3 ms·

Really? You'd rather earn less than earn more and pay tax on some of it? Personally I'd go for earning more (if it's a choice) and paying the higher taxes inste

Really? You'd rather earn less than earn more and pay tax on some of it? Personally I'd go for earning more (if it's a choice) and paying the higher taxes instead of voluntarily lowering my income.

charcircuit 3y ago
Not everyone wants to constantly earn more money. Especially when the government will steal a portion of it for themselves. If the work to benefit ratio is not good people are not going to bother earning more. If society only pays 10% more for 100% more effort people are not incentivized to do it.
- harimau777 3y ago
  That doesn't necessarily seem like a bad thing. I'm not sure that we need everyone to be working 50 hour weeks.
bigyikes 3y ago
It’s about the incentives and marginal change. Sure, you’d go for earning more, but now you’re less incentivized to do so. It might not matter to you, but it matters to the people at the margins — the people who are just on the edge of being willing to make an upward move but will decline to do so if their potential gross is lower than it otherwise could’ve been.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Sure, that's fine though. Being less motivated to push for higher income is a far cry from deciding you don't want it and would rather have a lower income. Also I haven't seen any plans that would remove particularly much motivation below a million dollars, and by the time you're making a million dollars I wouldn't say there needs to be motivation to go for more.
- harimau777 3y ago
  The problem in the parent's post is that people advocating for "taxing the rich" aren't actually talking about people who are being payed $100K. They are talking about people whose wealth comes from owning property. In that case, I'm not sure that our intuition about the effect of marginal incentives necessarily applies to the same degree. E.g. if a wealthy industrialist decides not to invest in a some piece of capital, it's not as though the capital ceases to exist; it will just be used by someone else. E.g. if an industrialist decides not to invest in a gold mine, then it's not as though the gold disappears. The land will simply be developed by someone else.
secondcoming 3y ago
I (UK) contribute the majority of my salary to my pension; as much as it makes sense to do. As far as the taxman is concerned it’s not income and so I drop down tax bands. My take-home is less, but my overall wealth is higher. It’s true that I may never see that pension, but money given to the taxman is money I’ll never see again anyway.

Really? You'd rather earn less than earn more and pay tax on some of it? Personally I'd go for earning more (if it's a choice) and paying the higher taxes instead of voluntarily lowering my income.

charcircuit 3y ago

Not everyone wants to constantly earn more money. Especially when the government will steal a portion of it for themselves. If the work to benefit ratio is not good people are not going to bother earning more. If society only pays 10% more for 100% more effort people are not incentivized to do it.

harimau777 3y ago
That doesn't necessarily seem like a bad thing. I'm not sure that we need everyone to be working 50 hour weeks.

bigyikes 3y ago

It’s about the incentives and marginal change. Sure, you’d go for earning more, but now you’re less incentivized to do so. It might not matter to you, but it matters to the people at the margins — the people who are just on the edge of being willing to make an upward move but will decline to do so if their potential gross is lower than it otherwise could’ve been.

Dylan16807 3y ago
Sure, that's fine though. Being less motivated to push for higher income is a far cry from deciding you don't want it and would rather have a lower income. Also I haven't seen any plans that would remove particularly much motivation below a million dollars, and by the time you're making a million dollars I wouldn't say there needs to be motivation to go for more.
harimau777 3y ago
The problem in the parent's post is that people advocating for "taxing the rich" aren't actually talking about people who are being payed $100K. They are talking about people whose wealth comes from owning property. In that case, I'm not sure that our intuition about the effect of marginal incentives necessarily applies to the same degree. E.g. if a wealthy industrialist decides not to invest in a some piece of capital, it's not as though the capital ceases to exist; it will just be used by someone else. E.g. if an industrialist decides not to invest in a gold mine, then it's not as though the gold disappears. The land will simply be developed by someone else.

secondcoming 3y ago

I (UK) contribute the majority of my salary to my pension; as much as it makes sense to do. As far as the taxman is concerned it’s not income and so I drop down tax bands. My take-home is less, but my overall wealth is higher. It’s true that I may never see that pension, but money given to the taxman is money I’ll never see again anyway.