Because the way marginal taxation works if you make 300k you paid all those extra brackets tax hikes before you got to 300k and started seeing the lower marginal rate.
So to see your impact you add every changed number from the left up to your income, that’s your impact.
Yes it takes a positive turn at 300k, but you’re already deep in the whole and don’t turn to actually positive until around the final bracket.
Why should it be better over $300k though? Thats a tiny tiny percentage of the population who very likely already has more money than they would need for the rest of their lives if they wuit working today, reguardless of age.
People should not be allowed to hoard wealth like that.
This graph should be savings early on, which still benefit those people, because, as you mentioned, it adds them up, but at some point, it gets worse.
Incentivise “spread the wealth”. Lift everyone up, because by 300k, you are good, let others get more.
I know how marginal taxes work and you didn’t address my question. If the tax on above $300k is less than it was before you are paying less. What is this about something changing at $1 million?
I think what they’re saying (I didn’t look at the data yet) is that while the rate at 300k is lower, that lower rate doesn’t make up for the higher rates that individual will have paid until that point. So for the individual in question, the net positive doesn’t happen until 1m.
Ah yeah. Might just be a bad graph since it says “by income group” and then breaks down by the actual bracket. Not sure exactly which it means still but I think they’re right
But the cuts could start benefiting you at the $300k bracket relative to before. What’s the actual change?
Because the way marginal taxation works if you make 300k you paid all those extra brackets tax hikes before you got to 300k and started seeing the lower marginal rate.
So to see your impact you add every changed number from the left up to your income, that’s your impact.
Yes it takes a positive turn at 300k, but you’re already deep in the whole and don’t turn to actually positive until around the final bracket.
Why should it be better over $300k though? Thats a tiny tiny percentage of the population who very likely already has more money than they would need for the rest of their lives if they wuit working today, reguardless of age.
People should not be allowed to hoard wealth like that.
This graph should be savings early on, which still benefit those people, because, as you mentioned, it adds them up, but at some point, it gets worse.
Incentivise “spread the wealth”. Lift everyone up, because by 300k, you are good, let others get more.
Yeah I definitely wasn’t advocating for that, was just explaining how that worked with marginal tax rates.
I know how marginal taxes work and you didn’t address my question. If the tax on above $300k is less than it was before you are paying less. What is this about something changing at $1 million?
I think what they’re saying (I didn’t look at the data yet) is that while the rate at 300k is lower, that lower rate doesn’t make up for the higher rates that individual will have paid until that point. So for the individual in question, the net positive doesn’t happen until 1m.
Ah yeah. Might just be a bad graph since it says “by income group” and then breaks down by the actual bracket. Not sure exactly which it means still but I think they’re right