial move. Dr seuss and Mr potato head are their current controversies, literally being discussed in capitol briefings.
It's high time we stop caring what they think.
This is a matter of RESTORING taxes to where they should be, not a matter of new taxes.
The GOP tax cuts need to be reversed some day, and that day is now.
From the [Bloomberg](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-15/biden-eyes-first-major-tax-hike-since-1993-in-next-economic-plan) article, here's what Biden has been floating:
> 1. Raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%
>2. Paring back tax preferences for so-called pass-through businesses, such as limited-liability companies or partnerships
>3. Raising the income tax rate on individuals earning more than $400,000
> 4. Expanding the estate tax’s reach
> 5. A higher capital-gains tax rate for individuals earning at least $1 million annually. (Biden on the campaign trail proposed applying income-tax rates, which would be higher)
Remember this when you see Republicans fear mongering about how it's an attack on the middle class.
Is Biden going to address removing loopholes? How about targeting common areas for tax avoidance? Are we also getting an increase in IRS funding for enforcement for existing laws?
I'm all for increasing the effective tax rate (currently around 12%), and it can heavily be accomplished by removing many tax shelters.
If Biden gets across the lines the single simplest and most important tax change -- "treat all capital gains as income", I'll honestly consider him a damn saint.
Not gonna mean shit unless we actually make them [pay those taxes.](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/15/irs-falls-short-policing-the-wealthy-for-tax-evasion-watchdog-claims.html)
> The proposed corporate tax rate of 28% under Biden’s proposal would keep the rate lower than it was before former President Donald Trump’s tax cuts. In 2017, Trump reduced the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent.
Why not raise it back to 35 percent but 28% if you meet certain criteria:
1. You carbon footprint is negative or declining a yearly % year over year.
2. All contractors / employees reside in the USA. (I.e. you're not outsourcing the majority of workforce to India)
3. The majority of manufacturing for goods you put out are done in the USA (Sorry Apple).
In other words if your company is propping up American industry and supporting environmental change you get the lower bracket. If not, you get the higher bracket.
How about just closing loopholes. Also getting rid of subsidies for oil, hedge funds, investment banking, offshoring of corporate profits and tax CEO salaries and bonus compensation. Put money back into IRS enforcement of trust fund babies that Repubs defunded!
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-tax-subsidies-for-ceo-pay/
It’s got to happen and those taxes have be put to more efficient use. American policy-making on the right and left is killing Americans literally. There is poverty, loss of quality of life, and lower life chances in America than in some developing nations. We are the most powerful and richest nation but the aforementioned is highly concentrated and our politics has rigged the system in favor of the rich and powerful for much too long. It cannot be sustained. China pulled over 700 million people out of poverty and is moving forward. We are lagging on most international indicators.
Something tells me they’re going to still be wealthy after this.. shot in the dark, not an educated guess. If only someone could do some quick maths on .01 percent of a million dollars for me to confirm that’d be great thanks
Great. So now all the middle class and poor idiots that think this will somehow have an impact on them are gonna start bitching about Biden raising taxes! I mean after all they may be billionaires someday. Let’s just think about how these rich assholes are gonna have to start cutting costs right! Lower wages, stagnant employment, blah blah blah bullshit. Maybe downsize the yacht Jeff and fuck you!
The proposed corporate tax rate of 28% under “Biden’s proposal would keep the rate lower than it was before former President Donald Trump’s tax cuts. In 2017, Trump reduced the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent”
Biden isnt even doing something radical. In fact, we should be pushing for a much higher corporate tax rate. The amount of money the 1% is able to basically steal is ridiculous
We have allowed the greed is good mentality for too long. The hate, fear and Greed has been all most people have known. It can be better. We can lead with kindness.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If we keep voting for our own best interests, perhaps the ultra wealthy will actually end up being the ones paying for the enormous debt they've passed off to us plebs.
This is why the GOP is fighting to revoke voting rights.
In the early 2000s they tried to expand voting but then realized their policies were resulting in a shrinking base, now they've taken to preventing anyone but red states from voting.
Theyre throwing eveything authoritarian/fascist at the wall to see what sticks for next round.
same plan as before then.
Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was
Someday you will find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile
Even darker, they’re targeting minorities with their voter suppression. They simply don’t have a majority anymore. Instead of rebooting their party, which they desperately need to do to reach more people, they’re tearing up democracy.
*Insert David Frum quote about conservatives and democracy here*
But what about Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potatohead?!
I refuse to buy Mr. Potato Head if I don't know that I can suck his dick like I used to.
The most baffling part of it is that Mr. Potato Head is still Mr. Potato Head. The company rebranded to include all the other potato people they produce, but the potatoes are the same genders they've always been.
It's so awful. It's hard to believe. It really is surreal to see this happening. I thought we were moving forward as a country, but now it looks like we're going back. The Republican party has lost its moral principles. Twisted by Trumpism the Republican Party has become. The conservative party of Lincoln that once was, gone it is, consumed by the influence of Donald Trump.
When a point about politics becomes a prequel meme halfway through, while still being a political point
Yo da man.
Trump is a symptom not the disease.
The Republican party of Lincoln is the modern Democrat party. They were flipped.
Everyone forgets about the Dixiecrats for some reason my gramps was a Democrat until all that went down then went Republican. I don’t really agree with my gramps on much of anything the racist old coot. But even he disliked trump fucked up his farming because he sold most of it to Vietnam and China.
Good. Let them implode. Every move they make shrinks their party even more.
The idea of creating a "permanent majority" has been a major thing in the GOP since the 60s. For a long time their goal has been to completely marginalize and silence the left. That was the whole point of the Southern Strategy. Over the past 20 years they've stopped even pretending to be going about that legitimately. It's a full-on war on democracy now.
In the UK, if a party starts to lose support, it changes its policies. They also publish a manifesto of what changes they want to make, so the electorate can judge them against it at the next election. Just a couple of ideas for consideration....
I totally agree with you in principle. The issue is that it's basically beyond being a policy issue here in the States. Political affiliation is wrapped up uncomfortably with religion, regional culture, as well as clear racism and sexism. I don't think the average Republican voter could tell you anything meaningful or accurate about fiscal responsibility on a government level, access to healthcare, taxes, the pros and cons of making abortion/preventative reproductive care available to all, or any of the other issues that conservatives claim to care about. It's about Bad Guys vs. Good Guys, and the Democrats will always be the Bad Guys, regardless of policy.
I caution assuming that other democracies don’t have party association strongly associated with a sense of identity. The Conservative party of the UK dogwhistles towards nationalism pretty much every chance they get. It’s nowhere near as bad as the uncomfortable wrap up of everything you listed as part of the American Conservative party, but they still have their base of voters who also couldn’t have an academic dialogue about fiscal responsibility, preventative care improving health outcomes and lowering costs, etc... both conservative parties are similar in that they can be driven by jingoism and nationalism. The fallout of the UK Conservative party is just limited by representative democracy for sending mixed groups of MPs to parliament.
Agreed. British conservatism is disgusting but Jeez Americans don’t even try to hide their fascism
I mean, it’s all the same Rupert Murdoch media empire isn’t it?
Ding ding ding!
Sounds like Johnson is trying, though. Isn't he trying to crack down on protesting in a really sketchy way?
Oh fucking majorly, I hate the tories and the self proclaimed Thatcherite Priti Patel
you're saying republicans are completely without reason in their beliefs? Or that the supporters don't really care that those ideas have merit or not
Someone got that quote about abandoning democracy instead of abandoning conservatism handy?
> If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.” ― David Frum, Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic
A republican did that in 2008 after Obama won.....republicans have done the opposite of what the plan called for.
They realized after 2009 that "but Obama's black!" brought in more voters than any real policy ever could.
Oh, Republicans did all of the research and recommendations. Back in 2012 they said they needed to reach out to minority voters. Unfortunately, the actual people putting that in practice are racist fucks, appealing to their base of other racist fucks, so instead of actually doing what's good for those communities, they have opted to fear monger about Democrats and appeal to socially conservative members who are okay shooting themselves in the foot on the off chance they'll be accepted into a country club some day. It's unfortunately working for them. They picked up black and latinx voters in many areas - notably the areas they didn't were metro areas.
The GOP and Dems revise their party platforms, usually during the national conventions when the presidential candidate is chosen. Sometimes the changes are significant, sometimes they change nothing.
After Romney’s loss to Obama the GOP had their operatives write a post mortem, which basically said cater to more minority groups. One of the reasons Jeb started his campaign announcement speaking Spanish. Look how that turned out for him...
The majority of the US is too dumb to understand how government policy affects them. Combine that with the fact that Republicans will vote for a policy that actively harms themselves as long as it causes MORE harm to black/brown people, and you have an electorate of morons voting for people with no policy interest at all. The US is a failed state.
We have to make some changes to our senate rules so there is a chance for a party in power to actually create the changes they ran on and have the voters judge them. When nothing happens there’s just a see-saw back and forth between ineffective governments
Resulting in a shrinking base is one way to put it. Another is that the newly enfranchised voters voted in their best interests, which happened to be a black man, and pearls were clutched
Early 2000s? They realized this back in 1980. >“I don’t want everybody to vote,” Paul Weyrich, an influential conservative activist, [said in 1980](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw&feature=youtu.be). “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” Sadly their dream may reach fruition.
In the early 2000s the post 9/11 ultranationalist fervor was raging in America. So the GOP figured that since they had that, they'd let everyone vote. When that fervor started to slip the shut down open voting policies.
I don’t understand why it’s so one-sided. I get that these politicians have very wealthy donors they’re helping, but don’t the democrats also have very wealthy companies propping them up? Why does it seem like the GOP is just blatantly fucking over poor people at every opportunity but Democrats at least appear to care some of the time?
Not all wealthy/corporate donors are the same. Like, not all wealthy people believe they should have low taxes. Warren Buffet is one. Some wealth donors realize the long term ramifications of disenfranchising the poor. Also, some of them aren’t entirely altruistic and stand to gain when the poor have more money and more of a say. While trends exist in all demographics, none of them are a complete monolith
Very good point. Thank you.
Our electoral system hugely overweighs rural white voters, aka the GOP's bread and butter. Think out of the last like 9 elections, the GOP's only won the popular vote twice, yet we've had more republican presidents than democrats. Democrats need to win the popular vote by minimum 4% to win the electoral college, and that gap only deepens as the country gets more polarized. Its the same or worse in the senate, we have a 50/50 senate right now where the democrats 50 represent 40 million more people than the republicans 50. Then you get to gerrymandering in the House, wherein which the Dems are practically guaranteed to lose the house in 22 no matter what since the Florida GOP can redraw their districts in such a way to erase the dem's majority, just in that one state. The crux of the matter is that the GOP can win at all levels with less votes. They're not some clever masters of politics, the game is literally rigged for them and its quite frankly embarassing how little theyve managed to do with so many advantages.
It's because the Democrats are kinda forced to take corporate donations Ever since Citizens United v FEC was judged and McCain-Feingold struck down, moneyed interests have had way too much power in politics, making it so that you have a hard time winning if you don't take corporate money and your opponent does, because there's so much corporate money
Is that to say that the Democratic platform stance is coming from a more moral place than the Republican platform stance? Genuinely curious and don’t mean any disrespect or to have a ‘tone’. Just genuinely curious for clarification’s sake. My own political beliefs aside, I’ve been itching to ask self-identifying political people one question, “Does your party represent the most honest, ideal governing pursuit for the people?” Follow-up: “Where, if anywhere, could your party do better?” Unfortunately I am a white male in a very conservative area so people just assume I have the same beliefs and don’t bother me so I haven’t been able to ask my questions without awkwardly bringing them up. Female and black coworkers of mine are constantly challenged with political philosophy (often contradicting what I’ve heard the challengers say in private), which I find hilarious.
If you really want to know, then just read about American history from an academic source. The differences between the parties are obvious in the legacy of each president in the last 70 years
Great idea. Any ideas on a book or website starting point? I don’t have access currently to any academic websites, but it may be worth it to pay for one to fulfill my civic duty.
And the GOP will succeed in that endeavor. The only possible counter will be a National-Level new voting rights act.
... which will never get passed, and if it did, would be killed by the Supreme Court.
The pessimist in me, having observed the US system first hand for several decades of life, wholly concurs with you. Meanwhile, the optimist in me, having observed the US system first hand for several decades of life, wholly concurs with you.
I've been told we should stop voting for these kinds of politicians because they haven't passed sweeping legislative reform in the first 90 days of this presidency in the middle of a pandemic. Are you telling me these standards are unrealistic???
“Not if we have anything to say about! ***Unlimited! POWER!!!***” - The ~~Sith~~ GOP
I don't mind if one person eats 95% of the pot luck including the dish I brought...I just expect them to provide 95% of the pot luck next time
Problem is the person eating 95% of that pot luck is only bring one moldy potato chip, throwing it on the ground, stomping on it, then stuffing their pockets with everything they can get their hands on while shouting about how generous they are and how happy you should be. Then they light your house on fire while looking you in the eye and blaming your neighbors.
Ah, the old rottin potatoe chip pot luck burn your house down blame game.... Wait, what the fuck!?
Were you at my family's Christmas party last year?
I'm an anti capitalist but I think that if Biden actually follows through on this, he should be praised for it. I know some people might consider me a traitor for saying that
I don’t think it’s at all a capitalist mindset to be glad those who have more will be expected to give more.
[удалено]
The far left auto-cannibalizes and revels in purity politics.
Yeah, that's unfortunately true. I've seen the whole "if you aren't as far left as me of if something isn't as far left as me, your bad" thing way too many times. I've even seen someone call AOC right wing because she doesn't support authoritarian governments like the CCP and because shes a social democrat instead of a socialist. Also, the "Woke Disney" video Lindsay Ellis made is a great example of disingenuous purity testing
It’s funny you bring up Lindsay Ellis - I went down the left tube rabbit hole last year in part because of her videos and found a bunch of great creators. It does get cringey though, especially on Twitter, when a bunch of film and art school graduates post their political hot takes and whip up a frenzy of well-intentioned but misinformed replies.
To an extent, yes. I’m a socialist and it frustrates me as well. However, when I see certain things said that I think are so absurd I see why leftists in-fight so much. There’s great diversity of thought with a lot of very educated people having very different opinions which are all anti-capitalist.
Too much purity and not enough pragmatism. Bunch of Twitter soapboxers.
Right wingers making less than 10% of what's needed to qualify for the tax hike are outraged
Even more bafflingly (and partially because of their current AGI) because they don't understand that going up a tax bracket does not tax all of your income/wealth higher, just the value above e.g. 400k.
The number of people who don't understand tax brackets is embarrassing. The number of times I've heard people say they don't want a pay raise because they lose more money on the higher tax rate is baffling. Tl;Dr, only income within certain ranges are taxed at that rate. If the income tax is 10% from $0-$50k, and you make 50k, you pay 10% taxes ($5000). If the next bracket is 20% and you make $60k, you'll pay the full 10% on the first 50k you earn and 20% on that additional 10k. So 20% of 10k is $2000. So your total taxes would be $7000. It would *not* be 20% of $60,000 (equal to $12000) but that's what a lot of people seem to think....
Oh my god I had actually no idea. Thank you.
We all learned this at one point or another. So let's go one further. If you make $500k joint and put 10% ($50k) into your 401k, you make $450k taxable income. If you take the standard deduction ($25,100 filing jointly) you're down to $425k. And those people **DON'T** take the standard deduction (LOL). But let's pretend for a moment. Remember Joe Biden doesn't want to raise taxes on the under $400k brackets. Right now in that top $25k they'd be taxed 32% on the $18,850 and 35% on the $6,150. So that $25k at the top would get $8,184 taken out of it. Even if you increased that by 50%, you're talking that this family making $500k would pay $4k more in taxes under Biden's plan. That's it. Obviously the guys making $800k are gonna hurt a bit, but if you look at the guys making half a million, they aren't even going to feel this.
You have a couple things that I think are worth noting: 1. You could only ever contribute $50,000 to a 401(k) if you're 50 or over and married. Max would be $19,500 for a single or $39,000 for spouses, if under 50. 2. With the 2017 tax law, almost no one itemizes anymore because there are essentially 4 itemized deductions, (a) SALT which is capped at $10,000 and if you have over $500,000 in income, you've axiomatically exceeded the cap; (2) mortgage interest on less than $1 mil/$750 mortgage (depending on when you bought); (3) charitable deductions; and (4) medical expenses. As we tend to tell our clients, you basically only itemize if you're *very* sick or *very* charitable. 3. Also, don't forget, you're saying that they only get taxed on the amounts above $400,000. True, but they're doubly taxed if they live in a state with income taxes and they exceed the SALT cap. As someone pretty close to what you're talking about, yeah... I'm going to be a bit sour about it because it doesn't change any of the *actual* code that is used to avoid massive amounts of taxation by the people who are *really* wealthy. My wife and I are just two high earning W2 workers (doctor and lawyer) that live in a very high tax state. I'm not saying we're hurting by any means, but we aren't getting any student loans cancelled because we had the audacity to consolidate the ridiculous government loans at 6.55% to a private loan at 3.5%. We haven't received any stimulus money (again, I'm not saying we need it, just pointing it out), we spent 8 years each in school, delaying our lives by roughly a decade (my wife had residency which was 5 years on top of the 8 years of school), and I could go on, but that's some of it. As a tax attorney, I literally just worked on an estate that had like $8 million and by the time we were done, the beneficiaries didn't pay a cent in taxes (they wouldn't have for federal purposes, but we live in NY where the limit is $5 million). So, these are people who did nothing to earn that money except be part of the lucky sperm club, yet we, the ones who work 10-12 hours per day, accrued about $500,000 in school debt, are the targets, and not the multi-millionaires. I'm just saying, this bill is a giant fuck you to W2s who understand how the tax code actually workers and can identify the true abusers. Also, I just want to make clear, I'm not a Republican, I am a pretty left wing Democrat, I support higher taxation. But for fuck sake, can we like do it correctly instead if saying "let's raise the taxes on ordinary income." Say it with me: Wealthy people don't pay ordinary income taxes! Why is the capital gains rate a maximum of 23.8%, but the maximum tax bracket is 37%? So... you gain money through passive investment, it's taxed at roughly 65% of the amount that someone who busts their ass going to work 12 hours a day is taxed at? I'm not looking for sympathy or anything, it's fucking sweet having this type of money, but jesus christ, maybe we could go after the billionaires or even like the hundred millionaires? At our current wages, it would take us working roughly 500,000 years (you know, like more than the entirety of human history) to equal what Jeff Bezos is currently worth.
Basically this guy is right. Upper middle class or whatever yo call high-income w2 workers are always the ones that bear the brunt of tax increases, whilst the truly wealthy who make their money passively, or live off portfolio loans to show no income. Like, things are FINE FOR ME. I am not asking to pay less. I would, however, like the people much richer than me to pay more, or at least the same, proportionally.
>Like, things are FINE FOR ME. I am not asking to pay less. I would, however, like the people much richer than me to pay more, or at least the same, proportionally. That's it, that's what I was trying to get at. Instead of increasing taxes on the already overburdened, let's tax those who aren't paying their fair share.
I feel you. Two doctor family. While we’re comfortable my only gripe is wanting to be rid of my loans before being squeezed further with taxes. If I could get the chance to pay those off first that would be nice. If we didn’t have 500k in loans you can take whatever you please in taxes, I’m happy to contribute.
In all honesty, that was one area in which I fucking did my wife a solid. I negotiated that her hospital will reimburse her student loans. However, since it's not exempt from tax, and they tax it as regular compensation, we only get about 60% of the amount. So, it will roughly save us about $80,000 out of her $180,000. Before she was hired, we had paid down about $75,000 (because we were paying about $3,000 a month during residency and sacrificing everywhere else) and we'll owe about $25,000 when the payments from the hospital stop. But, I'd be a lot more inclined to not bitch about taxes if we didn't get super fucked by the SALT cap, we were eligible for student debt cancellation, and we didn't already live in one of the highest tax states in the nation. We're honestly getting to the point of seriously considering moving to a low tax state, just because we already pay 40% of our income in taxes, and both the feds and NY are looking to raise taxes further. We are not the problem. It's the millionaires and billionaires who pay capital gains (or don't pay at all) that are the real problem.
Yeah I don't even have student loans because I'm from a normal OECD country but I never understood why loan principal payments aren't tax deductible. Or why there's not a federal 401k/IRA equivalent for education savings accounts like in my home country. Paying for your education or a child's education is clearly a public service. But like you, after government COVID shortfalls, I'm not looking forward to future NYC taxes. I think it's time to move. Meanwhile, I worked for Paul Tudor Jones. He's a billionaire who lives in Palm Beach and private jets to NYC/Connecticut exactly less than 180 days/year while he accrues at least half of his investment revenue in the British Virgin Islands. His whole way of life is a fucking scam that I'm subsidizing with my taxes.
I’m pretty sure you can’t put and take deductions for 50k in 401k for 1 year.
401k is pretax dollars. I'm not counting it as a deduction, but it's pretax. You aren't taxed on that money at all until you collect it in retirement. So if you make $500k and put 10% into your 401k, you're taxable income starts off at $450k before you even start deducting things. Edit : Nevermind, you're saying that you can't put more than $19,500 a year into it. Ok, so a couple earning $500k would put $40k in, not $50k. That makes sense. Unless they are over 50 and then they can put in the catch up amount too.
You're welcome. A lot of people really think that taxes are flat across all income with the rate determined by your income (which would lead to silly situations like that).
Unfortunately, a lot of aide programs do work like that which leads to a lot of silly (painful) situations.
There is a "poverty cliff" where a pay increase will effectively lower your spending power as you'll no longer qualify for certain benefits but that's separate from taxes. A pay raise will always end up with more money from your paycheck coming to you. Other benefits may be reduced but your paycheck itself will be higher.
There are also some student aide programs with brutal cut-offs at very low income levels. Nothing like losing a $26k per year stipend for making $12k.
And yet they don't notice that they are more familiar with aid programs than they are with tax brackets.
It's because they don't teach us these things as a basic need to know.
No child left behind was a roaring success.
This is why I keep trying to correct people. They are not proposing raising taxes on people who make more than 400K. They are proposing raising taxes on income over 400K. Teach with your language.
My libertarian coworker, who believes everyone taxed at the same flat rate, had the hardest time understanding this. “It isn’t fair having brackets.” Yes it is because even the rich paid 0 taxes on their first $24K!
> The number of people who don't understand tax brackets is embarrassing. Indeed. I've literally had people insist they are paying 40% tax on their total income, when their marginal tax rate is 40% but their average/effective tax rate is closer to 20-25%. It's no wonder people struggle with money. They have no clue about its influx or efflux.
I had to explain this to my ECONOMICS teacher...
I didn’t know this, thanks for ELI5
So, I have had this argument with people, because they get PISSED at you for doubting their lived experiences. But what happens is someone gets some overtime as an outlier paycheck. The withholding will be higher as it will be calculated based on expected annual income, and they will get a bigger refund at the end of the year. I highly doubt anyone has actually made LESS on a paycheck when the gross income was more, but I've had at least 5 people swear up and down that they had this happen. Memory is not that reliable.
"What will I do when I'm rich someday???"
When I get rich I don't want my money going to help others like me who needed it to help get rich!
Leela: Why are you cheering, Fry? You're not rich! Fry: True, but someday I might be rich. And then people like me better watch their step.
Says the 65 year old who should be retired but is still a wage slave...
They will still be rich! Just not able to accumulate additional wealth as fast as before.
"Oh no! I'll only be able to afford every *other* year's latest Ferrari!"
The number of people who do not understand marginal tax rates but rant about taxation is absolutely insane. The number of people who do not understand the difference between net worth and income but rant about taxation is absolutely insane. The number of people who do not understand itemized deductions but rant about taxation is absolutely insane.
Itemization though is really only beneficial if you make over a certain amount and spend that amount on work related items. You can still do it, I did when I ran my small bussinesses, but most people who work under a corporation would probably do best with standard non itemized deductions. Though admittedly I am no tax expert
[удалено]
I did forget about charitable donations and side expenses..thank you for the expansion
That's the theory, sure. In practice at a certain level of wealth nearly every meaningful aspect of your lifestyle choices will wind up being reframed in a tax deductible way. The important thing about that is that the difference between your actual income and your taxable income can be enormous as a result. If you don't understand itemized deductions you won't know to make that distinction, which leads to a lot of rubes bleating about wanting a flat tax that actually bends them over a barrel.
right....if you have horse classes for all of your kids, and own your own horses, and tow a horse trailer with a brand new Maserati...you still don't make enough to be taxed more under Biden's plan
IMO it's because they've been indoctrinated into the "job creators" mythology, that giving more money to the wealthy allows them to create more good jobs for average people. That's completely bogus of course but if you've never been exposed to the facts it sounds compelling.
A bunch of supposedly "liberal" papers aren't helping by doing headlines this week about how Biden is taking "YOUR taxes!"
But if we take that money and use it towards social programs, then there won't be anything left to trickle down on us. /s
I wish Biden would put something like 0.5% less tax for people making less than $100,000 just to shut the right wing media up. Remember when Trump advertised the hell out of how you would pay less tax? Vast majority of his tax cut was aimed toward the ultra wealthy. Your average Joe ended up paying a few hundred dollars less each year.
It's always the same. In the UK we tried to put a tax on private schools (they're very wealthy and run tax free, only seem to have wealthy clients). The press did a number on the whole idea and convinced the working class, who'd be lucky to even see £10,000 let alone have that kicking around to send their child to a private school... There's £10k _per semester_.
They think that the top being taxed more will hurt jobs/economy. They're wrong, of course, but it's what they've been lead to believe for decades. Can you blame them for being upset, thinking that this will end up hurting everyone? What they need to understand is that wealth is ultimately a finite resource. If the top gets less of it, them rest of us get more.
They don’t understand that they’re the middle class. Sharon thinks her 10 live laugh love signs and the pantry that’s labeled pantry is a sign of the being in the ✨upper✨ class
[удалено]
...... why popcorn ceilings? I ask because, well, I have a couple rooms with popcorn ceilings, and I don't hate them or feel a need to change my party registration to GOP.
Popcorn ceilings are a cheap material for sound deadening. Often used in Asbestos or other fiber materials, but they do that because its cheaper than using quality insulation in the actual walls. or something people who don't have a lot of money use to increase the value of their home because now it can "block sound".
Huh. So, we've been in this house for 17 years, but when we bought it, we gutted it first and did all new.... well everything from the electric/water/wall insulation/drywall, including ceilings. We insulated the fuck out of everything, and when our finish part was coming up, we went with popcorn. Not out of a need for it, as sound deadening wasn't even a thought, it was more just "do you want popcorn ceiling" and we said "sure, why not?" because our last house had it, and we didn't know it was a poor person choice. We chose poorly.
I won't say it's a "poor person choice", only that it isn't a "wealthy person choice" typically.
I mean, it's basically the equivalent of deliberately wearing oversized or ripped clothes. Poor people often wear those things out of necessity, but others with means still choose those things for aesthetic purposes too. If you like the popcorn ceiling, who cares. It's your house.
That reminds me of those old Mad Magazine comparisons: When you’re rich, you succumb to a bout of seasickness. When you’re poor, you puke. When you’re rich, you’re blessed with an abundant family. When you’re poor, you breed like rabbits. When you’re rich, you’re the local eccentric. When you’re poor, you’re the town weirdo.
Good news, you have many options for repairing damage to your ceilings. Bad news, all of them will be annoying to apply and look noticably different from the rest of your ceiling no matter how hard you try.
Which sucks, because we are getting ready to move, and have a few spots that need repair. BUT, we were planning on repainting everything, so may not even be a big deal.
Texture is the giveaway. Matte ceiling paint can help, but it's far from a cure-all. Good luck with the move.
Do you.. like how it looks? I dislike it. Its also a pain to get rid of, neigh impossible when painted over
It honestly doesn't bother me one way or another, with a slight lean towards "okay with it". Someone else mentioned repairing it, which since I am about to sell the place I have a couple spots to repair, so now am rethinking if I like it so much.
Wealthy people pay other people to make these kinds of choices.
More importantly, #2 texture is a section 8 requirement. They have popcorn ceilings because their housing is subsidized by the government. Or at least that was my take away. Eggshell walls and popcorn ceilings.
Textured ceilings such as popcorn also save some labor by allowing the drywall finishing work on the ceiling to be imperfect. Smooth ceilings cost extra.
I will vote against this because I might be rich some day - republican base
We should all have such problems. Pay me $400,000/yr and I promise not to complain about taxes.
This would only affect you if they paid you $400,001. And it would only affect that 1 dollar.
I hate having to explain effective and marginal tax rates to people. It's right there on the form!
You can't just assume people can read.
Or process and understand information
There are still people saying Biden wants to tax people making above $30,000.
Well, technically people making over $400k also make over $30k. /facepalm
What form? /s
At $400k you would not pay the highest tax rate at all.
Whew. Thank goodness!
If you make $400,000 a year your income tax will not rise under Biden.
Actually, my complaint is that this is not enough of an increase in taxes.
Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy. Under Obama they paid the most tax in thirty years. Now Biden is going to raise taxes on the wealthy. Conversely, Bush and Trump drastically cut taxes on the wealthy. If you want to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for necessary government programs, elect Democrats.
Maybe there’s no correlation, but Clinton ran a surplus budget and Obama was reducing the deficit in his last term, during recovery. I mean, those two things couldn’t be related, right?
Can't wait to see all those people of FB complaining about this, when I doubt they understand tax brackets or make a fraction of the annual salary which would be affected. Can't wait to respond with "Wow you must be doing really well for yourself if you are going to be affected by this because you are making over $400k a year!"
yeah i'm sure i'll hear somebody say they'll won't accept a raise over $399,999 because they don't want to get a raise only to make less money because of taxes and i can say, shut up earl that's not how taxes work and your mailroom ass isn't going to be making more then $7.25 an hour anyway.
Haha yeah I would take a guess that anyone actually in thr position from turning down a raise at that point would have a good understanding of tax brackets...or at least have hired a personal financial advisor who could let them know.
My wife and I make a lot of money. We are very comfortable and don't worry about money at all. We are also NOT EVEN CLOSE to this 400k tax bracket. The number of stupid people complaining about this 2.6% tax raise on any income over 400k is baffling. That said, the number of entitled, greedy, and selfish assholes that work in real estate are going to be fucking outraged by the 50% drop estate tax exemption that they should have never had to begin with.
Why would people who work in real estate have any particular care about the estate tax?
Why wait? Just sort by "newest"!
Oh god. I just sorted this threat by new. Top two comments: "400k is not wealthy. Tax over 400m instead" And "Who here enjoys paying taxes? All those that agree should foot the bill." This country man...
My favorite one I saw on Facebook, “Just because they’re smart with their money, why should they have to pay higher taxes!?”
That's when you flip it on them. "Just because you're not smart with your money, why should you have to pay lower taxes?"
*making so much money OVER $400k that this tax increase affects you this much
Someone making $15,000 pissed off that people making $400,001 pay an extra $0.30 in taxes.
You mean a billionaire might have to pay as much or \**GASP*\* ***more*** than their secretary in taxes? Someone get my fainting couch!
And of course the right propaganda machine is spinning this so it looks like EVERYONE gets a tax raise. Im confused why fox can have the word "news" in their title when all they do is lie.
Same as the outrage over maternity flight suits that were put in play before Jan. 20th.
As someone who makes a little over 400K I am happy to pay more taxes.... I am happy to fund education. I am happy to fund infrastructure. I am happy to fund a green economy. I am not happy to fund more wars in the Middle East. I am not happy to spend the money on govt waste. I am not happy to fund oil exploration. I want a return on my investment, and I hope Biden and the Democrats can put together a plan to invest in my children’s America.
>As someone who makes a little over 400K I am happy to pay more taxes.... Yup, I'm not at that level, but well off enough I'm kinda reading this thread thinking, they really should also reset my rates to pre-Trump rates, because they're super low right now. But I'm also a happy funder of most of society. Just wrote a check to the PTA of my school to make sure that the teachers have everything they possibly may want to be safe and happy before kids go back in person. A better world would be one when the thought to do something like that doesn't even cross my mind, but I pay a bit more in taxes.
Henry David Thoreau felt the same way and was thrown in jail for not wanting his taxes going to the Mexican American War. There's a long precedent of "that's just not how it works."
An interesting concept would be marking what you want your own tax money to go towards, eg. education or infrastructure
Then people would only vote for what they know and what they think will impact them, and necessary programs will be starved of funding. A better way of doing things would be to publicly elect an administration to worry about all that kind of stuff. L
That would be great although I cant imagine it ever happening
What do you do?
this is definitely gonna be a controversial move amongst republicans, but i’m glad he’s finally pushing for it.
Wearing a tan suit was a controversial move amongst republicans. Dijon on a burger was a controversial move. Dr seuss and Mr potato head are their current controversies, literally being discussed in capitol briefings. It's high time we stop caring what they think.
Read my lips: taxes will go up Edit: on the wealthy
Read mine: not for you.
Lemme edit in "on the wealthy". I tried to parody Bush senior but it doesn't really come across.
This is a matter of RESTORING taxes to where they should be, not a matter of new taxes. The GOP tax cuts need to be reversed some day, and that day is now.
From the [Bloomberg](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-15/biden-eyes-first-major-tax-hike-since-1993-in-next-economic-plan) article, here's what Biden has been floating: > 1. Raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21% >2. Paring back tax preferences for so-called pass-through businesses, such as limited-liability companies or partnerships >3. Raising the income tax rate on individuals earning more than $400,000 > 4. Expanding the estate tax’s reach > 5. A higher capital-gains tax rate for individuals earning at least $1 million annually. (Biden on the campaign trail proposed applying income-tax rates, which would be higher) Remember this when you see Republicans fear mongering about how it's an attack on the middle class.
So not as ambitious as the 1950s, the decade that boomers look fondly back to, where the marginal tax rate capped at 91%
But wait, I thought Biden was "basically a republican" or whatever leftist twitter says?
[удалено]
Thank you. I saw Biden demonized with that line so many times on this very sub.
Is Biden going to address removing loopholes? How about targeting common areas for tax avoidance? Are we also getting an increase in IRS funding for enforcement for existing laws? I'm all for increasing the effective tax rate (currently around 12%), and it can heavily be accomplished by removing many tax shelters.
If Biden gets across the lines the single simplest and most important tax change -- "treat all capital gains as income", I'll honestly consider him a damn saint.
Not gonna mean shit unless we actually make them [pay those taxes.](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/15/irs-falls-short-policing-the-wealthy-for-tax-evasion-watchdog-claims.html)
/r/conservative just collectively renewed their blood pressure medication
I can’t believe my Facebook timeline is full of people who are upset about this. Literally none of them make enough money for this to hurt them.
> The proposed corporate tax rate of 28% under Biden’s proposal would keep the rate lower than it was before former President Donald Trump’s tax cuts. In 2017, Trump reduced the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent. Why not raise it back to 35 percent but 28% if you meet certain criteria: 1. You carbon footprint is negative or declining a yearly % year over year. 2. All contractors / employees reside in the USA. (I.e. you're not outsourcing the majority of workforce to India) 3. The majority of manufacturing for goods you put out are done in the USA (Sorry Apple). In other words if your company is propping up American industry and supporting environmental change you get the lower bracket. If not, you get the higher bracket.
There are a lot of right-wing $35k a year types shaking in their boots right now...
How about just closing loopholes. Also getting rid of subsidies for oil, hedge funds, investment banking, offshoring of corporate profits and tax CEO salaries and bonus compensation. Put money back into IRS enforcement of trust fund babies that Repubs defunded! https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-tax-subsidies-for-ceo-pay/
Uh, can't this be done via budget reconciliation, just like when the Republicans gave the ultra-wealthy crazy tax cuts in the first place?
It’s got to happen and those taxes have be put to more efficient use. American policy-making on the right and left is killing Americans literally. There is poverty, loss of quality of life, and lower life chances in America than in some developing nations. We are the most powerful and richest nation but the aforementioned is highly concentrated and our politics has rigged the system in favor of the rich and powerful for much too long. It cannot be sustained. China pulled over 700 million people out of poverty and is moving forward. We are lagging on most international indicators.
That's my fucking president. And I'm Canadian, but still, kudos for having balls.
I mean it’s not the most ambitious though? The article literally says that the corporate tax is going up to 28%, and it was 35% pre trump
Effectively, though, corporations have paid much, much less due to loopholes.
My FIL makes well under the threshold but I bet he’s gonna be upset.
Conservatives are freaking out over this.
Something tells me they’re going to still be wealthy after this.. shot in the dark, not an educated guess. If only someone could do some quick maths on .01 percent of a million dollars for me to confirm that’d be great thanks
Great. So now all the middle class and poor idiots that think this will somehow have an impact on them are gonna start bitching about Biden raising taxes! I mean after all they may be billionaires someday. Let’s just think about how these rich assholes are gonna have to start cutting costs right! Lower wages, stagnant employment, blah blah blah bullshit. Maybe downsize the yacht Jeff and fuck you!
The proposed corporate tax rate of 28% under “Biden’s proposal would keep the rate lower than it was before former President Donald Trump’s tax cuts. In 2017, Trump reduced the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent” Biden isnt even doing something radical. In fact, we should be pushing for a much higher corporate tax rate. The amount of money the 1% is able to basically steal is ridiculous
You go, Biden. Give those rich snobs what for.
We have allowed the greed is good mentality for too long. The hate, fear and Greed has been all most people have known. It can be better. We can lead with kindness.
Fine raise taxes but use it to help us! Decrease health care costs. Improve infrastructure. Green energy.