The Last 4 Years.

Let's review your math. From you article the top 1% had their tax rates reduced from nearly 40% to 20% while the average middle class earner had a tax break of a thousand bucks. Does it needed to be pointed out that a 20% decrease at the income levels of the top 1% is a much much larger number than $1,000? So obviously the top 1% benefitted far more than the average worker. Kamala is looking to change that and have the top 1% pay more and the average American pay less.

If you pay 20k per year in taxes and I pay 10k per year in taxes, then they cut your rate 5% and mine receives a higher cut of 7.5%, you would still "get" more money than me because you paid more. You would get to keep an extra 1k and I would get to keep an extra 750. Is this unfair? No, it makes sense, if you pay more you could keep more actual dollars even if my tax rate cut was higher.

Note - I was already responding to your original post, while it looks like you were editing.

But he most definitely paid less in taxes than you did in so many years. Is it really news to you that the ultra wealthy have ways to get out of paying their fair share of taxes?

Well many of us will work to change the laws by casting our votes in November.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

I honestly don't understand why Average Americans who work hard for their money get upset and scream when a Politician wants the top 1% to pay their share? Those top 1 % don't care about the average American quite contrary they want the average Americans to pay more to cover their share. How many on this Board personally know someone in the Top 1%(100,000,000 mill) and that increase would hurt them? People /Voters need perspective.

If you pay 20k per year in taxes and I pay 10k per year in taxes, then they cut your rate 5% and mine receives a higher cut of 7.5%, you would still "get" more money than me because you paid more. You would get to keep an extra 1k and I would get to keep an extra 750. Is this unfair? No, it makes sense, if you pay more you could keep more actual dollars even if my tax rate cut was higher.

Note - I was already responding to your original post, while it looks like you were editing.

I had edited my post because I misread yours. We both agree that a tax break will beneifit the 1% far more than the average worker. So therefore the tax breaks benefitted the ultra wealthy far more than Sam the butcher as I have always claimed. Kamala is simply trying to change that.

It's no secret that the ultra rich pay very little in taxes, as I have posted in the other thread Trump literally bragged about it. Well some of feel that is very very wrong.

I had edited my post because I misread yours. But tell me how I am wrong when I say a big tax break to a 1% would not be substantially higher than the $1,000 average tax break the middle class realized. So therefore the tax breaks benefitted the ultra wealthy far more than Sam the butcher as I have always claimed.

Looking at total dollars is the wrong way to look at it, that's why you're wrong. The top 1% tax rate dropped from 39.6% to 37%. Middle class dropped from 25% to 22% and lower middle class dropped from 15% to 12%.

3% >>> 2.6%

So the middle class got to keep a higher % of their income and pay a drastically lower tax rate in general.

If Kamala wants to drop my tax rate even lower than 22%, I'll take it. Is that what she's proposing? I haven't seen that anywhere.

When looking at any stat, you can't just look at the total number. You have to look at %'s, ratio's, per capita, etc.

Looking at total dollars is the wrong way to look at it, that's why you're wrong. The top 1% tax rate dropped from 39.6% to 37%. Middle class dropped from 25% to 22% and lower middle class dropped from 15% to 12%.

3% >>> 2.6%

So the middle class got to keep a higher % of their income and pay a drastically lower tax rate in general.

If Kamala wants to drop my tax rate even lower than 22%, I'll take it. Is that what she's proposing? I haven't seen that anywhere.

When looking at any stat, you can't just look at the total number. You have to look at %'s, ratio's, per capita, etc.

You make a fair point however as I said in my edited post (you are too quick for me) it's no secret that the ultra wealthy have ways to pay very little in taxes. Trump literally bragged about it and said it was smart and if you don't like it get the laws changed, which I totally agree with. However something is terribly wrong when a man like Donald Trump paid far less in taxes than you did. So I'm voting for the person who will fight to change that.

It's no secret that the ultra rich pay very little in taxes, as I have posted in the other thread Trump literally bragged about it. Well some of feel that is very very wrong.

You make a fair point however as I said in my edited post (you are too quick for me) it's no secret that the ultra wealthy have ways to pay very little in taxes. Trump literally bragged about it and said it was smart and if you don't like it get the laws changed, which I totally agree with. However something is terribly wrong when a man like Donald Trump paid far less in taxes than you did. So I'm voting for the person who will fight to change that.

Outside of the tax rate themselves, the tax code is definitely one big, convoluted cluster-fuck that benefits the wealthy. They have the money to bribe the politicians to write favorable tax codes and they have the money to pay high-profile accountants/tax preparers to avoid as many taxes as possible once its time to pay. I agree w/ you, that this definitely isn't right.

But politicians write all of these tax codes, including Kamala Harris. Democrats are just as responsible as writing all the bullshit tax-codes as republicans are. I don't buy for a second, that the tax code will change any more with her as President, than it did under anyone else. Every democratic presidential candidate says they're going to make these drastic changes. Biden didn't do it, Obama didn't do it, and Harris won't do it either. To be fair to them, I don't even know if it's possible for a president to really do anything anyways, because most of congress also benefits from the current system (both sides). It's just a great talking point you can throw out there every election.

If she wins and actually manages to accomplish that, then I'll tip my hat to her. But it's all political-speak to me until proven otherwise.

Give me a flat tax, with no write-offs or anything. No one pays any taxes on the 1st 50K they make or 100k for joint filers, then everything above that is taxed at 25% (give or take a couple % points). That's it, that's the tax code. Of course it will never pass because then both sides can't use taxes as a political weapon, all the rich fuckers can't bribe anyone, and politicians don't get their kickbacks.

The main reason I'm conservative is I don't trust our federal government. I want as limited as a government as possible, including things like drastically simplyfying the tax code.

Tax rates assuming I was in the same tax group now since I started working in 1999 and going through 2024:

2018 - 2024: 24.00%
2003 - 2017: 28.00%
2002: 30%
2001: 30.5%
1999 - 2000: 31%

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/

Yeah, sign me up for the Trump tax plan over any other president since I've been working. If Kamala wins, I hope my fair share/middle class taxes do not increase past 24.00%.

You make a fair point however as I said in my edited post (you are too quick for me) it's no secret that the ultra wealthy have ways to pay very little in taxes. Trump literally bragged about it and said it was smart and if you don't like it get the laws changed, which I totally agree with. However something is terribly wrong when a man like Donald Trump paid far less in taxes than you did. So I'm voting for the person who will fight to change that.

Which is why the Dems rate increases hurt the middle and lower classes more than they hurt the rich. The problem with the Dems taxing plans (and has always been that problem) are the deductions, exemptions, the shelters etc. that benefit the rich. Why do you think many maybe even most of the rich support the Dems more than the GOP? Dem plans always seem to include tax incentives for targeted areas most of which benefit the wealthy. Example Obamas tax plans incentive to buy electric cars which at the time only the very wealthy could afford to take advantage of.

Seems you're the one with the wrong information............

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/03/18/fact-sheet-celebrating-affordable-care-act.html#:~:text=Since%20its%20enactment%20on%20Ma rch,LGBTQI%2B%20and%20communities%20of%20color.

Since its enactment on March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act has led to an historic advancement of health equity in the United States. This landmark law improved the health of all Americans, including women and families, kids, older adults, people with disabilities, LGBTQI+ and communities of color. Thanks to the ACA, millions more Americans have gained health coverage without limits, and protections are in place for people with preexisting conditions. People have access to essential health benefits, including preventive and rehabilitative care, prescription drugs, wellness visits and contraceptives, mental health and substance use treatment, among many others. The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to building on the success of the ACA and making health care a right for all Americans................

Hit the link for more............

Yes those poor people that now have health insurance can afford that $10,000 deductible they are still flocking to Hospitals for care. Having access and affording the deductible are two different things. There are still 25 million without coverage.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-insurance.htm

Outside of the tax rate themselves, the tax code is definitely one big, convoluted cluster-fuck that benefits the wealthy. They have the money to bribe the politicians to write favorable tax codes and they have the money to pay high-profile accountants/tax preparers to avoid as many taxes as possible once its time to pay. I agree w/ you, that this definitely isn't right.

But politicians write all of these tax codes, including Kamala Harris. Democrats are just as responsible as writing all the bullshit tax-codes as republicans are. I don't buy for a second, that the tax code will change any more with her as President, than it did under anyone else. Every democratic presidential candidate says they're going to make these drastic changes. Biden didn't do it, Obama didn't do it, and Harris won't do it either. To be fair to them, I don't even know if it's possible for a president to really do anything anyways, because most of congress also benefits from the current system (both sides). It's just a great talking point you can throw out there every election.

If she wins and actually manages to accomplish that, then I'll tip my hat to her. But it's all political-speak to me until proven otherwise.

Give me a flat tax, with no write-offs or anything. No one pays any taxes on the 1st 50K they make or 100k for joint filers, then everything above that is taxed at 25% (give or take a couple % points). That's it, that's the tax code. Of course it will never pass because then both sides can't use taxes as a political weapon, all the rich fuckers can't bribe anyone, and politicians don't get their kickbacks.

The main reason I'm conservative is I don't trust our federal government. I want as limited as a government as possible, including things like drastically simplyfying the tax code.

I agree that democrats are equally to blame. Both of them serve their corporate overlords and their big donors. When I hear things such as huge increases in campaign contributions I know it just means bought favors.

I however am not sold on the flat tax just because 25% (going with the example) to someone making 51K is a much bigger impact than some one making 200k. I don't have the answers. While I have been told I am aesthetically pleasing to look at I am not nearly handsome enough to be a politician.