414
Harris Plan Would Bring Tax Increases for Richest 1% and Cuts for the Bottom 99% | Common Dreams
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
414 points (99.3% liked)
politics
19097 readers
6067 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because the top 1% really isn't that high and they hold 99% of the wealth. The other 99% of people hold 1% of the wealth. What do you think the annual income to be in the 1% is?
I'll put the rest of my response in a spoiler so you can think about it for a second, or comment it if you want, out of curiosity.
spoiler
Most people think the top 1% make millions of dollars annually from the conversations and surveys I've seen. The actual threshold for 1% varies by state, but in 2023, the national average was $652,657. While it is much higher than the average income of ~$37,500, it is not as high as most people think.If there is anyone who thinks that an income of nearly $700k per year doesn't make someone wealthy, you're insane.
We're not talking just "wealthy", we're talking the top 1% of all income.
Most Americans would probably say people making $100k/yr are "wealthy". That's because the average income is less than $40k. There's a difference between just "wealthy" and the top 1% for most people.
Even then, that depends a lot on where you live. $100k/year in California is a lot different than $100k/year in Mississippi.
That's edging toward muddying the point. You could also bring heritage (aka "race") into the argument, or age, or disability, et al, and risk doing the same. No one's debating granular data per geophysical location, etc., as this is a median national income bifurcation topic.
They might also use that term because they confuse it with "rich", and that's a whole other issue: intentionally sub-par (mis)education to maintain the socioeconomic divide.
A third of the wealth in 2021, that didn't increase to 99% since
The top 1% have about 42% of the wealth.
Speaking in broad volumetric terms and then switching to simply stating (see: spoiler) the per annum floor for said 1% is sloppy and misleading. Please include the range that the 1% encompasses, earnings wise, to keep your modeling consistent.