🚀 go-pugleaf

"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 ...

Then one has more disposable income; thus, there is no disincentive.

>... but more of it is taxed and less of it is disposable. 

AHA!

It is *earnings* that are taxed.

Disposable income is what one has *after* taxes, not before.

>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.

This is a good example of your point.  For these perople, there is no
incentive to work more/harder, because doing so will not result in
more disposable income.

>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".

The definitions of "rich" and "middle class" are definitely bones of
contention, and in my opinion should not be drawn solely from one's
income.  Take your neighbors, for example, and remove the kids.  Same
earnings, same disposable income, but expenses have just dropped
considerably.  Would your neighbors then be "rich" instead of "middle
class"?  Who the hell knows?  I guess that trying to compensate for
every possible variation is why the tax code is so cumbersome.

---
Fred Grosby
fredg@visi.com  
http://www.visi.com/~fredg