3 ms·

Only if they're doing it for the money.

by jemmons 17y ago

patio11 17y ago
Its not just about money, though. There is a psychological element to it. A 1% pay cut would have no appreciable impact on my standard of living, but it would communicate that my company was not interested in keeping me around, and I would probably respond accordingly. That is a hair trigger sensitivity to 1%, where I know I make something like 50% less than the market wage I'd get in California or (certain jobs in) Tokyo. But I mentally file that differential away as fair, where the pay cut would be taking something I've already "earned". Similarly, I think a lot of people are more concerned with the notion that they're being scapegoated or screwed by the government than they are actually concerned by a rigorous accounting of what they are paying in taxes. (A huge number of very intelligent people do not understand progressive taxation, at all. They think if you cross into the next bracket you suddenly owe thousands more if you cross the threshhold. They think they pay marginal taxes over $1 on their last $1 of income. etc, etc) You can hear some of that frustration in the recent discussion of "going Galt". Is it rational? Eh, its real. Governments should understand how it affects them prior to getting bright ideas about covering shortfalls by increasing taxes. (Speaking of which: the people who are most likely to interpret the tax code accurately and objectively are professional tax advisers. You know who uses professional tax advisers? Well, almost everybody these days, but in particular people who stand to save a lot of money on taxes if they get good advice. That would include pretty much anyone who can afford to move for tax advantages. Another thing to consider, oh bright policymakers. Rich people have a lot of options for structuring their financial affairs such that their total tax burden is minimized. Heck, I know I have a lot of options, and I'm nowhere close to rich.)
- gaius 17y ago
  A 1% pay cut would have no appreciable impact on my standard of living, but it would communicate that my company was not interested in keeping me around, and I would probably respond accordingly. Given the UK's recent announcement of a new 50% rate of taxation for the highest earners, the only thing keeping those people around is that tax is even higher in Paris. If Amsterdam or Frankfurt played its cards right, it could be the new European financial capital almost overnight, and then the UK's economy which has been propped up by financial services for years would be well and truly fucked...

Only if they're doing it for the money.

by jemmons 17y ago

Only if they're doing it for the money.

Its not just about money, though. There is a psychological element to it. A 1% pay cut would have no appreciable impact on my standard of living, but it would communicate that my company was not interested in keeping me around, and I would probably respond accordingly. That is a hair trigger sensitivity to 1%, where I know I make something like 50% less than the market wage I'd get in California or (certain jobs in) Tokyo. But I mentally file that differential away as fair, where the pay cut would be taking something I've already "earned". Similarly, I think a lot of people are more concerned with the notion that they're being scapegoated or screwed by the government than they are actually concerned by a rigorous accounting of what they are paying in taxes. (A huge number of very intelligent people do not understand progressive taxation, at all. They think if you cross into the next bracket you suddenly owe thousands more if you cross the threshhold. They think they pay marginal taxes over $1 on their last $1 of income. etc, etc) You can hear some of that frustration in the recent discussion of "going Galt". Is it rational? Eh, its real. Governments should understand how it affects them prior to getting bright ideas about covering shortfalls by increasing taxes. (Speaking of which: the people who are most likely to interpret the tax code accurately and objectively are professional tax advisers. You know who uses professional tax advisers? Well, almost everybody these days, but in particular people who stand to save a lot of money on taxes if they get good advice. That would include pretty much anyone who can afford to move for tax advantages. Another thing to consider, oh bright policymakers. Rich people have a lot of options for structuring their financial affairs such that their total tax burden is minimized. Heck, I know I have a lot of options, and I'm nowhere close to rich.)

gaius 17y ago
A 1% pay cut would have no appreciable impact on my standard of living, but it would communicate that my company was not interested in keeping me around, and I would probably respond accordingly. Given the UK's recent announcement of a new 50% rate of taxation for the highest earners, the only thing keeping those people around is that tax is even higher in Paris. If Amsterdam or Frankfurt played its cards right, it could be the new European financial capital almost overnight, and then the UK's economy which has been propped up by financial services for years would be well and truly fucked...