🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:24:08 -0600, "Daniel L. Snyder              "
<snyds@tcq.NOSPAM.net> wrote:

>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".

I'll guarantee that if they are nurses, neither of them is making
close to 150k a year, even if they worked full time with a lot of
overtime. Registered nurses really aren't paid all that well. My 
aunt has been a registered nurse most of her life, and has a lot
of seniority, and she has never come close to making 150k a 
year. Even together they would be hard pressed to make more
than 150k, combined, as nurses. A quick Web search reveals 
that the average salary for a registered nurse ranges from 
39k to 47k. Even the top bracket of nurse practitioners with 
seniority, and PHD's, is only around 70k a year, and it's doubtful
that both are tenured nurse practitioners with PHD's.

http://www.allied-physicians.com/salary_surveys/nurse-salaries.htm

So, they wouldn't really qualify for that >150k bracket that we 
are using here to determine if someone is "rich" versus "poor" 
or "middle class".