3 ms·
The question comes down to this, what motivates you? We're (hopefully) hard working people here. I am motivated to get what I want - a decent house and car, bei
by krschultz 18y ago
The question comes down to this, what motivates you? We're (hopefully) hard working people here. I am motivated to get what I want - a decent house and car, being able to pay for my kids college, having enough money to go on a few sweet vacations every year. I work as hard as I can already to get there. Taking 34% of my income or taking 39% of my income won't change how I work - the economy fluctuating has done a lot more damage to my wealth than that. Taking 80% would change my mind. In that society I would live near a beach, code FOSS at night, make enough to pay for food and revel in the fact that the gov't will pay for my kids college.
Not exactly the same productivity level from me.
- abstractbill 18y agoTaking 34% of my income or taking 39% of my income won't change how I work ... Taking 80% would change my mind. Presumably you realize the 80% would only be taken from a fraction of your income, right? That's how tax brackets work generally.
- krschultz 18y agoAgreed maybe I didn't make that clear. Say the top marginal bracket is >250k, and I made 350k. Under a 40% marginal rate I would still get 60k for my extra effort - that is a new car or part of a boat or vacation house, but under 80% I would only get 20k extra for all my trouble. The difference between someone getting paid 250k and 350k is a lot of work, but the 20k you get to show for it is basically nothing - <10% increase in take home money for a >25% increase in work. I could cut my spending by some amount and invested it and had a lot more hours with my family. Numbers aside, the main point I was trying to make is that there is a point at which the marginal tax rate becomes too burdensome, and in my opinion 40% is not it, but 80% is.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]