Posted on 12/10/2012 7:56:08 AM PST by Kaslin
Luckily I’ll never find out, ‘cause I’ll never make even 1/2 of that.
Am against all income taxes but get real. These are marginal rates. Even if rates go up for the top bracket, somebody making 275K makes more that someone making 250K. It is just that 275K is making less than before.
You won't sacrifice for what is right?
You support profits regardless of consequences?
Profits over principle?
How's that worked out for the U.S.?
I personally would turn down more money if it meant supporting corrupt government with more and more cash.
Another thing to note is that entitlements become generational. The brood moms of today are raising the next generation of takers; likely just as they themselves were raised.
If a person made $260k/yr, couldn’t they take $11k pre-tax earnings and invest it in something that is tax free? Wouldn’t that make their taxable income $249k?
Obama extolls the virtues of a college education alright but only if you use it to serve mankind not get ahead for yourself. FUBO!
He better be careful making his thoughts publicly known. We all know it his duty to be as productive as he possibly can be...
From each according to his ABILITY, to each according to his need.
He didn't say it was because of the federal tax increase, but because of all the tax increases.
You have to think like an economist, not just a plugger. How much more effort does he have to put in to get that additional cash in the pocket? What's his return on investment?
Let's assume I can work for an hour before the raise at $125/hour at an effective tax rate of 40%, so I take home $75/hour. Now let's assume I get a raise to $135/hour, but take my effective tax rate to 43%. Now I take home $76.95. If I'm doing exactly the same work for exactly the same hour, then it's a free $1.95 and I have no complaint. But if I take on any additional responsibility or have to put in any additional more effort, the $1.95 may not be a reasonable return. I might be happier if I kept the lower rate and the lesser responsibility.
And, if you do the math, if I only get a raise to $126/hour at a new 41% effective tax rate - I lose money.
You would still take home more money if your salary went from $249,999/yr to $250,001/yr if the Bush tax cuts expired.
Is this really why a bunch of people oppose the Bush tax cuts expiration, because they think they will take less home if they take a raise and get pushed into the >$250,000 tax bracket? Because if it is then you are wrong.
“the governemnt will step in a select people it likes to be society’s aparatachiks.”
Our name is Equality 7-2521, it is illegal to write this.
I know you kind of meant that tongue-in-cheek, but you actually made the author's point. You're lucky you will never make that much money.
I remember you from the old days when I was more active. You're pretty smart, so I don't know why you limit your earning potential. I always look at any tax situation and earning situation is if I will one day earn $500,000/year or more. Under the old America, there was nobody stopping me but me.
If I can stick my nose in where it doesn't belong, I talked about this a little in my prior post (#33...).
I think that it's about diminishing returns. (If I made that kind of dough.....) I would work equally as hard for dollar #250,001 as I did for dollar #1. However, I'd get to keep substantially less of it.
Most people, not all but most, have a point where they say "Why bother?". In my case, I'm underpaid for my position in my field. However, the trade-off is that I work 8 to 5 with no nights, weekends, or travel. Heck, for the moment anyway, I don't even carry a cell phone! (It's heaven, after taking 3am phone calls on a near-nightly basis. I'm sure that all good things will come to an end, eventually, though.....)
Could I command a higher salary in a different position? Sure. Easily. Probably wouldn't take more than a phone call or three. But I'd lose dinners with my family, and Cub Scout outings, and sleep at night, and school Christmas Plays, and, and, and.......
For some people, I'm sure that it doesn't matter. They want to wring every penny out of what they can make. Or, they've not sat down and figured out what they're *really* making at the end of the day (I know a lot of 2-income families where one is working only to pay taxes, day-care and commuting expenses. I can't wrap my head around THAT one!).
But for a good handful of people that I know, quality is more important than quantity.
“Are taxes really punishment, or simply the way govts generate revenue?”
Depends if you are the government or the worker. The US tax code is obviously written to reward certain behaviors and punish others based on the good/bad judgements of the idiots in congress. We have all gotten used to this manipulation and consider it normal - but it is just government interference in people’s lives and an attempt to direct their actions.
Your effective tax is based on every taxing authority you pay to, not just the fed.
Unfortunately, I live in a place where the state and local take a hefty chunk. When my salary goes up I can, indeed, lose real income.
My earnings are determined by my employer and their contract with the govt. I like my job and don’t work very hard.
I’ve always believed that one’s income should be higher than, or at the very least equal to, their output.
How else do govts pay their bills?
In what world do you live in where additional taxes on a $2,000/yr raise pushes your effective tax rate up $3,400?
“Wow, if I made $250k/yr, the govt could take 60% of it, and we’d still make more than we make now combined.”
You are forgetting the additional work load, travel time, employee hassles, etc that go along with it. In the private sector, those incomes usually mean a very large responsibility.
Absolutely!
I don’t know anyone that can make the choice between making $249k or $250k.
In post 37 you said:
Post 37 If a person made $260k/yr, couldn’t they take $11k pre-tax earnings and invest it in something that is tax free? Wouldn’t that make their taxable income $249k?
Which stuartcr am I talking to? ;)
Actually, it doesn't matter. A person declining the raise, or a person accepting the raise and then going to effort to hide the additional from the Fed is still doing something we would rather he not do. In the latter case, we want him investing the additional in the place where it will do the economy the most good.
Howard Philips once suggested that 1/3 of all U.S. business is spent hiding taxes from the Fed. Imagine if they did productive work!!!
Oh, and there's still the impact of that additional earning on non-Fed taxes.
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.