Just read it and saw no mention of what she considers "middle class"
give me numbers ERA, what salary range are we talking here. What combined income.
In terms of how individuals (as opposed to corporations) are affected, this is what I'm
reading:
If your household ranks in the top 1% in terms of wealth, the way you get taxed on capital "gains" will change. If your capital assets increase in value during a taxable year, you'll have to pay tax on that increase even if you don't sell the asset. Retirement accounts are exempt from this method of taxation. And again, this tax is just for the top 1% wealthiest households. What the cut off is exactly I don't know.
If you're a billionaire, there'll be an additional wealth tax: 6% tax on your net worth that exceeds one billion dollars.
If you trade stocks, bonds, derivatives, there'll be a 0.1% tax on the proceeds of any sale. This can apply to anyone in any income bracket.
The biggest change for most people is that they'll no longer be paying health insurance premiums through their job.
THEY WILL GET THAT MONEY BACK. So, people who have employer-sponsored health insurance will actually see an increase in their take home pay. There'll be no more need for tax-exempt healthcare savings accounts. People who put money into those accounts can now spend that money elsewhere. And obviously, since that money won't be in a tax-exempt account anymore, it'll be "taxable." But if these situations apply to you, you'll necessarily have more money under this plan.
The middle class needs to share some of the burden for something this massive, whatever happened to all that talk on costs?
Do they really though? I know that's what some think tanks have concluded. I guess there seems to be some room for debate on that.