Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Overreaching government strangles innovation!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Overreaching government strangles innovation!


    "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
    I'm just trying to establish the basis for further discussions with you,

    The basis for future discussions are the prior discussions.


    As far as I'm concerned, there are many other factors, besides taxes, that
    influence the decisions of individuals with regard to raises, promotions,
    taking a job, or working overtime. I would suspect that the taxes paid are
    of little importance in the decision process.


    --
    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
    Athens, Georgia




  • #2
    Overreaching government strangles innovation!


    "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
    I'm just trying to establish the basis for further discussions with you,

    The basis for future discussions are the prior discussions.


    As far as I'm concerned, there are many other factors, besides taxes, that
    influence the decisions of individuals with regard to raises, promotions,
    taking a job, or working overtime. I would suspect that the taxes paid are
    of little importance in the decision process.


    --
    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
    Athens, Georgia



    Comment


    • #3
      Overreaching government strangles innovation!


      "VRWC3" <[email protected]> wrote
      The following is an indirect description of why taxes collected in the manner we do in America, is every bit as much a throttle on prosperity

      Tell us about the last time you declined a pay raise because you would have
      to pay more in taxes?

      Tell us about the last time you declined to increase your income because of
      an increase in the amount of your taxes?



      --
      "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
      none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

      Paul A. Thomas, CPA
      Athens, Georgia
      taxman at negia.net


      Comment


      • #4
        Overreaching government strangles innovation!


        "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
        news:[email protected]
        "VRWC3" <[email protected]> wrote
        The following is an indirect description of why taxes collected in the manner we do in America, is every bit as much a throttle on prosperity
        Tell us about the last time you declined a pay raise because you would have to pay more in taxes? Tell us about the last time you declined to increase your income because of an increase in the amount of your taxes?
        I've had guys do exactly that. they'd refused promotions because the *after
        tax* net wasn't worth it, wives have declined to go to work because the net pay
        wasn't worth it, and guys have refused to work OT because of the
        disproportionate withholding. The fact is that apply the tax so that it appears
        to come from income, and doing so on a progressive basis so that the effect on
        the net of any increase is even more dramatic than expected does provide a
        disincentive to achievement.

        Comment


        • #5
          Overreaching government strangles innovation!


          "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          news:[email protected]
          "VRWC3" <[email protected]> wrote
          The following is an indirect description of why taxes collected in the manner we do in America, is every bit as much a throttle on prosperity
          Tell us about the last time you declined a pay raise because you would have to pay more in taxes? Tell us about the last time you declined to increase your income because of an increase in the amount of your taxes?
          I've had guys do exactly that. they'd refused promotions because the *after
          tax* net wasn't worth it, wives have declined to go to work because the net pay
          wasn't worth it, and guys have refused to work OT because of the
          disproportionate withholding. The fact is that apply the tax so that it appears
          to come from income, and doing so on a progressive basis so that the effect on
          the net of any increase is even more dramatic than expected does provide a
          disincentive to achievement.

          Comment


          • #6
            Overreaching government strangles innovation!


            "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
            I've had guys do exactly that. they'd refused promotions because the *after tax* net wasn't worth it,

            Uh huh. I see.

            So what you are saying is, the additional pay didn't match the additional
            responsibility.



            wives have declined to go to work because the net pay wasn't worth it,

            So what you are saying is that the economics of the deal (pay less child
            care, etc) wasn't worth it.


            and guys have refused to work OT because of the disproportionate withholding.

            That's just the amount withheld, and for all purposes, overtime payu isn't
            taxed any differently than regular pay.

            But what is really happening is, the additional pay isn't worth what has to
            be given up (time with family, hobbies, friends, etc.)



            All good examples, but none were solely for tax reasons.

            Additional responsibilities (or even a move), additional expenses, and time
            lost with family are valid factors. None have to do with taxes.


            Please play again.



            --
            Paul A. Thomas, CPA
            Athens, Georgia
            taxman at negia.net


            Comment


            • #7
              Overreaching government strangles innovation!


              "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
              I've had guys do exactly that. they'd refused promotions because the *after tax* net wasn't worth it,

              Uh huh. I see.

              So what you are saying is, the additional pay didn't match the additional
              responsibility.



              wives have declined to go to work because the net pay wasn't worth it,

              So what you are saying is that the economics of the deal (pay less child
              care, etc) wasn't worth it.


              and guys have refused to work OT because of the disproportionate withholding.

              That's just the amount withheld, and for all purposes, overtime payu isn't
              taxed any differently than regular pay.

              But what is really happening is, the additional pay isn't worth what has to
              be given up (time with family, hobbies, friends, etc.)



              All good examples, but none were solely for tax reasons.

              Additional responsibilities (or even a move), additional expenses, and time
              lost with family are valid factors. None have to do with taxes.


              Please play again.



              --
              Paul A. Thomas, CPA
              Athens, Georgia
              taxman at negia.net


              Comment


              • #8
                Overreaching government strangles innovation!


                "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                news:[email protected]
                "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                I've had guys do exactly that. they'd refused promotions because the *after tax* net wasn't worth it,
                Uh huh. I see. So what you are saying is, the additional pay didn't match the additional responsibility.
                Not the pay they got to take home, it didn't. surely you're not suggesting that
                I should've offered a pay which netted out to be worth the responsibility, are
                you? Tell me if that's what you're saying. Please tell me so.
                wives have declined to go to work because the net pay wasn't worth it, So what you are saying is that the economics of the deal (pay less child care, etc) wasn't worth it.
                Not after taxes it isn't.
                and guys have refused to work OT because of the disproportionate withholding. That's just the amount withheld, and for all purposes, overtime payu isn't taxed any differently than regular pay.
                Tell that to the guy who opens his paycheck expecting to see one amount, and he
                sees another. The real life, down in the trenches reality is that it dampens
                enthusiasm for working overtime.
                But what is really happening is, the additional pay isn't worth what has to be given up (time with family, hobbies, friends, etc.)
                Not after taxes it isn't.
                All good examples, but none were solely for tax reasons.
                I never said it was done *soley* for tax reasons, but don't let facts get in
                your way. You never have before.
                Additional responsibilities (or even a move), additional expenses, and time lost with family are valid factors. None have to do with taxes. Please play again.
                Child's play. I enjoy making a fool out of you. Always have.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Overreaching government strangles innovation!


                  "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                  news:[email protected]
                  "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                  I've had guys do exactly that. they'd refused promotions because the *after tax* net wasn't worth it,
                  Uh huh. I see. So what you are saying is, the additional pay didn't match the additional responsibility.
                  Not the pay they got to take home, it didn't. surely you're not suggesting that
                  I should've offered a pay which netted out to be worth the responsibility, are
                  you? Tell me if that's what you're saying. Please tell me so.
                  wives have declined to go to work because the net pay wasn't worth it, So what you are saying is that the economics of the deal (pay less child care, etc) wasn't worth it.
                  Not after taxes it isn't.
                  and guys have refused to work OT because of the disproportionate withholding. That's just the amount withheld, and for all purposes, overtime payu isn't taxed any differently than regular pay.
                  Tell that to the guy who opens his paycheck expecting to see one amount, and he
                  sees another. The real life, down in the trenches reality is that it dampens
                  enthusiasm for working overtime.
                  But what is really happening is, the additional pay isn't worth what has to be given up (time with family, hobbies, friends, etc.)
                  Not after taxes it isn't.
                  All good examples, but none were solely for tax reasons.
                  I never said it was done *soley* for tax reasons, but don't let facts get in
                  your way. You never have before.
                  Additional responsibilities (or even a move), additional expenses, and time lost with family are valid factors. None have to do with taxes. Please play again.
                  Child's play. I enjoy making a fool out of you. Always have.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Overreaching government strangles innovation!


                    "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                    So what you are saying is, the additional pay didn't match the additional responsibility. Not the pay they got to take home, it didn't. surely you're not suggesting that I should've offered a pay which netted out to be worth the responsibility, are you? Tell me if that's what you're saying. Please tell me so.

                    Apparently it wasn't worth it to that employee.


                    wives have declined to go to work because the net pay wasn't worth it, So what you are saying is that the economics of the deal (pay less child care, etc) wasn't worth it. Not after taxes it isn't.

                    Then it's more of an economic matter than a tax matter. One could easily be
                    PO'd at the sky high cost of child care.


                    That's just the amount withheld, and for all purposes, overtime pay isn't taxed any differently than regular pay. Tell that to the guy who opens his paycheck expecting to see one amount, and he sees another. The real life, down in the trenches reality is that it dampens enthusiasm for working overtime.

                    Again, the cost of what they are having to give up for that OT isn't worth
                    any amount of money for some people.

                    All good examples, but none were solely for tax reasons. I never said it was done *soley* for tax reasons, but don't let facts get in your way. You never have before.

                    I'm trying to look at the whole picture. If there were NO taxes at all,
                    there would still be people that didn't take a promotion, would turn down
                    overtime work, and wives (or husbands) would decide to stay at home instead
                    of work for all those other reasons.


                    Additional responsibilities (or even a move), additional expenses, and time lost with family are valid factors. None have to do with taxes. Please play again. Child's play.
                    And ****, aren't you good at it.



                    --
                    "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
                    none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

                    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                    Athens, Georgia
                    taxman at negia.net


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Overreaching government strangles innovation!


                      "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                      So what you are saying is, the additional pay didn't match the additional responsibility. Not the pay they got to take home, it didn't. surely you're not suggesting that I should've offered a pay which netted out to be worth the responsibility, are you? Tell me if that's what you're saying. Please tell me so.

                      Apparently it wasn't worth it to that employee.


                      wives have declined to go to work because the net pay wasn't worth it, So what you are saying is that the economics of the deal (pay less child care, etc) wasn't worth it. Not after taxes it isn't.

                      Then it's more of an economic matter than a tax matter. One could easily be
                      PO'd at the sky high cost of child care.


                      That's just the amount withheld, and for all purposes, overtime pay isn't taxed any differently than regular pay. Tell that to the guy who opens his paycheck expecting to see one amount, and he sees another. The real life, down in the trenches reality is that it dampens enthusiasm for working overtime.

                      Again, the cost of what they are having to give up for that OT isn't worth
                      any amount of money for some people.

                      All good examples, but none were solely for tax reasons. I never said it was done *soley* for tax reasons, but don't let facts get in your way. You never have before.

                      I'm trying to look at the whole picture. If there were NO taxes at all,
                      there would still be people that didn't take a promotion, would turn down
                      overtime work, and wives (or husbands) would decide to stay at home instead
                      of work for all those other reasons.


                      Additional responsibilities (or even a move), additional expenses, and time lost with family are valid factors. None have to do with taxes. Please play again. Child's play.
                      And ****, aren't you good at it.



                      --
                      "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
                      none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

                      Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                      Athens, Georgia
                      taxman at negia.net


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Overreaching government strangles innovation!


                        "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                        news:[email protected]
                        "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                        So what you are saying is, the additional pay didn't match the additional responsibility. Not the pay they got to take home, it didn't. surely you're not suggesting that I should've offered a pay which netted out to be worth the responsibility, are you? Tell me if that's what you're saying. Please tell me so.
                        Apparently it wasn't worth it to that employee.
                        His after tax income wasn't worth it, but that wasn't the question I posed to
                        you, now was it. What's the matter? Cat got your tounge? Are you suggesting
                        that I should've offered a pay which netted out to be worth the responsibility?
                        > wives have declined to go to work because> the net pay wasn't worth it, So what you are saying is that the economics of the deal (pay less child care, etc) wasn't worth it. Not after taxes it isn't. Then it's more of an economic matter than a tax matter. One could easily be PO'd at the sky high cost of child care.
                        Nice try. The fact remains that if the employee wasn't required to give a
                        significant portion of what I was trying to put in his pocket as a raise, he
                        would've taken the job. There's no question it's a tax issue. He declined
                        mostly because of the tax that was going to be taken from him as a direct result
                        of the raise. Not income tax on the raise, and he takes the job.
                        That's just the amount withheld, and for all purposes, overtime pay isn't taxed any differently than regular pay. Tell that to the guy who opens his paycheck expecting to see one amount, and he sees another. The real life, down in the trenches reality is that it dampens enthusiasm for working overtime. Again, the cost of what they are having to give up for that OT isn't worth any amount of money for some people.
                        Not after income taxes it isn't. And that's the point now, isnt it.
                        All good examples, but none were solely for tax reasons. I never said it was done *soley* for tax reasons, but don't let facts get in your way. You never have before.
                        I'm trying to look at the whole picture.
                        No, your trying to look at everything except the most significant factor, which
                        is taxes.
                        If there were NO taxes at all, there would still be people that didn't take a promotion, would turn down overtime work, and wives (or husbands) would decide to stay at home instead of work for all those other reasons.
                        Yes, there would still be those people......and there would still be *******s.
                        But that isn't the point now is it? The point is whether or not people let the
                        amount of income taxes they much pay as a direct result of their income
                        influence their decisions. Or rather, as you know, whether or not employers
                        must face that reality by making the net amount commensurate with the extra
                        effort. But you don't want to address that one, do you.
                        Additional responsibilities (or even a move), additional expenses, and time lost with family are valid factors. None have to do with taxes. Please play again. Child's play. And ****, aren't you good at it.
                        I'm so good at it because adult play is so more difficult, and I'm good at that
                        too. But with you, all I need is child's play.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Overreaching government strangles innovation!


                          "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                          news:[email protected]
                          "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                          So what you are saying is, the additional pay didn't match the additional responsibility. Not the pay they got to take home, it didn't. surely you're not suggesting that I should've offered a pay which netted out to be worth the responsibility, are you? Tell me if that's what you're saying. Please tell me so.
                          Apparently it wasn't worth it to that employee.
                          His after tax income wasn't worth it, but that wasn't the question I posed to
                          you, now was it. What's the matter? Cat got your tounge? Are you suggesting
                          that I should've offered a pay which netted out to be worth the responsibility?
                          > wives have declined to go to work because> the net pay wasn't worth it, So what you are saying is that the economics of the deal (pay less child care, etc) wasn't worth it. Not after taxes it isn't. Then it's more of an economic matter than a tax matter. One could easily be PO'd at the sky high cost of child care.
                          Nice try. The fact remains that if the employee wasn't required to give a
                          significant portion of what I was trying to put in his pocket as a raise, he
                          would've taken the job. There's no question it's a tax issue. He declined
                          mostly because of the tax that was going to be taken from him as a direct result
                          of the raise. Not income tax on the raise, and he takes the job.
                          That's just the amount withheld, and for all purposes, overtime pay isn't taxed any differently than regular pay. Tell that to the guy who opens his paycheck expecting to see one amount, and he sees another. The real life, down in the trenches reality is that it dampens enthusiasm for working overtime. Again, the cost of what they are having to give up for that OT isn't worth any amount of money for some people.
                          Not after income taxes it isn't. And that's the point now, isnt it.
                          All good examples, but none were solely for tax reasons. I never said it was done *soley* for tax reasons, but don't let facts get in your way. You never have before.
                          I'm trying to look at the whole picture.
                          No, your trying to look at everything except the most significant factor, which
                          is taxes.
                          If there were NO taxes at all, there would still be people that didn't take a promotion, would turn down overtime work, and wives (or husbands) would decide to stay at home instead of work for all those other reasons.
                          Yes, there would still be those people......and there would still be *******s.
                          But that isn't the point now is it? The point is whether or not people let the
                          amount of income taxes they much pay as a direct result of their income
                          influence their decisions. Or rather, as you know, whether or not employers
                          must face that reality by making the net amount commensurate with the extra
                          effort. But you don't want to address that one, do you.
                          Additional responsibilities (or even a move), additional expenses, and time lost with family are valid factors. None have to do with taxes. Please play again. Child's play. And ****, aren't you good at it.
                          I'm so good at it because adult play is so more difficult, and I'm good at that
                          too. But with you, all I need is child's play.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Overreaching government strangles innovation!


                            "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                            Are you suggesting that I should've offered a pay which netted out to be worth the responsibility?


                            That's kind of the idea, but I suppose sub-minimum wages are still illegal.

                            But really, as a business person, you opt to pay the minimum you have to pay
                            to get the position filled. If the employee is foolish enough to work for
                            less than he could get, then that's good for you. But for the really savvy
                            employee, who knows his (or her) worth, the pay always reflects the
                            responsibilities.


                            --
                            "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
                            none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

                            Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                            Athens, Georgia
                            taxman at negia.net


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Overreaching government strangles innovation!


                              "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                              Are you suggesting that I should've offered a pay which netted out to be worth the responsibility?


                              That's kind of the idea, but I suppose sub-minimum wages are still illegal.

                              But really, as a business person, you opt to pay the minimum you have to pay
                              to get the position filled. If the employee is foolish enough to work for
                              less than he could get, then that's good for you. But for the really savvy
                              employee, who knows his (or her) worth, the pay always reflects the
                              responsibilities.


                              --
                              "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
                              none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

                              Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                              Athens, Georgia
                              taxman at negia.net


                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X