food for thought

[badtz2]

Hypothetically I could take two years to go back to school, come back to this company and at the lowest starting salary for a developer save slightly more money in the following two years than I could save if I worked for those 4 years at my current salary with a compounded yearly 5% raise (which will actually be more like 2-3%). This projection

Comments

[netik]

Hmm, Let's look at this from the "billionaires for bush" perspective.

Say you make $100,000 / yr.

You'd now owe $20,408 in taxes to the government (nearly 25%!) according to the IRS for 2004.
Then there's california tax: $1725 (fixed rate) + (9.3% single person tax rate) $9300

That's $68,567 left over to work with, a 31.44% tax rate.

A 10% tax rate would hurt the $100k person way more than the poor. ;)

Also, as far as I knew, after $200K or so income taxes ceased to rise. You also might want to note that people who make that kind of money on a regular basis buy property and hide their money in tax shelters which the poor don't have.

Tax cuts don't work, but it's interesting to see both sides of the coin.

[badtz2]

I wasn't advocating a tax cut so much as questioning the rational in the 10% jump between the lower brackets. Why not put the larger jump between higher brackets where one is moving from a position of having some income in excess of survival needs to having more of an excess instead of slamming those who are just barely at or above a subsistence income with the largest tax increase when they make more money?