[ninja3925]

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.

[evilos]

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/

[X6S1x6Okd1st]

> 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%

[ulkram]

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).

[commandlinefan]

> 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".