🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <401d2a37.952687@news.visi.com>,
 fredg@visi.com (Fred Grosby) wrote:

> "Daniel L. Snyder              " <snyds@tcq.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> 
> >In article <3jbp1095ogv7cfca73rf9f899mplkfml9s@4ax.com>,
> > S. Smith <scott.smith@visi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:25:32 -0500, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com> 
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >"Richard Steiner" <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:/tDHApHpv28O092yn@visi.com...
> >> >> What percentage of total income do those same people represent?
> >> >
> >> >A bunch.
> >> >
> >> >I didn't check the crossposts, thought I was just posting to fl.general.
> >> >
> >> >"Rich" turns out to be a lot less that I thought. $150K and up is 
> >> >considered
> >> >"rich".
> >> 
> >> It's certainly not considered "poor" or "middle class".
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >Its still in the range where most have to work awful hard to get it, 
> >which makes the tax rate a disincentive.
> 
> The only way it would be a disincentive is if the harder one worked
> and the moer money one made, the less disposable income one had.

I think that is just what I am saying - yes, one is still taking home 
some additional income, but more of it is taxed and less of it is 
disposable. 

The couple across the alley are both nurses.  They both cut back to 3/4 
time, because when they were full time, the additional income put them 
in a higher marginal tax bracket and ate up their earnings.

They take home about the same in the end by working less.  Probably they 
could make a few more bucks by working more - but wwhy work more when 
the extra hours essentially mean a pay cut.

Ironically - there is a nursing shortage, I am told.

These are not "rich" people - they live in a modest home, send their 
kids to public school, and have a modest vehicle.  It is ludicrous to 
tax them as if they were "rich".