Cant imagine making 30 k a year and having to pay even 1600 in taxes. This is saying it will increase that much.

  • wheres_frank@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 hour ago

    This is such a slap in the face. The tax breaks for the rich will be barely noticeable for them. The increase for everyone else could result in noticeable hardship.

  • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    10 hours ago

    It’s the same in Germany, people listed the actual tax cuts that’ll happen per income bracket for each of the major parties, and surprisingly the nazi party that keeps drumming up the “We’re the common man’s party!!!” is the one that wants to make the rich richer.

    And if you want to make the rich more richer than the fucking FDP, a factually one-man party by a guy that can only comment “But what about Porsche drivers?!” to any problem you put in front of him, wow are you a rich assholes party.

    Remember, fellow Germans: Today we vote. And if on the way out you vote with your fist in the face of a nazi or nazi-sympathizing voter, that’s a bonus!

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Unfortunately, disinformation seems to be the winning strategy.

      From an American: sorry for Facebook, Twitter, all that… Both our parties are kinda bought by big tech, and it’s affecting y’all too.

  • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    The only way the folks who need to see things like these infographics will see them though:

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Looks like income tax is reduced across the board. And the increases come from removal of IRA rebates and adding of tarriffs.

      From your link:

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Yeah, this is what every economist in the country has been saying for the last 3 months. These idiotic tariffs are going to screw every middle to lower class American.

  • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    A tax increase is never fine and Trump is only gonna use it to fund the rich.

    However there will be a tax increase if the US ever get’s social security.

      • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Not OP but, I think the top earners would be taxed more. To the best of my understanding there is currently a cap on social security for the highest earners.

      • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Most countries already have a budget deficit or at least they generally will when they start increasing the social security budget. So when the US starts to really fund a social security system taxes will increase. If you calculate the marginal tax income (so tax paid + the missed social security others get) it means that a lot will see a tax increase as well.

  • viking@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    making 30 k a year and having to pay even 1600 in taxes

    That’s like 5.3%, could that be real? That would be ridiculously low. I just checked and with that same income I’d be paying 2480 in Germany, or 8.3%, and that’s in taxes alone. After social insurances and health insurance the total deduction would be 6450 or 21.5% total.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      That’s not the total, that’s how much the taxes will increase by. So $1600 on top of whatever you’re currently paying. Most of that will be in the form of tariffs on pretty much any goods you buy that aren’t made within the country.

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      LOL to the moon. Factor in the cost of healthcare, a long vacation, a maternity leave and education here. Bet that would cost you WAY over 21.5% here.

    • threeganzi@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I can’t say anything about the validity of the infographic but it says “increase up to” so it’s relative not absolute. So without knowing the current taxation it would be hard to say that tax is low, unless you think the increase is too low. Or am I missing something?

        • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          The actual real poverty line is going to be region dependent. If you grow up in a high income area and end up “only” making 30k a year before taxes, then you’ll be either living with your parents or in your car.

          As to why 1500 dollars extra taxes will break families earning 30000 a year: people and especially families have fixed expenditures needed to survive. After other taxes, rent, food, … there is usually nothing left at the end of the month. Where are these people going to save 1500 dollars? So don’t look at it as 1500 out of 30000, look at it as taking 1500 dollars from someone who has 0 dollars left.

          Edit to add: that 1500 is not total taxes, it’s extra taxes.

          • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            The point is to make living in America under the current administration so shitty that people will revolt. Justifying a crackdown, in which hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die or be incarcerated. And depending on who is backing the revolt, their ideology will replace the current one. And either way, the system of boots and faces will continue.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Gated communities.

      Also, killing doesn’t solve the problem. You have to force transfer of weath/power and that can’t happen if someone is dead.

    • Test_Tickles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      What world are you living in? Only slightly more 1\4 of the US voting population tried to stop fascists from taking over even after the fascists said, “Hey, we’re fascists, and we plan on getting super fascisty up in dis bitch!”. Slightly less than 1\4 of the voting population actively worked to put the fascist in power and the remaining half gave the fascists 2 thumbs up and cheered them on. You are talking like this is some coup, but the US fucking invited them in and handed them the keys to the place. Even with all their tricks and lies and downright illegal activities, it wouldn’t have meant shit if just a small percentage of the rest of the voting population had bothered to vote. So, even if we pretend that we are all Rambo and go on some single-handed “cleansing” of Washington, and we just murder the shit out of them without them lifting a finger to stop us. WTF is that going to do for us? They’ll just be replaced by more monsters because that’s what we chose.

      • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        The population has been made isolated at the community level. There are very few local groups doing any reaction at all to this.

        And violent reactions which are successful are a group action; it’s very seldom an individual, in any era of history, changed the politics by themselves.

        And as long as there are no impromptu gatherings of significant frequency, there will be very little violence.

        The internet is not a replacement for community driven change which powers all social and political movements, peaceful or not.

        The turning point, if there is one, will be lots of local meetings by the thousands , and not until then. No matter how violent or passive the individuals be

        • Muad'dib@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Americans won’t form violent groups because they’re trapped in the mind prison of nonviolence. They think violence is wrong.

          • GeeDubHayduke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            What are you smoking?

            The only country in the whole world with thousands of school shootings annually thinks violence is wrong? The country where the police force is trained to view themselves as an occupying force and civilians are enemy combatants is averse to violence? The country who’s leader is currently cheerleading multiple genocides is peaceful?!?!1?

            Can you even define “violence?” Because this country personifies it.

            • Muad'dib@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              The country’s political classes are violent. The people are trained to be nonviolent. This gives the state a monopoly on violence, which cements their control. Americans will be free when they stop worshipping at the shrine of nonviolence.

              • GeeDubHayduke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                9 hours ago

                You’re right. Right after we stop driving our cars though protestors and shooting people through closed and locked doors we can “stop worshipping at the shrine of nonviolence.”

                “America’s is nonviolent” is probably gonna go down as the singular stupidest thing i read all year. 'grats.

          • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            There is still a lot of violent potential in all this population, it just needs to be nurtured by a working grassroots movement. And that is broken. Just like you can drive a car with a working motor, that has a busted axle; you cannot lead violent people to do things if there is no place to hook up or meet in person.

            This applies to the people who oppose you as much as you, and I mean anyone. So, the current situation is sort of a stabilizing force at the moment

          • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            20 hours ago

            It’s because it IS wrong. Animals resort to violence when they don’t get their way.

            • optissima@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Don’t kid yourself, you’re pro-violence if you’re okay with how the system is now.

              • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                17 hours ago

                Where in what I said did you interpret that I was okay with how the system is?

                • optissima@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 hours ago

                  You just claimed all violence is wrong, in reply to why people are choosing “nonviolence” which is a liberal propagandized view because the entire system is predicated on very active violence, just not in front of the consumers.

                  Also odd to call all animals wrong for “choosing” violence, I’m not certain how you define it, but colloquially violence is either inherently part of how nature works or a choice that is within some human defined morality that cannot be blanket applied to other animals.

      • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Maybe it’s because we’re not animals. Had half of this country been educated enough to see what was coming- we wouldn’t be in this mess. Violence will only make it worse.

            • MadhuGururajan@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              16 hours ago

              In a game theory situation, One actor that obeys laws vs. another that doesn’t tends to eliminate the one that does obeys laws.

              so even hypothetically, we can’t take the high road as it leads to a cliff.

              and don’t be so naive to think the world peace and order we enjoy wasn’t paid for with blood of our ancestors. The rules you hold dearly now didn’t protect your ancestors when they sought to do what’s right.

              Violence is the hallmark of peace.

        • ChokingHazard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Who’s not an animal? Because humans are definitely classified as animals. We’re definitely not plants.

          • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Animals as in- barbaric knuckle-dragging cavemen than can’t handle negativity and adversity without harming others.

            • ChokingHazard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              16 hours ago

              You’re virtue signaling and need to do some deep searching and a review of human history. Be better.

              • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                15 hours ago

                Yeah… being nonviolent absolutely is a virtue. A pretty simple one at that. So I’m hoping the signal is loud and clear. And human history? Really? We used to use the practice of trepanning to release evil spirits from one’s head. Doctors once prescribed cigarettes to patients. History is a bad example to use to justify the present.

                And lastly, you have the nerve to tell me to be better while you try and justify acts of violence?

                Be better indeed- and evolve while you’re at it.

            • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              Sure! NOTHING has been achieved in repelling tyranny or gaining human rights without violence. All of the rights that the Fascist Pedophiles are taking away now were all won through acts of violence or very serious threats thereof. There is NO SITUATION in which tyranny abdicated itself because you begged it to. Not only is violence a legitimate answer to a problem, in political situations it is often the only reasonable response available.

              Also, we are, in fact, animals in a very real and literal sense: “a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.” And animals often fight to survive.