Oops!!!!

[Shootin 4 Fun]

They could probably tax the large corporations that have structured to evade taxes some trivial rate, like one TENTH of one percent of income after expenses and losses, and end up with more gained than increasing top-tier income tax rates.

I'm kinda making the figures up, but I think my point is solid. The system is broken but wringing the citizenry out of more money isn't a good first step.

Or....we could quit spending so damn much.

 

[Lurker66]

Let's see... if I work more and earn more, I get penalized by paying a higher percentage in taxes. Therefore, in order to make an extra dollar in the top tax bracket, I have to work harder to make that same dollar than if I were in a lower bracket. Thus, I am making less per hour worked, although my net may be somewhat higher, due to putting in increasingly higher hours. It just isn't worth it to work that much harder to achieve a lower gain than if tax rates were low.

I'm looking at cost/benefit analysis of my time vs my net reward. There comes a point where time at home with the fam and relaxation time becomes more important than the cash reward, and higher taxes simply make that break even/tipover point come that much earlier. For me.

It's actually quite simple.

Sounds good to me. Maybe thats why some people(poor) dont have the incentive to work harder or more hours.

Theres really not much of a lifestyle change if ya make minimum wage or $15 an hour. Or if ya work part time at 39 hrs or full time at 40.

 

[Lurker66]

Or....we could quit spending so damn much.

Thats not gonna happen until we are bled completely out and have 2 classes of people. Rich and poor. The poor will win eventually.

 

[tRidiot]

Sounds good to me. Maybe thats why some people(poor) dont have the incentive to work harder or more hours.

Theres really not much of a lifestyle change if ya make minimum wage or $15 an hour. Or if ya work part time at 39 hrs or full time at 40.

The problem I have with that is that it teaches people early on that they are better off settling, rather than working hard to improve themselves or their lot in life.

I started off working at 13 mowing lawns, then found a job as a hired hand in a shop making $2/hr. Then when I turned 16, I got a job at a fast food joint and eventually moved into healthcare as the years went on. Working my way up the ladder has resulted in a higher wage, but often at great personal cost - i.e., working more hours than I'd like, going back to school, sacrificing in the short term for a better long term outcome, etc.

Progressively penalizing people for improving themselves, working harder or working their way up the chain disincentivises that hard work, at least to some degree. I just don't think that's the message we need to be sending to our society these days.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

Sounds good to me. Maybe thats why some people(poor) dont have the incentive to work harder or more hours.

Theres really not much of a lifestyle change if ya make minimum wage or $15 an hour. Or if ya work part time at 39 hrs or full time at 40.

There really isn't much of a lifestyle differrence in someone that makes $15,000/year and someone who makes $30,000 per year?

 

[twoguns?]

Sounds good to me. Maybe thats why some people(poor) dont have the incentive to work harder or more hours.

Theres really not much of a lifestyle change if ya make minimum wage or $15 an hour. Or if ya work part time at 39 hrs or full time at 40.

There It is , Whats Really the use, .gov is gonna get it anyway, if you make it.
If you get sick , old and still have some , Theyre gonna get that.
And the Threat of going over seas , F em let them go, But heres where the .gov can make their $$$$$, tax the crap outa them.
But , Oh wait, thats theyre Buddys , they wouldnt wanna do that.
Doc got it right, hit a couple shutdowns , make some good cash in a couple months, kick back with the Fams and draw a check.
Its the New Merican way....Word

 

[RickN]

Thats not gonna happen until we are bled completely out and have 2 classes of people. Rich and poor. The poor will win eventually.

Getting real close to that point now and everyone will lose.

 

[EFsDad]

The problem I have with that is that it teaches people early on that they are better off settling, rather than working hard to improve themselves or their lot in life.

Progressively penalizing people for improving themselves, working harder or working their way up the chain disincentivises that hard work, at least to some degree. I just don't think that's the message we need to be sending to our society these days.

Exactly. Why is it that we tax liquor or tobacco? Why do we increase those taxes from time to time?

Now, why do we need to raise the taxes on the rich, or why just stop at the 2% and why not the top 5% and if they can afford then what about the top (insert percentage below 50 here).

 

[Mr10mm]

I didn't realize how many "Joe the Plumber's" we had here.

 

[ez bake]

Sigh...


http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/

http://novelinvestor.com/tax-planning/how-tax-brackets-work/


Really, nobody says it better than Cracked:

Your tax bracket isn't the number used for your whole income. If you're making $100,000, for example, the Grinches at the IRS are still only charging you 15 percent for the first $70,000, even though you're in that second tax bracket. It's only the money you make on top of that which gets taxed at the higher rate. This is done specifically to avoid the situation your dumbass friend insists is happening.


...there really is no situation in which it's ever possible to increase your salary but lose net income. Even if your higher salary pushes you into a new tax bracket, you're only taxed more on the additional income. You're still taking home more cash.