4 ms·

The problem is that every normal person is just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, so they don't want to raise taxes on themselves in the future. This is no

• cheald 8y ago
  That's actually not quite as incorrect as we might intuit; we talk about the top 1% and earnings quintiles and such as though they're static fixtures, but mobility in and out of those positions is actually pretty robust. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-to-riches-to-rags.html?smid=pl-share https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-... TL;DR: > It turns out that 12% of the population will find themselves in the top 1% of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39% of Americans will spend a year in the top 5% of the income distribution, 56% will find themselves in the top 10%, and a whopping 73% will spend a year in the top 20% of the income distribution. The reverse side of that phenomenon applies, as well - a significant portion of the population will find themselves in the _bottom_ part of the distribution at some point in their lifetimes, as well.
• matte_black 8y ago
  I'm sick and tired of hearing this refrain. It assumes people have no internal values and just vote for things based on how it will personally benefit them, which is not true. People can and do vote for things that give no benefits to them if it aligns with their concept of fairness. In this case, if you believe a person deserves to keep as much of their income as possible, you will vote for lower taxes, because it feels right.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]