5 ms·

And so it annoys the shit out of me that when a friend in finance got a $10k raise, all she could talk about was "but I lose half of it to the government!". In

And so it annoys the shit out of me that when a friend in finance got a $10k raise, all she could talk about was "but I lose half of it to the government!". In some strange world where 30% equals half, she's more concerned about what she lost than the fact that her gain was almost equal to a poor person's annual income. She couldn't even frame her payrise as a positive. There's more to life than feeling lucky we aren't in bad situations. I'd say ambition is more useful. A million dollars at 4% interest accrues $40k/yr, so in effect any millionaire is given 4x her raise every year just by doing nothing. That's not a bad thing. It's just a fact of life. But "you should be happy with what you have" is practically a recipe for sabotaging your ambition.

superuser2 13y ago
I think issue is specifically complaining about it going to the government, where the implication is that it's going to be squandered on "lesser people." With no sensitivity for the fact that the taxes on her raise make an enormous difference to someone on welfare. The complaint in this situation is not "I wish I had made more" but "The government should take less."
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  Ah. Good point.
- AndrewKemendo 13y ago
  Would you make the similar protest if they complained about their tax dollars going to wars and spying?
  - superuser2 13y ago
    The people you vote for when you want lower taxes (Republicans) are not going to cut budgets for wars and spying, they're going to cut "redistributive" programs for "welfare queens." Libertarians might get it done, but there's a serious bootstrapping problem in getting enough people to vote for them that they have a chance. For now, every vote for a libertarian is thrown away to idealism where it could at least be doing something.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      I think his point is 'Some people like wars and spying, some people like welfare.'
    - sophacles 13y ago
      I find it amusing that the cracked articles we were pointed to a few posts up talk about the mindset of "poor people think in terms of 'what do we need this instant' rather than 'what will we need in the future' due to scarcity of wiggle room in the budget". Basically one of the problems is people can't securely make smart long-term choices because the risk/reward calculation says if one unexpected thing comes up, the long-term payoff won't ever arrive because of getting hurt in the short term. If you look at dollars as "lifestyle points", and votes as "societal points", the same reasoning is going on right here: the scarcity of "societal points" is causing the same reasoning about how to vote as poor people have to make for spending. Not sure what that means - only noticing that there are parallels.
- specialist 13y ago
  My taxes also make an enormous difference to my welfare. There are things that are best done collectively.
  - thefreeman 13y ago
    That's actually the entire point they are trying to make. They don't make an enormous difference to your welfare. At least not when compared to someone making $15k / year and trying to support a family. You really can't understand what it's like to not know where your next meal is coming from unless you have been there.
    - specialist 13y ago
      I have been there. I get the that the safety net helps. My point is that civil society helps every one. My one criticism of my fellow liberals is their messaging doesn't appeal to their audience's self interest AND their sense of fairness.
    - qu4z-2 13y ago
      I understood the grandparent's point to be that the taxes contribute to the tax-payers welfare in the form of keeping society more-or-less together, which is a huge benefit. Maybe I misunderstood though.
doorhammer 13y ago
I didn't read the post as saying "be happy with what you have!" or "you're lucky you're not poor! I read it as the friend having ambition, and making headway, but demonstrating exaggerated pessimism about the headway. That said, I mean, I don't know this person or their friend so it could be a flippant comment the friend made that's being overblown. Who knows
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
35% in Fed taxes + 10% in state taxes is pretty close to half, buddy.
- wildwood 13y ago
  You're only paying 35% in US federal taxes if you're making over 400K a year. Someone making $100K to $150K is in the 28% bracket. And you're probably only paying 10% in state tax if you live in California. Most other states' income tax are around 5 or 6 percent, and some are at zero.
  - pandaman 13y ago
    35% = 28% income tax + 6.2% social security tax + 1.45% medicare tax
    - greenlander 13y ago
      It's actually even worse than that, because the employer is paying an additional 6.2% + 1.45% on your behalf. But from the employer's point of view, it's just another cost of having an employee. It's a zero-sum game. The employee is really paying 28% income + 14.4% social security + 2.9% medicare = 45%. (Actually a hair less because the employer's contribution is not considered taxable income, but in any case the effective tax is > 35%)
      - rlanday 13y ago
        Well, even if the employer pays the cost on paper, because the supply of labor is relatively inelastic, realistically, employees, at least in a competitive labor market, eat that cost through lower wages. I’m convinced it’s a way for the government to hide half the cost of insolvent social programs from people who don’t know about the employer share and/or don’t understand that they’re likely paying most of the cost.
    - vonmoltke 13y ago
      Social Security tax caps out at an income of $113,700[1]. Medicare tax actually goes up slightly at $200,000, though. [1] http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/social-security-and-medicare-tax-rates%3B-maximum-taxable-earnings http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/so...
vacri 13y ago
I didn't say that 'she should be happy with what she had', I said that given a windfall, all she could do was bitch about the small part that was taxed. Getting a payrise made her unhappy! I'm saying 'keep some perspective', not 'don't try to improve your situation'.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
If you value ambition more highly than contentment, at what point does your ambition stop? If you become a millionaire, won't this just lead to your looking to become a billionaire?
phaer 13y ago
> That's not a bad thing. It's just a fact of life. But "you should be happy with what you have" is practically a recipe for sabotaging your ambition. There's also the ambition to build a better society in (some of) us and part of that is paying taxes. Not all ambitions are of a material nature.

superuser2 13y ago

I think issue is specifically complaining about it going to the government, where the implication is that it's going to be squandered on "lesser people." With no sensitivity for the fact that the taxes on her raise make an enormous difference to someone on welfare. The complaint in this situation is not "I wish I had made more" but "The government should take less."

sillysaurus2 13y ago
Ah. Good point.
AndrewKemendo 13y ago
Would you make the similar protest if they complained about their tax dollars going to wars and spying?
- superuser2 13y ago
  The people you vote for when you want lower taxes (Republicans) are not going to cut budgets for wars and spying, they're going to cut "redistributive" programs for "welfare queens." Libertarians might get it done, but there's a serious bootstrapping problem in getting enough people to vote for them that they have a chance. For now, every vote for a libertarian is thrown away to idealism where it could at least be doing something.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    I think his point is 'Some people like wars and spying, some people like welfare.'
  - sophacles 13y ago
    I find it amusing that the cracked articles we were pointed to a few posts up talk about the mindset of "poor people think in terms of 'what do we need this instant' rather than 'what will we need in the future' due to scarcity of wiggle room in the budget". Basically one of the problems is people can't securely make smart long-term choices because the risk/reward calculation says if one unexpected thing comes up, the long-term payoff won't ever arrive because of getting hurt in the short term. If you look at dollars as "lifestyle points", and votes as "societal points", the same reasoning is going on right here: the scarcity of "societal points" is causing the same reasoning about how to vote as poor people have to make for spending. Not sure what that means - only noticing that there are parallels.
specialist 13y ago
My taxes also make an enormous difference to my welfare. There are things that are best done collectively.
- thefreeman 13y ago
  That's actually the entire point they are trying to make. They don't make an enormous difference to your welfare. At least not when compared to someone making $15k / year and trying to support a family. You really can't understand what it's like to not know where your next meal is coming from unless you have been there.
  - specialist 13y ago
    I have been there. I get the that the safety net helps. My point is that civil society helps every one. My one criticism of my fellow liberals is their messaging doesn't appeal to their audience's self interest AND their sense of fairness.
  - qu4z-2 13y ago
    I understood the grandparent's point to be that the taxes contribute to the tax-payers welfare in the form of keeping society more-or-less together, which is a huge benefit. Maybe I misunderstood though.

doorhammer 13y ago

I didn't read the post as saying "be happy with what you have!" or "you're lucky you're not poor! I read it as the friend having ambition, and making headway, but demonstrating exaggerated pessimism about the headway. That said, I mean, I don't know this person or their friend so it could be a flippant comment the friend made that's being overblown. Who knows

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

35% in Fed taxes + 10% in state taxes is pretty close to half, buddy.

wildwood 13y ago
You're only paying 35% in US federal taxes if you're making over 400K a year. Someone making $100K to $150K is in the 28% bracket. And you're probably only paying 10% in state tax if you live in California. Most other states' income tax are around 5 or 6 percent, and some are at zero.
- pandaman 13y ago
  35% = 28% income tax + 6.2% social security tax + 1.45% medicare tax
  - greenlander 13y ago
    It's actually even worse than that, because the employer is paying an additional 6.2% + 1.45% on your behalf. But from the employer's point of view, it's just another cost of having an employee. It's a zero-sum game. The employee is really paying 28% income + 14.4% social security + 2.9% medicare = 45%. (Actually a hair less because the employer's contribution is not considered taxable income, but in any case the effective tax is > 35%)
    - rlanday 13y ago
      Well, even if the employer pays the cost on paper, because the supply of labor is relatively inelastic, realistically, employees, at least in a competitive labor market, eat that cost through lower wages. I’m convinced it’s a way for the government to hide half the cost of insolvent social programs from people who don’t know about the employer share and/or don’t understand that they’re likely paying most of the cost.
  - vonmoltke 13y ago
    Social Security tax caps out at an income of $113,700[1]. Medicare tax actually goes up slightly at $200,000, though. [1] http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/social-security-and-medicare-tax-rates%3B-maximum-taxable-earnings http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/so...

vacri 13y ago

I didn't say that 'she should be happy with what she had', I said that given a windfall, all she could do was bitch about the small part that was taxed. Getting a payrise made her unhappy! I'm saying 'keep some perspective', not 'don't try to improve your situation'.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

If you value ambition more highly than contentment, at what point does your ambition stop? If you become a millionaire, won't this just lead to your looking to become a billionaire?

phaer 13y ago

> That's not a bad thing. It's just a fact of life. But "you should be happy with what you have" is practically a recipe for sabotaging your ambition. There's also the ambition to build a better society in (some of) us and part of that is paying taxes. Not all ambitions are of a material nature.