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
    35·
    3 days 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.

  • Therobohour@lemmy.world
    71·
    2 days ago

    That completely ass backward,that’s like sone kinda 1600 French king shit right there. Well I hope you all like mass emigration. Once people realise what’s being taken from them and what a better deal they can get literally anywhere else in the world.

  • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    53·
    3 days 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
      10·
      3 days 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.

      • Katrisia@lemm.ee
        6·
        2 days ago

        Also, spite. A German acquaintance tells me that their family is going to vote for the AfD to punish their current government. In my opinion, Harris lost because of similar actions—citizens trying to teach a lesson or punish their party for not being what they want it to be (which is a reasonable wish, but I’m not sure about the action). Argentina also had some resentful voters that led to the clown in power today.

        • gamer@lemm.ee
          2·
          2 days ago

          In my opinion, Harris lost because of similar actions—citizens trying to teach a lesson or punish their party for not being what they want it to be (which is a reasonable wish, but I’m not sure about the action)

          The democrats were doomed to failure from the beginning. They consistently ignored their voters and were almost enthusiastically pushing people to the other side. To this day, most of the democratic leadership doesn’t seem to have learned any lessons.

          But what’s infuriating is that the republicans pushed Trump. The traitor who attempted a violent coup against the American government, and who very clearly had plans to become a dictator and destroy democracy in this country is who they backed for president. If they backed some sane right or center-right candidate, they would have wiped the floor in that election with much more votes, much less drama, and possibly even restored a sense of national unity.

          But nope. The republicans joined the American traitor, and now the entire world is going to suffer for it. If WW3 happens, I hope the equivalent of the Nuremberg trials remembers who got us to this point: it wasn’t the incompetent Democrats, it was the fascist Republicans.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 days ago

          Why not vote for some smaller party though? From what I understand, AfD would keep a lot of the bad (highly regressive tax policies, foreign policy).

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      8·
      3 days 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
        17·
        3 days 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.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      182·
      4 days ago

      I am unironically working on an idea where negative money is a normal feature of an Economy which is needs first. Production based on the requirement to fill those needs. There would be no tax money required to support a government and the negative balance is simply a transparent measurement of the cost of life.

      It would eliminate the concept of purchasing power. And i know that sounds insane on premises. Hence i am still working on it. May require more then a few pages.

      Anyway don’t direct skepticism to it yet. Just know that your joke has been a real life math Problem in my head for a few days now.

      • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
        61·
        4 days ago

        Your idea is kind of sound, but it really depends on how you implement the “negative” money.

        You can just choose not to pay off the public debt. That will, effectively, make you print infinite money, and we all know how much corpos like to use and very much abuse inflation. Your idea’d fall quick.

        An alternative is to charge the provider for the service they’re providing, or someone with deep pockets who could. This seems much sounder of a wax to go to me. For example, if someone is building a hotel with 500 rooms, say they have to build an additional 30 apartments meant to house a 4-member family. Or, say you keep the asinine US health insurance system, but for every procedure they charge, they have to make one for free. Who they give it to is chosen by the government. This is effectively a form of “negative” taxation. Shame it’s basically a revive of the feudal-era “Wheat tax”.

          • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
            3·
            3 days ago

            No need to cry!

            Let me reiterate it - it’s not inherently a bad idea.

            The wheat tax wasn’t inherently bad (well, other than taking food from the already-starving population, but that isn’t the problem of the way the tax inherently works, but of how it is used): the main problem was: it was too successfull. The wheat tax was meant to provide the Church with bread. The church took 10% of every household’s grown wheat and they got way too much, so the wheat spoiled. Then they switched to a monetary tax, since money doesn’t spoil as easily, and they could use it for more stuff than just baking bread.

            These two reasons are why the tax isn’t used anymore. But, again, it’s not inherently a bad idea.

            This model can easily be adapted to work properly. Medical procedures aren’t things that “spoil”, and there’s steady demand for them. It could also work for stuff like housing (anyone building a hotel or an apartment complex for-profit has to make, say, the same 10% for the government), and even retail (if stores had to give even 1 item for every 100 items sold to a public kithen, the kitchens would be overflowing nationwide).

            Honestly, this is the way to go. The capitalists just don’t want that. They’ll be the first ones to point out how it was a feudal-era tax, how people weren’t free, and how it wouldn’t work in reality (when itsure as hell would). They’d say it isn’t practical: foodstuffs spoil, for example - but we’re not living in the Middle ages anymore - we have bookkeeping, abd the government could decide to “take” their “fair share” to the kitchen when the demand, well, demands.

            The first option is very close to this, but the money is a problem. Once we achieve a near-moneyless, near-classless society where inflation isn’t a concern, even that model would work. But, for now we’ll have to stick to this, sincethis is implementable in the current society.

  • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
    271·
    3 days ago

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

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        4·
        2 days ago

        This is so funny because it is 100% the opposite. Violence is everywhere in america and people are completely desensitized to it and is completely fine if it is directed at the poor. Violence on the streets, violence against homeless, shooting your neighbors for pulling up in your driveway to turn, shooting people for not driving how you want, shooting up schools, mass shootings, all completely fine and absolutely no steps are taken against it.

        They are brainwashed into nonviolence against the rich and corporate power and encouraged to use tons of violence against the poor and people that look slightly different than them.

        Perfectly exemplified by fox (most popular “news” station in america, legally can’t call themselves news since they lied too much):

        • Luigi in an inhumane terrorist traitor who should be killed

        • the guy who killed homeless people in the same week: “some say that he is a hero” and praising him for the full news cycle

      • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        231·
        4 days 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
          417·
          4 days 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
            7·
            3 days 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
              21·
              3 days 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
                5·
                3 days 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.

                • glitchdx@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  it’s more nuanced than that.

                  certain kinds of violence are glorified, because that which is forbidden is coveted.

                  Certain kinds of violence are acceptable, because it targets groups that are considered lesser.

                  Ask anyone if “is violence sometimes ok?” and you’ll always get a loud and resounding “no”, and it’s so obviously a lie. You can even get them tripped up in the lie if you ask “what if someone is breaking into your home?” or other questions in which someone else is committing violence first. They’ll begrudgingly admit that sometimes violence is ok, but that’s different! If the person is open minded enough, you might even get to more nuanced scenarios than that, but good luck.

                  We have the largest military spending in the world, and we call it “defense”.

                  Superman and Batman are two of the most iconic characters in fiction, and they Do Not Kill. It’s a big deal if they break that rule, or that piece of media is kinda trash, that happens too. I like to call them “defenders of the status quo”, because the companies that own them (not just them but also other characters that serve the same purpose) won’t ever let them make things better. If they ever try, that’s portrayed as a bad thing. We’re told through these media that the real world as it is, is as good as it gets. The real world sucks ass, the bad guys won, and they’re not even cool bad guys.

                  I think I lost the plot somewhere in there. Time for another drink!

          • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            91·
            4 days 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
            622·
            4 days ago

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

            • optissima@lemmy.ml
              131·
              4 days ago

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

              • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
                14·
                3 days ago

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

                • optissima@lemmy.ml
                  42·
                  3 days 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
        622·
        4 days 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
              8·
              3 days 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
          92·
          3 days ago

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

          • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
            29·
            3 days ago

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

            • ChokingHazard@lemmy.world
              102·
              3 days ago

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

              • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
                38·
                3 days 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
              31·
              3 days 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.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      7·
      3 days 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
      62·
      3 days 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.