3 ms·

I have noticed that politicians always use extremes (many standard deviations away from the average) to illustrate a population.For example, Warren Buffet wealt

I have noticed that politicians always use extremes (many standard deviations away from the average) to illustrate a population.For example, Warren Buffet wealth is in the top 10. Yet, Warren's policies target the top 1% (top 10 is the top 0.00033% of the top 1%). He is not representative of the top 1% in any way!! Show me the median and let's talk. I am surprised people bite at this manipulative narrative. It seems to me that it discredits their arguments right away. In that sense, voter education would go a long way.

ulkram 5y ago
False. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act would impose a tax on the wealth of the top 0.05 % of Americans (people with > 50 million in wealth).
X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
> The Ultra-Millionaire Tax would apply to the wealthiest 100,000 households in America and generate at least $3 trillion in revenue over the next decade—all without raising taxes on 99.95% of American households. Huh? 0.05% is 20x smaller than 1%
evilos 5y ago
To be top 1% in 2020, a household needed a net worth of $11,099,166. $10,374,030 was the 1% threshold in 2017. To be top .5% in 2020, a household needed a net worth of $17,557,208. The top .1% bracket started around $43,207,732. This wealth tax doesn't kick in until 50M USD. https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-net-worth-percentiles/ https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-net-worth-percentiles/
commandlinefan 5y ago
> I am surprised people bite at this manipulative narrative. I suspect it's people believing what they want to believe. When Elizabeth Warren comes along and says, "you can have everything you need: healthcare, food, clothing, housing, all without having to work at a job you hate, and all we have to do is agree to take a little bit from a few people who won't even miss it", a lot of people who do work at a job they hate and stress about how much healthcare, food, clothing and housing they have or might have in the future don't really see much downside in saying, "yeah, sure, let's try it".

ulkram 5y ago

False. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act would impose a tax on the wealth of the top 0.05 % of Americans (people with > 50 million in wealth).

X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago

> The Ultra-Millionaire Tax would apply to the wealthiest 100,000 households in America and generate at least $3 trillion in revenue over the next decade—all without raising taxes on 99.95% of American households. Huh? 0.05% is 20x smaller than 1%

evilos 5y ago

To be top 1% in 2020, a household needed a net worth of $11,099,166. $10,374,030 was the 1% threshold in 2017. To be top .5% in 2020, a household needed a net worth of $17,557,208. The top .1% bracket started around $43,207,732. This wealth tax doesn't kick in until 50M USD. https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-net-worth-percentiles/ https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-net-worth-percentiles/

commandlinefan 5y ago

> I am surprised people bite at this manipulative narrative. I suspect it's people believing what they want to believe. When Elizabeth Warren comes along and says, "you can have everything you need: healthcare, food, clothing, housing, all without having to work at a job you hate, and all we have to do is agree to take a little bit from a few people who won't even miss it", a lot of people who do work at a job they hate and stress about how much healthcare, food, clothing and housing they have or might have in the future don't really see much downside in saying, "yeah, sure, let's try it".