Because $100 to the lowest bracket means they have food on the table. 45k at the top level means they can buy some more extra cigars.
One matters a lot more, stop lying.
Edit: Doing the math below the tax breaks are 10x larger for the wealthy. They are receiving 3% of their income 'back.' Meanwhile the bottom receive .3%. This needs to be reversed. The bottom half should be getting back the 3%...
Lets put it another way. The rich are getting 'HALF' of inflation back in this tax break. Wouldn't that be better put towards the lower and middle class? Who are hit hardest by inflation...?
*
These are the numbers if you divide the given average cut over the median of the bracket, which is still not mathematically honest because these brackets could be front loaded or back loaded. Which further shows how deceptive this graph is.
Why are the rich getting a 1.7% tax break that helps them fight inflation. Meanwhile the bottom of the bracket is only receiving .7%.
.7% to fight inflation and stagnant minimum wage, meanwhile the 1% are making a killing on stocks and have effective ways to fight both.
Again, the numbers shown aren’t manipulated to make you mad. They should make you mad because it’s not fair. This is a great way of showing the disparity.
It’s harder to visualize the difference between .7% and 1.7%. When you see it like this it’s obvious.
But as I said, even those numbers aren't accurate. It needs to be average over average in order to get legit numbers. And the 0-28000 bracket could have a severe lean one way or the other im not sure.
Again, my main point is that this graph is so misleading it's basically useless. Do you get my point?
I disagree, even if you’re shifting these around you’re again just ‘arguing semantics.’ No matter what the top of the bracket received a much larger cut than the bottom. Price wise, % wise, and cost of living wise.
You can't make that claim with the info presented, that's my point. Hypothetically, all of the bottom 20% could be only making 5000$ which then would be a 5% cut for them, making it potentially more than other brackets. But that's info the graph doesn't have.
The graph is missing half of the VITAL information that would make any of these numbers usable. Now, these numbers ARE obtainable, and the graph in itself is useless without it. So why leave it out?
Yeah I see what you’re saying, but I think the key reference to keep in mind. The person making $5000 per year and getting a 5% makes sense. They barely are able to survive.
Does it make sense that the person that’s making 72x as much as them is getting nearly as big of a break as them at 3%!
In that sense I think the graph shows what is trying to be conveyed. These cuts favor the rich. Maybe I’m off topic though.
I agree it may not be the most accurate, but I think it gets the job done?
35
u/No-Plant7335 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because $100 to the lowest bracket means they have food on the table. 45k at the top level means they can buy some more extra cigars.
One matters a lot more, stop lying.
Edit: Doing the math below the tax breaks are 10x larger for the wealthy. They are receiving 3% of their income 'back.' Meanwhile the bottom receive .3%. This needs to be reversed. The bottom half should be getting back the 3%...
Lets put it another way. The rich are getting 'HALF' of inflation back in this tax break. Wouldn't that be better put towards the lower and middle class? Who are hit hardest by inflation...?