Fine, you evaluated the pros and cons. For you. Which has fuckall to do with me. Hence, your hypothetical is shitty.
NO you did not. For the third fucking time now, you have made ZERO mention of what new work and responsibilities this new position entails. You’re only giving me one side of the equation – a car worth $12,000 – and you’re refusing to make any mention of whether the new effort in Sara’s position is worth the… what, $1500/yr difference. If it ain’t, it ain’t, and that has fuckall to do with tax rates.
Hey, that is an obvious point. The corresponding hypothetical is the boss can give me a raise worth $12,000 after taxes or one worth $10,500 after taxes. But you can’t simply equate cash and benefits, and – more egregiously – you cannot simply wave away considerations about stress, effort, job satisfaction, job security by repeating “But the car is worth $12,000!”
The car, stress, effort, job satisfaction, job security, and everything else is worth $12,000 to you.
Not to me, not to the car dealership, not to your best friend, not to your boss. TO YOU. THAT’S HOW BAD YOU WANT THE BENEFITS. THAT’S HOW YOU EQUATE BENEFITS AND MONEY.
So we’ve got car, stress, effort, job satisfaction, job security, miscellaneous, and taxes going into this equation. How is it you consider one factor out of seven a “significant factor”?
It’s a consideration. This is obvious. But it’s not a make it or break it point, and the ridiculously hypothetical “me” in your shitty hypothetical has failed to demonstrate any point whatsoever. Just like my ridiculously hypothetical you, who takes a $2,000 car because he likes the color, also failed to demonstrate anything meaningful.
Me? I don’t need the hypothetical. I’m in a situation where I’m facing a possible swing in income of $50,000. Taxes is a minor, minor blip compared to daycare costs, time with the kids, sleeplessness, marital stress, ability to focus on my work and get a bump to the next level, etc. It just doesn’t swing the equation meaningfully at all. It’s minor.
So as long as we’re on the topic of fighting the hypothetical, are we to assume that I live in a universe where I’m completely ignorant of the concept of taxes? That I get the first paycheck and am so gobsmacked by the deductions that I storm to HR demanding to know what “Fed Withholding” means? Because that’s the only way your scenario makes sense.
Of course anyone is going to calculate in taxes when figuring out payment. Anyone that’s seen at least one paycheck will. What? He thought that $15,000 raise was just going to be in an envelope slid under the table?
No, the real mistake that can happen is in miscalculating your taxes because you’re moving across tax rates. THAT’S what we’re talking about here. So what did that cost me?
Let’s say I’m at 15%. I should net $12,750 after taxes. $750 in my favor. I should take the raise.
OH NOES! I’m actually at 25% now. I really net $11,250. What fool hath I been? I should have taken the benefits! Broken down, I made a mistake of $14.42 per week.
$14.42? That’s not a “commit seppuku” mistake there. That’s more of a “well, it was pretty damn close to a coinflip either way” type of decision.
If someone offers me $100 cash or $1000 in money-saving coupons… I’m taking the cash. Even if those coupons are worth $1000 to me, I’d still rather have the cash.
Uh, it isn’t now either. I’m not even sure that what you have up there is what your really meant to type.
No, I didn’t equivocate, I responded to someone else who pulled that $10K out of his butt. And when I asked him where he got that number, he didn’t answer. As I said then, I don’t know what exact difference in net income we have now, but when someone came up with $10K, I said that I couldn’t imagine that I wouldn’t notice the loss of $10K a year.
Oh please. I realize that my grasp of the language isn’t perfect but I cannot believe that no one here has ever misunderstood something they have read.
It did? Huh. I thought all I said was when I quit working, the lowering of the amount of taxes we paid, and some adjustments I made, meant we didn’t notice much difference.
“File for bankruptcy, pay pennies on the dollar to settle your debts, go on with life.”
Apparently only since 1978.
I don’t know why you would be personally offended by me saying that these days we spend a lot of time, money and effort bailing people out who are financially irresponsible. Also, it isn’t like the credit card companies haven’t been sending cards for decades to people who shouldn’t have them. The mortgage thing is recent, but people running up debt they shouldn’t be is nothing new. My first husband did it in the late 70’s, so it’s been going on since at least then, tho back then no one was around to help me pay it all off.
These consequences would be severe to you or me, but to those who have spent their lives running up debt and cannot pay it off, the ability to keep the house they have, vehicles to get to work and payment plans that don’t include paying off the whole nut is going to look really nice. The job thing may be more of an issue these days, but before the current economic problems, many of these folks had and kept jobs while going thru bankruptcy and afterward. I know of two from my last job, and my husband worked with one. All were before 2005 tho, so that may be why I am seeing far more ads about it these days.
I said in my OP that I had made some adjustments.
Again, this is the Pit - people like to jump on a detail, twist it around until it’s unrecognizable and then repeat it until they have followers. I cannot be held responsible for that, um, habit?
If that is what you had done, yes. However, other than using the word glib, this isn’t what you did - you completely changed what you had said.
Are you reading this Damuri Ajashi? This is exactly what I meant by people jumping on a detail. So what if Chessic Sense specified what adjustments could be made? You even quoted back that I said “adjustments” but you chose to pretend that I only said taxes.
Snort, even if that was possible, $20,000 isn’t going to drop us another bracket.
Will soon be one of those people and no I don’t like it. It boggles my mind why someone who is highly successful is somehow expected to carry more of the burden than others who may not be. How does this make any sense except in some bizarro world? We should all pay 15% of our yearly income and that’s that.
Obummer brought this up in a speech yesterday. He stressed that its about being fair. He had the gall to use the word fair regarding overtaxing the rich.
When you consider overall tax rate, including all sorts of taxes - sales taxes, gas taxes, income taxes, social security taxes, etc., how much of a percentage of a poor person’s, middle class person’s, moderately wealth person’s, and extremely wealthly person’s income go to taxes?
Loss of sanity is not linear with hours worked, and probably goes up a lot faster than the tax rate. Sure you can make up examples where a new bracket would make a difference, but it is unlikely to happen in real life. When I worked 12-13vhours a day I got nothing extra for it (except a crappy free dinner) being salaried, but I don’t think more pay would have helped, and taxes would have had nothing to do with my decision, being in the noise. My wife, being self employed, gets to pay self-employment tax also, but increased taxes at a high bracket has never had anything to do with her decision to take on work.
Sure there are plenty of reasons to not work 60 hours a week, but taxes is low on the list.
[QUOTE=curlcoat;14129868Oh please. I realize that my grasp of the language isn’t perfect but I cannot believe that no one here has ever misunderstood something they have read.[/quote]
Yeah but a lot of people read your post the same way. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and postulated that you were saving money because of child care costs or something like that and it was made clear to me that it was basically the taxes. You focused on the taxes as the reason you didn’t feel the pinch of losing 20K in income.
You focused on the tax part. Once again, here is what you said:
Perhaps you are using bailout differently than everyone else but the bad debt losses are not covered by taxpayers.
The bankruptcy code has worked in pretty much the same way for fucking decades, our nation is in part founded on the concepts underlying the bankruptcy code. EVERYONE knew about the bankruptcy code BEFORE they lent someone money, its why lenders are supposed to be careful who they lend money to.
Yeah, thats the point of inception for the modern bankruptcy code. The Bankruptcy Code BEEFORE that was called the Chandler ACT and THAT had a Chapter 13 as well. So I guess if you go back to before the Great Depression, the laws might have been different. What’s your point, tho? That we bailed out these folks in 1978?
Yeah and the credit card companies are taking the risk. They KNOW they risk default. EVERY lender knows that there is a risk of default. You (by and large) had the same rights under the bankruptcy code back then as you have today (its actually a bit less today because of the 2005 law).
The bankruptcy laws are less forgiving today than they were in 2004. The reason you see so many ads is because so many people are fucking broke.
You focused on taxes. If you wish to recant and say that you were able to get by on less money because you made some adjustments, then fine but you said:
Or you are trying to change what you said after the fact. Normally people just back off and say, hrmm I guess I should have said X instead of Y.
If that is what you had done, yes. However, other than using the word glib, this isn’t what you did - you completely changed what you had said.
If you notice, I didn’t jump on you at first. I was trying to make excuses for you and then you made it clear you were focusing on he taxes.
ROFLMAO. You have no idea what the concept of fair means.
I’ve been “one of those people” for years and I have seen people come and go at law firms and investment banks alike, most people last a few years. They all think that taxes are too high on the rich unless they lose their job with no real prospects of ever getting the brass ring, then their views suddenly mellow and the conept of progressive taxation becomes more palatable.
Your position is not based on what system makes for a fair and just society, your position is based on what will give you the biggest take home pay.
Read up on John Rawls and the original position if you want to start thinking about what is fair. He basically says that noone is objective enough to determine what is fair. The poor will think that policies that help them are fair and the rich will think that policies that help them are fair. Fairness can only be determined by someone in the “original position” SOmeone who is effectively in everybody’s shoes.
I don’t have to “read up” on anyone. I can think for myself. Funny how only the rich can be derided for wanting their take home pay to be as much as possible. We are all free to donate to charity. We have that freedom. And freedom doesn’t end with the poor and the middle class. The rich are no less American than anyone else. However they are expected to adapt to special rules because of all they have. Sour grapes is what its all about.
I was talking about post #185, where I asked you where you got the $10+K number that you stated must be the amount we no longer have since I quite working. My much later post, where I guessed we are paying that amount less in only fed tax is a different thing, or do you not understand that we have payroll taxes going to places other than the IRS?
Actually, one or two people interpreted it the way they wanted to (as you appear to be below) and all the rest of you are just echoing their mistakes.
You failed to include the whole quote for some reason, which included:
Bolding mine. Yes, my major focus is on the lesser amount of tax we paid, but that is not all I said in my OP.
Not directly as taxes, but as higher costs. If (me now pulling numbers out of my butt, but at least I admit it) Mastercard loses $1M a year in debts they have to write off, they aren’t going to just absorb that loss, they are going to pass it on to their customers.
This has nothing to do with what I said. Yes, the way the government handled the bank bailout I don’t agree with, but that was an (we can only hope) one-off thing and not the ongoing problem of people being completely irresponsible with their money and credit.
At this point, I’m not sure I remember. Probably that the changes in 1978 made it easier for people to file bankruptcy but still keep most of their possessions.
How much risk is it when they can just pass on the costs to those who do pay their bills? They can probably write it off on their taxes as well.
That doesn’t make sense. Why would anyone pay for TV air time to target a group that is broke?
See above. Is it any wonder I keep repeating READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WRITE? Someone else is going to come along, read your posts and think that is all I said.
So you are doubling down. Being told that no combination of state income tax, Federal income tax, and payroll tax adds up to a marginal tax rate of 50%, you are now saying that Federal Income tax alone is at a marginal tax rate of 50%. I don’t know if you are insane, stupid, or just trolling.