• KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    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.

    • Davin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        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.

        • Davin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Ah yeah. It would take a lot. Even at 90% $100m from a billion is still way more than most of us.