this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
1272 points (96.6% liked)

memes

10368 readers
3068 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fillicia@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Same vibe as:

"I won't work overtime because I end up losing money on taxes"

That's not how tax brackets work!

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Work has an economic cost to it. The net present value of work is not equal to the wage.

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

That's not how tax brackets should work. But sadly for last year's state tax I came across it. [Example numbers] Previously I had 24,200 annual salary but zero tax as it was below 25,000. Even though personal deductions are 10,000, below 25 was considered too low to tax. This year, due to a mistake from employers I was paid for two weeks retroactively, now I have 25,300. Instead of taxing 300 above 25,000 the tax was for 15,300 after deduction. So I had to pay taxes which decreased the money below 25,000 which should not happen if income below 25,000 pays no tax.

And considering there might be things like not qualifying for financial assistance and other things when you cross 25,000 (again example numbers), the actual benefit of making slightly below that, is higher than making slightly above that..

So the system is putting a resistance to overcome poverty. Either you start making double of what you are making, or stay on your lane. Because trying to improve your situation by only a little is harmful.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No. You showed one possible edge case, not a general rule.

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I know it's an edge case. But the edge case of having to pay more on taxes on increasing income existing for incomes close to poverty line seems counterproductive, doesn't it?