🚀 go-pugleaf

"S. Smith" <scott.smith@visi.com> wrote in message news:0cjq101e3md59smih21dapvhnotig3kclv@4ax.com...
: 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.

There are pay grades between RN and Nurse Practitioner (senior
staff nurse,  for instance) - and differential pay for being in charge
or working shifts.  My wife makes 36.50/hr
which would come to $80K if she worked fulltime (she works 90%).
That's with 30+ years experience.  Throw in overtime and a two
income family with two RN's and you could indeed hit $150K.

And,  of course,  the cut off for tax breaks/callege aid/etc is well below
$150K.

Dan Mercer
:
: 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".
:
: