If there is one thing that I wish journalists would cover better when it comes to taxes is that it’s not that Biden’s tax plan only hits earners making more than $400,00ish *it’s that it applies just to the dollars earned above this threshold*.
These aren’t the exact cutoffs but say the top bracket begins at $400,000 & an earner were to make $450,000–they’d pay $19,800 instead of $18,500 on that last $50,000–a difference of $1,300.
If that is a problem for someone making $450,000, maybe cut back on the avocado toasts.
(Yes the cutoff for the Trump-era marginal bracket begins a little higher but again, we’re only talking about income over this threshold and even then, only with pretty small changes that are basically at the level of random yearly fluctuations for the vast majority of payers.)
Marginal tax rates—the foundation of our income tax system— are the most important thing almost never taught in schools.
Should be as common and regular as sex ed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I can't believe people are still going on about the 1619 Project but the only thing that united its many essays was the argument that Black history, rooted in slavery, is intrinsic to US history. There were like two sentences in the intro essay that generated huge debate....
because they overstated the case. There was one essay on slavery and capitalism (by a non-historian, fwiw). That's a subject that is indeed much debated within scholarly circles and no one is pulling punches.
If you don't sometimes decline to tweet something you believe correct because you just don't want to deal with the inevitable responses *in this particular context* than you will not understand why some scholars might not want to wade in, in print, on slavery & capitalism.
For the past 150 years, the filibuster was routinely used on anything touching civil rights. But go back to the beginning and look at today's claims that the filibuster (a word that, of course, did not yet exist until the mid-19th century) was somehow intrinsic to the Senate:
The people who were actually there at the beginning, even before the Constitution, knew empowering the minority to delay, disrupt, and effectively veto the majority was a recipe for disaster. From Robert Byrd's lectures on the history of the Senate:
Lo and behold, THE VERY FIRST SENATE that sat in 1789 had rules to prevent unlimited debate!
I mean, sure. But more importantly, is there *any* threshold for someone to be able to genuinely and sincerely apologize for past mistakes, especially as a teenager–and yes, that includes saying racist things–and be able to be accepted back into society?
The problem with "never tweet" is that it reveals the problem is just producing evidence of immaturity that all of us go through at some point but many–hopefully most–grow out of.
You probably said things you wish you hadn't as a teenager. I sure did. But should the consequences really be worse only because there's Twitter now?
I think the most remarkable thing about this whole debate is not conservative grandstanders and media reading from still-to-be-published Seuss books while studious ignoring the ones being taken out of print. Or the conflation of copyright owner choices with public censorship.
It's the absence of libraries in these discussions. Public libraries, academic libraries–these books are not locked up. They are still there. And if you're afraid about your libraries losing books, fund them better.
I'll spare you the whole text but it's about as embarrassing and juvenile as you'd expect whitehouse.gov/presidential-a…
Also the suggestion that the NEH and NEA should take $14 million each from their paltry $167 million budgets to build statues instead of supporting genuine arts and scholarship is damning.