So basically people were threatening to let their own businesses stagnate out of spite?
Has anyone, in the history of, oh I don’t know, EVER actually decided that they don’t want to make more money, because they’ll have to pay taxes on it? Gee, boss… that ginormous raise sure is generous of you, but it’d bump me up a tax bracket, so no thanks! :rolleyes:
One of my teachers once said that she got a raise and it decreased her take home pay because “it bumped her into a new tax bracket”. I told my father, the book keeper, and he said it was impossible and explained to me the concept of marginal tax rates.
Peple with jobs probably do not decide to not make more money. However, people decide all the time to make or not make an investment based on the costs and return. Taxes are one item that decreases the return without decreasing the up-front cost. So, say someone is happy making an investment based on their projection of their profit and the costs and risks involved. If the tax rate on the projected income goes up, then the profit goes down, so they may not make the investment. If that investment is a new plant that would hire 1000 people, then those 1000 jobs are not created, which also hurts the businesses where those 1000 employees would have eaten lunch, etc. and etc.
In the 1896 election, factory owners were telling their workers that if William Jennings Bryan should win, they should not bother coming to work after election day.
McKinley won. As to whether the above tactic actually swayed any votes, who can say?
I’m liking the business plan of “We could potentially have higher taxes in the future so what the hell, might as well start firing random people now. Also, the sky is falling.”
And please note for future reference that “a BIG way” = 8%. Extrapolating from that, I’d place “a HUGE way” at about 15%, “a m**fing ENORMOUS way” at 33%, and “way bigger than my spotty white corporate boss ass” at 74%.
I liked this one better - my BIL quoted it on his website. It was originally written by a Freeper, but is more witty than most of what comes from there:
Was this sort of behaviour one of the reasons for the secret ballot in the U.K.? I remember cartoons from the 1800s of tenants being evicted for not voting the way their landlord wanted.
Good one… but we need a version where the server stands up on a chair in the dining room and announces that the restaurant is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy because the owner squandered all its profits playing Keno (except for the sizable stipend he awarded himself, which he’s now spending on rum drinks and happy-ending massages in Tahiti) and therefore every patron is now obligated to put several thousand dollars into the tip jar before they’ll be allowed to leave.
I don’t get it. If the person in this story was ‘exploring the redistribution of wealth concept’, why didn’t he just go ahead and tip the server? Tipping seems pretty much a textbook definition of ‘redistribution of wealth’.
It might have made more sense if the guy had gone to the owner of the restaurant and said “listen, I’m taking ten bucks off what you say I owe for this meal and giving it to the homeless guy outside…”
Aw, what the hell, the story’s complete bullshit anyway.
Isn’t the Op’s “letter” just too much urban legend style horshit to get worked up over?
If any real business owner openly announced that his layoffs were politically motivated he might as well dissolve the business before he was sued into bankruptcy.
I can’t even tell if CA3799 believes in the sentiments expressed in the letter or just wants us to help him develop some counter spam to reply back with.
There are people, who after getting a raise, no longer quailfy for some sort of benifit, like the state helps pay for health care. The ammount they have to pony to pay their premiums is greater than the raise, but because they pass a line in how much they make, they are ‘penalized’, so they are ‘better off’ by having less pay.
Of course if the benifit didn’t cut off at a point but phased out in a stages that would help.
Actually, if you get back pay for a delayed review, you can get bumped into a higher bracket for that paycheck. (I don’t know if payroll is supposed to calculate the tax that way, but I’ve seen it happen.)
I once decided not rent a property of mine because the property taxes were so high that the amount I could ask for on the market minus the cost made it seem not worth it…especially since there was risk involved (renter could trash the place etc.).
The fact that the property taxes (triple for rental property) would have been far higher that what I would have made which I THEN would have to pay income taxes on did grate on me…they would make much more than I would for no risk - even if I lost money, they would still get theirs. That concept of unfairness did enter into my decision.