Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill Approved by House

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Of course. Anyone that says otherwise is lying.

Well, lying or brainwashed.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I know if I had a choice of being in the 1% and paying 50% taxes or making my current salary and paying 25% taxes, I'd choose the 1%...lol. Hands down, no question, I'd choose the 1%.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Of course. Anyone that says otherwise is lying.

Originally Posted by amIblue?

Well, lying or brainwashed.

Do you all see people claiming that or is that a hypothetical for the thread?

What I see is a few people, who may already be in the 1% depending on what we're using for the cut off, say in essence "if I can't expect the same return on my efforts beyond a certain point because of increasing taxes, I'm not going to continue at 100% beyond that point."

There'd be some people at the cusp of the cut-off in that hypothetical who would really take more money home in the 25% tax section, but, as I understand taxes, the scenario is really far removed from the reality of how things work and would be a ridiculous claim to make.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem ridiculous that a small business owner could look at the cost and benefits of a slightly reduced workload and decide to cut back. And it also doesn't seem ridiculous that the business owner's decision could have a negative effect on other people because he or she cuts down on spending as a result.

But again, I think only folks in the 1% already are typically able to control their work and compensation this way.

(It's funny to me in a pathetic way: I suppose there could be a ton of people who manage to live in a close to debt free and low expense way who have discretionary income to spare and enormous work related flexibility who could do this at a lower income level. I just have a hard time imagining it.)

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Do you all see people claiming that or is that a hypothetical for the thread?

What I see is a few people, who may already be in the 1% depending on what we're using for the cut off, say in essence "if I can't expect the same return on my efforts beyond a certain point because of increasing taxes, I'm not going to continue at 100% beyond that point."

There'd be some people at the cusp of the cut-off in that hypothetical who would really take more money home in the 25% tax section, but, as I understand taxes, the scenario is really far removed from the reality of how things work and would be a ridiculous claim to make.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem ridiculous that a small business owner could look at the cost and benefits of a slightly reduced workload and decide to cut back. And it also doesn't seem ridiculous that the business owner's decision could have a negative effect on other people because he or she cuts down on spending as a result.

But again, I think only folks in the 1% already are typically able to control their work and compensation this way.

(It's funny to me in a pathetic way: I suppose there could be a ton of people who manage to live in a close to debt free and low expense way who have discretionary income to spare and enormous work related flexibility who could do this at a lower income level. I just have a hard time imagining it.)

No they wouldn't. You won't take home more money in a lower tax bracket. They are being taxed the same on the income up to that 25% tax bracket level. The income over is then taxed at a higher level. You CANNOT make more money by making less. This is the fallacy. I'm in the 1% already and know people in the 1% so I'll tell you that no one is going to stop making money so they can stop paying taxes. They may find a way to get out of paying taxes, but no one is going to stop making money. Period.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

No they wouldn't. You won't take home more money in a lower tax bracket. They are being taxed the same on the income up to that 25% tax bracket level. The income over is then taxed at a higher level. You CANNOT make more money by making less. This is the fallacy. I'm in the 1% already and know people in the 1% so I'll tell you that no one is going to stop making money so they can stop paying taxes. They may find a way to get out of paying taxes, but no one is going to stop making money. Period.

Yes, I knew that it didn't work that way in reality, but I understood the theoretical example to exist in a imaginary world with straight income breaks. The imaginary choice, as I understood it, was to be taxed at 25% of present pay or taxed at 50% of a 1%er's salary. In that kind of system, you'd see weird things happen at the thresholds between brackets. I totally know that's not what we've really got.

I also want to make clear that I wasn't claiming that people in the 1% would take home more money by having a lower income overall.

I think the folks talking about higher earners choosing not to max out salary-wise are saying that if they aren't going to net as much over a certain point, that perhaps they value the additional time they would gain not working more than the lesser amount of additional pay.

[ETA: I'm restating this another way: the choice isn't so much about making less because of taxes or what the rates themselves do to take home pay; it's about re-evaluating the opportunity costs of additional work in light of paying higher taxes on payment for that additional work. Someone who has this much control over their workload is pretty exceptional for reasons other than income, IMO.]


That's a plausible position to me, but it still means they will forgo some additional income which means they can't be spending that additional income in their local economy.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Yes, I knew that it didn't work that way in reality, but I understood the theoretical example to exist in a imaginary world with straight income breaks. The imaginary choice, as I understood it, was to be taxed at 25% of present pay or taxed at 50% of a 1%er's salary. In that kind of system, you'd see weird things happen at the thresholds between brackets. I totally know that's not what we've really got.

I also want to make clear that I wasn't claiming that people in the 1% would take home more money by having a lower income overall.

I think the folks talking about higher earners choosing not to max out salary-wise are saying that if they aren't going to net as much over a certain point, that perhaps they value the additional time they would gain not working more than the lesser amount of additional pay.

[ETA: I'm restating this another way: the choice isn't so much about making less because of taxes or what the rates themselves do to take home pay; it's about re-evaluating the opportunity costs of additional work in light of paying higher taxes on payment for that additional work. Someone who has this much control over their workload is pretty exceptional for reasons other than income, IMO.]


That's a plausible position to me, but it still means they will forgo some additional income which means they can't be spending that additional income in their local economy.

Not plausible at all. It's a smoke screen. It's not like you can just stop working 10% for a 10% change in taxes. The work to income isn't that direct. I work very hard...no, I don't work manual labor, but I can't put a dollar amount to every movement I make. I also don't get to scale back because I'm being taxed more. That means a competitor takes my business or maybe I get fired.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Not plausible at all. It's a smoke screen. It's not like you can just stop working 10% for a 10% change in taxes. The work to income isn't that direct. I work very hard...no, I don't work manual labor, but I can't put a dollar amount to every movement I make. I also don't get to scale back because I'm being taxed more. That means a competitor takes my business or maybe I get fired.

A smoke screen for what?

I've conceded several times that the number of folks who can control their work this way is limited. It's interesting that you seem to believe that because it's not true for you that it is impossible that it is true for anyone.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

A smoke screen for what?

I've conceded several times that the number of folks who can control their work this way is limited. It's interesting that you seem to believe that because it's not true for you that it is impossible that it is true for anyone.

Because it is a meaningless argument. We shouldn't raise taxes on everyone in the 1% because some of the people in the 1% will work less? So what? You know what happens when I pass on a contract? Someone else gets it, and then THEY pay taxes on it. In fact, spreading around the contracts so that two people are making 100K/year is far better for the economy than giving it all to me to earn 200K/year, is it not?