🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <0cjq101e3md59smih21dapvhnotig3kclv@4ax.com>,
 S. Smith <scott.smith@visi.com> wrote:

> 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".


I wasn't necessarily being specific about $150K.  I was making a more 
general statement about the current tax system that tends to work 
against hard working middle-class, professional people.

I think that the fact you established regarding nursing salaries being 
less than $150K actually helps me make my point.  Another poster whose 
spouse is a nurse gave better details of the actual disincentive.

The families lose when there is less fruit for more labor.

Society loses when there is a loss of productivity.

$150K may be more than some - but I still see it in the range that is 
within reach of many professional individual or couples - the kind that 
have to work hard to get there.  The kind of people that still enjoy 
some of the security and benefit packages of employed work.

Don't get me started on how much harder it is for the small business 
owner, or independent contractor.