It's just resting.
Posted on 12/10/2012 7:56:08 AM PST by Kaslin
When any government taxes (punishes) a behavior, they get less of that behavior. If they punish making money, people will find ways to avoid making money. When a behavior is rewarded, you get more of it. Nitwit progressives just don’t want to understand. Give more money to help single welfare moms with their kids = more moms and kids on welfare with fathers absent. Tax society’s workers and producers more = get less taxes and less production. It took 70 years for the Soviet Union to collapse from the logical outcome of their policies. How long with it take the US to do the same?
I’ve thought about this. If I’m not living that much better than someone who maxes out on all of the freebies that are out there, why not spend my time raising my own kids instead of having to turn them over to day care providers and public schools? Might they not be better off in the long run. Their dad would be a loser, but at least they’d get to see lots of him!
With a progressive tax system, that is true. Everything OVER $250k may get taxed at 60%, and it would still be worth it to a lot of people.
Where they lose a lot of people is with the surcharge style taxes. I.e. when you hit the $250k number, you have an additional 10% tax on all of your income. So, if you make $249k, your tax bill is X. But if you make $250k, your tax bill is (X+$25k).
In the example above, you take home less money at $250-299k than you do at $249k, at a 50% tax rate. At $300k you break even. If the tax rate is higher, it takes even more to break even.
The question becomes, why bother? You might as well make right up to that limit, unless you are going to make far and above the break even point.
I call BS. If someone really did turn down a promotion or a different higher paying position because of a 39% top marginal rate then that person is an idiot. Who in their right mind would turn down more cash in their pocket?
Those 39% top marginal rates sure did hurt people back in 2000. :rolleyes:
Exactly. Where the hell are these people learning their economics from?
With the price of everything doubling and tripling in the past 10 years, 50k is like earning 1980s wages in 2012.
Ya want to make as little as possible in today's America.
Why in hell would you want to feed and support this government monster more than need be?
I see you don’t understand economics all that well either.
I don’t know anyone that can make the choice between making $249k or $250k.
It's just resting.
This is the kind of "Going Galt" that I've been seeing (heck, I've been DOING) for a number of years. Lots of people not completely off the rails like in Rand's novel ....but only pulling along at about 50% of their capacity.
For instance, my dad was a computer consultant. For a long, long time, he'd only plan to work for a certain number of months a year. He'd say "After I reach X in income, 2 out of every 3 dollars I make goes directly to the government. Why bother?" He'd usually wind up piddling around the house for 4-5 months a year, only working contract gigs if he felt like it, or if one of his customers really, really needed a hand.
He retired completely a few years ago. Said that it was more fun to play with the grandkids than it was to work.
Just recently he told me that, even though his spending is scaled way back, it didn't really change his lifestyle all that much. I'm paying *very* close attention to what he's doing, and learning one heck of a lot. :-)
You on the other hand seem to have no issues with supporting government by giving corrupt government more and more money.
... but who did he vote for in the last 3 elections?
Are taxes really punishment, or simply the way govts generate revenue?
But you'd do even better if you earned $249,999.99/year.
Actually, I think the penny applies at $250,000.01, but the point is still that you should not have to try to keep your salary under a ceiling so you can take home more money.
???
IIf the after-tax money is more you are a foll to turn down the promotion and raise,all else b eing equal.
Buyt if the taxes aaaaaaaactually decrease your net pay from the previous level then you are wise to refuse the raise.
Hence my claim that the super-rich want these taxes to create a barrier to entry into their exclusive club, not because they want to pay their "fair share."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.