I feel that “outgroup dumb” is shitposting but it’s from a real poll.
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/5057-understanding-how-marginal-taxes-work-its-all-part
I feel that “outgroup dumb” is shitposting but it’s from a real poll.
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/5057-understanding-how-marginal-taxes-work-its-all-part
Shouldn’t it be physically possible to be taxed so much that your income lowers compared to what it was previously?
Like you would have to have a 20% bump in pay, and an increase in taxes that’s like 25-50% or something insane. Of course if you cherry pick data, and pick a high ceiling, and then just barely pass a threshold you can probably make it appear, but that would be a pretty well defined statistical anomaly. And, not very much money.
edit: and this is assuming that taxes literally just don’t work the way that they do, this is WITH broken tax logic.
of course, the idea of a progressive income tax is that at a certain point, it becomes untenable to hold so much money. But unless taxes are literally 100% it’s hard to make the argument that you’re “losing” money.
If the tax bracket for no taxes is $10k, you don’t get taxed if make under that.
If the tax bracket for 5% is $10-20k, and you made $15k, the first $10k is not taxed, but the $5k is taxed at %5.
So you would never make $0 after taxes, even if you made it into the hypothetical 100% tax bracket.
yeah, with how tax brackets actually work, this should be physically impossible, i’m just pointing out that even if it didn’t it would STILL have to be a pretty substantial increase in tax, that you could easily calculate.
Ah yeah. It would take a lot. Even at 90% $100m from a billion is still way more than most of us.