- Joined
- Oct 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,112
- Reaction score
- 987
- Location
- (none)
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Communist
Neither
I know which one that you prefer. :ssst: but I won't tell anybody.
(everybody loves cold hard cash)
Neither
I know which one that you prefer. :ssst: but I won't tell anybody.
(everybody loves cold hard cash)
When someone in this country is punished for taking advantages of all the opportunities provided them in this country and becoming successful and then is punished excessively through taxation for being successful, there is a something seriously wrong. For you to even come up with the scenario that you did proves you are part of the problem/
A) A $30,000 income with a $0.00 tax burden?
or
B) A $250,000 income with a $125,000 tax burden?
Why do you think your answer is the most advantageous for you?
B would make sense mathematically.
That sort of depends on what the jobs are, where they're located, who they're working with/for, what it takes to be qualified for one vs the other, etc...
All else being equal (which is absurd), option B sounds better.
In scenario A the job is wonderful, easy, in the best location, working with the best people imaginable with no qualifications.
In scenario B the job is horrible, difficult, in the worst place, working with a**holes and jerks with no qualifications.
The first job is great. The second job sucks.
Poll is kinda stupid though - obviously, of the two options, B grants the greatest money to the person.You are free to use math to come up with an answer.
Does anyone who makes 30k not have a tax burden?
B grants the greatest money to the person.
Yes. I thought that was pretty clear.
If the shoe fits. What I find troubling are the number that voted to settle for half their pay to pay half in taxes. Obviously they do not make 125,000 and are willing to settle at an opportunity to do so even though they originally earned 250,000. How sad.
Here's another question. You're making the $30,000 and even though you didn't pay taxes you still get a refund. Of course that has to come from somewhere so it comes from the people paying 30, 40 even 50 percent of their income in paying takes. Do you
a) resent and vilify them and say how unfair it is that they make more
Or
B) happily spend the money and maybe even work to position yourself to where you to could make a higher income
What about hrs worked, expenses/COL etc. Also, you may do fine with 30 in some places, while 125 don't get you very far in others. Paying a hefty mortgage or living in a trailer park, kids going to college, combined income or personal income?
Too many questions need to be answered first.
Here's another question. You're making the $30,000 and even though you didn't pay taxes you still get a refund. Of course that has to come from somewhere so it comes from the people paying 30, 40 even 50 percent of their income in paying takes. Do you
a) resent and vilify them and say how unfair it is that they make more
Or
B) happily spend the money and maybe even work to position yourself to where you to could make a higher income
Is the higher paying job something that I might object to?
maquiscat said:Do I have an opportunity to increase my income?
maquiscat said:Am I being given a special exemption to the tax/the same rate as everyone else, or is there a system that varies with income?
maquiscat said:I will gladly start at the 30K
Sorry. I won't believe you until you vote option A. I doubt that you will. B is a much better option. 17 people agree but only 1 person disagrees. Of course the poll hasn't closed yet. There might be some more votes for option A. :roll:
You were not very clear about anything. The only factors were the pay and the tax rate. Is the higher paying job something that I might object to? Do I have an opportunity to increase my income? Am I being given a special exemption to the tax/the same rate as everyone else, or is there a system that varies with income? Heck even where I live factors into the answer. Looking at just my first question (from my previous post), if I am not stuck at the one pay rate, but the tax rate remains consistent then I will gladly start at the 30K so that when I do work my way up to the 250K I have all of it.
Not really. If you have a chance to do better, it is not a sad thing to take it. Any sadness would come in the form of the price you had to pay in order to do so. If the work I do is worth 125K in the end I'm willing to work for the on paper pay rate of 500K. In the end we're not really getting paid our $10/hr or whatever it is we're getting paid. Look at your income and then minus your taxes. That is your true income, the one you hope to increase.
Go on make your own poll thread and let's see where it goes.
I find it very interesting that you keep changing the conditions to make option B more and more favorable.
In scenario A the job is wonderful, easy, in the best location, working with the best people imaginable with no qualifications.
In scenario B the job is horrible, difficult, in the worst place, working with a**holes and jerks with no qualifications.
The first job is great. The second job sucks.
Those that spend less of their income on survival needs need to pay more in taxes so those who barely survive can survive.
A) A $30,000 income with a $0.00 tax burden?
or
B) A $250,000 income with a $125,000 tax burden?
Why do you think your answer is the most advantageous for you?