Harris tax plan - raising taxes on high earners

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what is wrong, IMO. DH and I are taxed out of half of our paychecks, while billionaires pay nothing! This is how, no matter the party, they screw us in the middle. Half of my paycheck is going to taxes, and no, it is not ok when the millionaires and billionaires pay nothing.
And then, I had to pay full in-state tuition for my kids, who did not even qualify for any aid from BCS. We don't earn that little, but we sure could not afford full rides, either. If my kids were allowed to take student loans, they would have been forgiven now. But they were not allowed to have that option.
No, it is not better for me under republicans because it is all the same for me, no relief ever. I don't qualify for any housing aid, meal programs, or student financial aid, but I sure can't afford an SFH that is the median price for the DMV.

I agree about the billionaires. Every thinking person does. But you can't make more than $400k and whine about "us in the middle." You just can't.

You could also make more than $400k and not ultimately be affected by these changes because your taxable/adjusted gross income will be lower. And you can make more than $400k and be affected by these changes but the effect is likely to be tiny until you get well above the $400k mark (like high 6 figures).

[Anonymous]

So the top 1% already pay the majority of taxes? lol

Let's give 25k for homeowners and increase prices of homes / increase inflation ?

Let's give more student loan forgiveness and that doesn't increase inflation right?

Let's increase taxes on business by 7%, that doesn't increase prices and increase inflation??

The policies are insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys don't understand that the super rich pay the vast majority of all taxes paid? Look it up. Don't make up shit. That's what dems do

The top 1% pay less than half of all federal income taxes. Maybe you think that’s a lot but it’s definitely not the “vast majority” and most people on DCUM probably don’t even consider the top 1% as “super rich”.

Who is making shit up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what is wrong, IMO. DH and I are taxed out of half of our paychecks, while billionaires pay nothing! This is how, no matter the party, they screw us in the middle. Half of my paycheck is going to taxes, and no, it is not ok when the millionaires and billionaires pay nothing.
And then, I had to pay full in-state tuition for my kids, who did not even qualify for any aid from BCS. We don't earn that little, but we sure could not afford full rides, either. If my kids were allowed to take student loans, they would have been forgiven now. But they were not allowed to have that option.
No, it is not better for me under republicans because it is all the same for me, no relief ever. I don't qualify for any housing aid, meal programs, or student financial aid, but I sure can't afford an SFH that is the median price for the DMV.

I agree about the billionaires. Every thinking person does. But you can't make more than $400k and whine about "us in the middle." You just can't.

Making more than 400k and whining about budget says you're bad with money.

My husband and I make about that but we don't buy expensive cars or boats or whatever. I do a lot of donations but I'd be happy to pay more for good schools, clean air and water, and child welfare programs. I don't think I'm better or work harder than people who make less money. I benefited from the social programs created by higher tax rates when I was younger, I'm not going to vote against those opportunities for other kids.

This doesn’t make any sense. Most social programs for kids are provided by states. This post is about the federal income tax. Unless you’re saying you were on Medicare or social security disability as a child, and in that case the programs have only expanded over the last few decades.

So your comment doesn’t make any sense.

Please answer what social programs were created by the federal government through higher tax rates when you were a kid. Waiting for an answer.

Yes because I couldn't have had a disabled family member and gotten federal grants for college. The idea that ordinary people benefit from these things isn't tough to figure out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt this will have the votes to get through, but conceptually I am fine with it.

It can under reconciliation if Democrats control the Senate (which they probably will)

Need sixty votes and the house. Won’t happen. Dems will be lucky to get fifty senators. Montana, Arizona, Maryland, and Ohio currently toss ups. Dems already losing West Virginia and might hold Pennsylvania. If they lose any of the three toss ups, McConnell controls the senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will vote red because of this, much as I despise the Republican social platforms. I have worked too hard for my money to support the party which seeks to take even more of it.

-High earner

I get screwed by the SALT cap, so I’ll vote blue.

-High earner

So did I. Plus 1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hahaha people thinking this will only happen to the top tax bracket. Taxes need to increase for everyone, especially lower tax brackets.

No they don’t. More bang for the buck at the top. The poor pay plenty of taxes already, just not of the sort you are obsessing over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt this will have the votes to get through, but conceptually I am fine with it.

It can under reconciliation if Democrats control the Senate (which they probably will)

Need sixty votes and the house. Won’t happen. Dems will be lucky to get fifty senators. Montana, Arizona, Maryland, and Ohio currently toss ups. Dems already losing West Virginia and might hold Pennsylvania. If they lose any of the three toss ups, McConnell controls the senate.

No, dumbass. You need 50 votes in the Senate under reconciliation rules.

McConnell is retiring.

So you’re now 0-for-2 with your understanding of how the Senate works.

In any scenario in which Harris is president, Democrats control Congress. They would likely control the house and maybe have 53 or 54 seats in the Senate. They pass a budget reconciliation bill, which is pretty much how every tax bill in the last 30 years has been done, and you need only 50 votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make all earned income subject to the social security tax and not just the first $168,600. That would fix a lot.

The reason you cannot do that is then their benefits would soar too. And if you object to THAT you just completely changed SS into a pure welfare program and any semblance of bipartisan support for it (which is already tenuous) disappears.

That's not true under current law. If SS runs a surplus it must be invested in US Treasuries. And that isn't included in the calculation of US national debt and the deficit. And that's how Clinton was able to bring down the deficit. Social security surpluses were invested in US Treasuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the top 1% already pay the majority of taxes? lol

Let's give 25k for homeowners and increase prices of homes / increase inflation ?

Let's give more student loan forgiveness and that doesn't increase inflation right?

Let's increase taxes on business by 7%, that doesn't increase prices and increase inflation??

The policies are insane.

The proposed policies sound like something from the Carter era.

We are destined for more inflation so best thing to do on an individual level is to keep spending and take on as much personal debt as possible.

I levered up in late 2020 when the printing press was cranked up and I’ll certainly take out a loan for a second home if possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make all earned income subject to the social security tax and not just the first $168,600. That would fix a lot.

The reason you cannot do that is then their benefits would soar too. And if you object to THAT you just completely changed SS into a pure welfare program and any semblance of bipartisan support for it (which is already tenuous) disappears.

That's not true under current law. If SS runs a surplus it must be invested in US Treasuries. And that isn't included in the calculation of US national debt and the deficit. And that's how Clinton was able to bring down the deficit. Social security surpluses were invested in US Treasuries.

This has nothing to do with surpluses.

Social security taxes are linked to benefits. There is a max tax and also a max benefit. If you lift the cap on the tax but leave the benefit capped, you have fundamentally changed the nature of the program and gutted the bipartisan support for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This actually sounds fine to me and I'm a high earner. We have to pay for important programs in this country including defense and infrastructure and social safety net programs that all make this a great place to live. This is all pretty marginal and still makes the US one of the most business friendly countries in the world.

I am fine paying a bit more in taxes especially given how incredibly well I've done personally in the last 3 years.

Yes, PP, you should pay for all the undocumented migrants coming in the country too. They will keep on coming and you continue to work hard for them.

[Anonymous]

Harris tax plan is as incoherent as Biden's ability to speak.

Her "plan" is nothing more than feel-good progressive talking points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what is wrong, IMO. DH and I are taxed out of half of our paychecks, while billionaires pay nothing! This is how, no matter the party, they screw us in the middle. Half of my paycheck is going to taxes, and no, it is not ok when the millionaires and billionaires pay nothing.
And then, I had to pay full in-state tuition for my kids, who did not even qualify for any aid from BCS. We don't earn that little, but we sure could not afford full rides, either. If my kids were allowed to take student loans, they would have been forgiven now. But they were not allowed to have that option.
No, it is not better for me under republicans because it is all the same for me, no relief ever. I don't qualify for any housing aid, meal programs, or student financial aid, but I sure can't afford an SFH that is the median price for the DMV.

I agree about the billionaires. Every thinking person does. But you can't make more than $400k and whine about "us in the middle." You just can't.

Making more than 400k and whining about budget says you're bad with money.

My husband and I make about that but we don't buy expensive cars or boats or whatever. I do a lot of donations but I'd be happy to pay more for good schools, clean air and water, and child welfare programs. I don't think I'm better or work harder than people who make less money. I benefited from the social programs created by higher tax rates when I was younger, I'm not going to vote against those opportunities for other kids.

This doesn’t make any sense. Most social programs for kids are provided by states. This post is about the federal income tax. Unless you’re saying you were on Medicare or social security disability as a child, and in that case the programs have only expanded over the last few decades.

So your comment doesn’t make any sense.

Please answer what social programs were created by the federal government through higher tax rates when you were a kid. Waiting for an answer.

Not the PP so I don't know exactly what programs she benefited from, but Medicaid, which provides health insurance for the poor and disabled, is jointly funded by states and the federal government. The food stamp program (SNAP) and WIC program are funded by the federal government. If PP had a disabled parent or a parent who died when she was a child, her family likely received social security benefits, another federal government program. Welfare benefits are administered by the states but funded by the federal government. If her parent was in the military, she may have received all kinds of benefits, including the GI bill tuition assistance. Etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This actually sounds fine to me and I'm a high earner. We have to pay for important programs in this country including defense and infrastructure and social safety net programs that all make this a great place to live. This is all pretty marginal and still makes the US one of the most business friendly countries in the world.

I am fine paying a bit more in taxes especially given how incredibly well I've done personally in the last 3 years.

Yes, PP, you should pay for all the undocumented migrants coming in the country too. They will keep on coming and you continue to work hard for them.

Those undocumented immigrants pay a shitload of taxes, especially into Social Security, and will never get a benefit from the program. They also work a lot harder than you do at anything, you lazy cow.

So, yeah, keep the immigrants coming.

(It’s truly amusing to me how MAGA has convinced itself this is a significant issue in the election for voters. It’s not.)