this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
1216 points (97.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
5874 readers
3403 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
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
Tax brackets exist. Which means both the person making 40k and 400k were taxed the same on that first 40k they made. If you raised taxes on people making over 350k they would be taxed at the same rate as everyone else on all the money they make up to 350k, and only the money over 350k (50k) is taxed at the higher rates. 95% of the population does not fall in that 350+ a year grouping.
So your argument is that there are a few outlying cities where making 400k isn't enough, but there is no city in the u.s. that you can't find a place to stay for $5,000 a month....15% of their income. While many Americans are paying over 30% of their income to housing.
400k, you can cut costs in your budget and buy a $50,000 car within a year. 40k, you can cut costs and buy that car... Never.
There is a huge difference between someone making 400k/year and making $25 million/day, yeah. But if you think 95% of the population doesn't deserve a chance to enjoy life because you someday might be taxed the same on your first 350k, and you may have to be taxed higher on the 12.5 percent of your income that you would be paying 100% of towards living quarters if you were in the 40k group.. I think it's greedy.