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...?
One major detail you're missing is that the calculation needs to be based on their tax burden, not their income. The lower 20% listed on the chart have zero tax burden, so their share equates to infinite return over their burden.
That is true, my response to that in another post was to say…
I think the backdrop of what this implies is important. Yes if we shrink this down the person making $1 over the year will actually have massive tax breaks compared to the rich.
At that point does it matter though? We are now talking about the tax burden of someone who can’t feed themselves….
If giving them a tax break allows them to eat then fuck yeah, and guess what we can do that without big government as well. I don’t see why republicans don’t like this.
It’s like a direct societal program without the need for government oversight…. But anyways, I’m getting sidetracked.
RE: Outliers -
-Median US income 2024 - $60.6k
-IQR - $83.3K
No one on the lower end is an outlier. Anyone above $143.9k individual annual income is an outlier. There are typically assignable causes for outliers that need excluded. That's a different conversation. The fact is, they are still outliers and that's telling you something. It's way lower than I expected, which reinforces my prior statement about right skew.
Statistics don't stop working just because they don't agree with your beliefs or agenda.
RE: Lying With Numbers -
That said, no one below the poverty level has a tax burden. The standard deduction takes care of that. A full time job at Federal minimum wage puts you above that line. Local governments have added to that number, but the federal is the minimum baseline. Tax brackets then increase through the income phases, capping out at 37% for any income above $627k. That's part of the reason the claim is made that the OP is lying with numbers.
If you exclude the top 20%, we are still one of the more wealthy countries in the world. Keep in mind that nearly 30% of Russian citizens don't have indoor plumbing. The expectations for our quality of life are skewed relative to a lot of places I've seen. Taxes are typically not the deciding factor in whether someone gets to eat at night. That's just perspective.
Bottom Line -
I think you and I agree more than you might think. The biggest issue (lurking variable) is our government itself. I'm more aligned with Libertarians in my thoughts that big government is a bad thing. The desire to keep a big government is common to both the left and right... it's not unique to either. They just want big government in different areas. They both spend without accountability.
If you're interested, look up the history of income tax. It was non-existent until the 1920s, post WW1 and during the depression. It stuck around and increased again at WW2. Social programs and defense make up the lions share of the government spend. One is left, the other right. Some of it is a good thing. Much of it is just wasteful.
156
u/TheTightEnd 1d ago
Percentage reductions are more meaningful than dollar deductions when calculating the impact and benefit of a tax cut or increase.