Harris tax plan - raising taxes on high earners

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all of the haters, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid more than $1 trillion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $531 billion. The share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent increased from 33.2 percent in 2001 to 45.8 percent in 2021.

(This article was updated in 2024.)

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20top%201%20percent%20of%20taxpayers%20paid%20more%20than%20%241,to%2045.8%20percent%20in%202021.

ok? You think trying to get blood from a rock makes sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris’s tax plan includes a tax on unrealized capital gains. That’s a huge tax hike on everyone with an IRA, 401k, or brokerage account. People who aren’t rich also have these accounts and will owe this new tax under her plan.

This is only for people with $100 million in wealth, and even then only a subset of them: https://www.axios.com/2024/08/23/kamala-harris-unrealized-capital-gains-tax

It won't stop there and it will begin to impact normal people. This threshold will get lower overtime and it will eventually be used to take money from almost everyone that is not broke. The income tax used to only apply to super rich people when it came out and now almost everyone pays it. Also, the fact that the tax is explicitly tied to a specific level of wealth probably makes the tax unconstitutional at the federal level. Taxing unrealized gains is no necessarily unconstitutional, but an unrealized gain tax conditional on net worth is likely illegal.

Trump and cronies have said that they will go after people that "illegally prosecuted him". It won't stop there. Over time, this will just expand to cover anyone and everyone that has ever posted anything negative about Trump. They will force social media companies to turn over records of prior posts and throw everyone in jail and torture them.
Trump has also said he will stop illegal immigration. This 'threshold' will get lower over time and he will stop all immigration. He will also cancel immigrants who have become citizens and deport them after confiscating their property.
He doesn't have to worry about the constitution because the SC is stacked with his cronies.

See how it works both ways?

Reality is, it takes congress to pass such laws and the senate is not about to give away its power by dropping the filibuster and enabling these drastic tax changes. About 20% of this (esp. tax on high income/assets) MAY come to pass. Chill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all of the haters, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid more than $1 trillion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $531 billion. The share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent increased from 33.2 percent in 2001 to 45.8 percent in 2021.

(This article was updated in 2024.)

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20top%201%20percent%20of%20taxpayers%20paid%20more%20than%20%241,to%2045.8%20percent%20in%202021.

No do wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of the haters, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid more than $1 trillion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $531 billion. The share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent increased from 33.2 percent in 2001 to 45.8 percent in 2021.

(This article was updated in 2024.)

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20top%201%20percent%20of%20taxpayers%20paid%20more%20than%20%241,to%2045.8%20percent%20in%202021.

No do wealth.

Sorry that should say NOW do wealth.

[Anonymous]

[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We would be subject to higher taxes. That is ok.

Regardless of how much you do or don't make, working half of your week to pay the government is not okay.

Seriously. It’s like Harris wants to tank economic growth.

This is my concern. Lower economic growth means less for everyone.

Harris's campaign has said she supports Biden's budget proposal.

Estimates are that it would decrease GDP by 1.6%, wages by 1.1% and American incomes by 1.3%. These are large decreases.

Raising the corporate tax rate factors in heavily. 28% is high on a global comparison basis and would cause corporations to cut employees, reduce wages, or relocate abroad or a combination thereof.

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/biden-budget-2025-tax-proposals/

(1) the tax foundation is a libertarian organization that promotes the flat tax. (2) the general equilibrium model used to perform this analysis has been criticized for failing to accurately capture the impacts of broader policy changes. (3) the models employed by the tax foundation are based on assumptions derived from “trickle down” economics, which has been criticized for failing to appropriately capture policy impacts across the economic spectrum (by favoring those on the higher end of the spectrum and giving their benefits an outsized impact).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We would be subject to higher taxes. That is ok.

Regardless of how much you do or don't make, working half of your week to pay the government is not okay.

Seriously. It’s like Harris wants to tank economic growth.

This is my concern. Lower economic growth means less for everyone.

Harris's campaign has said she supports Biden's budget proposal.

Estimates are that it would decrease GDP by 1.6%, wages by 1.1% and American incomes by 1.3%. These are large decreases.

Raising the corporate tax rate factors in heavily. 28% is high on a global comparison basis and would cause corporations to cut employees, reduce wages, or relocate abroad or a combination thereof.

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/biden-budget-2025-tax-proposals/

Obama’s tax increases didn’t impact economic growth.

“President Barack Obama’s 2013 tax increases for wealthy Americans neither slowed their income growth nor hurt the economy, according to a study that taps into a key debate in the current presidential race.

The top 1 percent of earners managed to increase their share of the nation’s income at about the same pace after their taxes were raised as they had before, according to the study , released Thursday by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at University of California, Berkeley.”

https://apnews.com/article/87553d69f3294e1fb3d0a5912f2e6e31

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

Indeed I do, so I don't complain.

And I'm an Independent. Our HHI is less than yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We would be subject to higher taxes. That is ok.

Regardless of how much you do or don't make, working half of your week to pay the government is not okay.

Seriously. It’s like Harris wants to tank economic growth.

This is my concern. Lower economic growth means less for everyone.

Harris's campaign has said she supports Biden's budget proposal.

Estimates are that it would decrease GDP by 1.6%, wages by 1.1% and American incomes by 1.3%. These are large decreases.

Raising the corporate tax rate factors in heavily. 28% is high on a global comparison basis and would cause corporations to cut employees, reduce wages, or relocate abroad or a combination thereof.

Are you about to use the phrase "job creators"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

OP (of the original comment on disincentivization). Yes. Gratifying to see I'm not the only one feeling this way. Hard work and innovation is the engine, the backbone, the heart of our country. Yes, my selfish desires for myself and the people I love fuel my work ethic. Higher taxation chips away at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.