Personal Finance

Income Over $150k To Be Heavily Taxed

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 15th, 2014 8:25 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
Nov 24, 2004
3776 posts
465 upvotes
Toronto
florch wrote:
May 7th, 2014 10:16 am
Can I counter with another example? ...
Sure, your airline pilot example is great, and I have no issue with it. What I object to (as previously mentioned) are the blanket statements that high income is the result of risk / sacrifice / hard work, or that high-income earners get the wages they do because of the value they add.

There are clearly many cases where both of these statements are true, but also a huge number where they are not.
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2009
16565 posts
3595 upvotes
Toronto
JHW wrote:
May 7th, 2014 10:28 am
Sure, your airline pilot example is great, and I have no issue with it. What I object to (as previously mentioned) are the blanket statements that high income is the result of risk / sacrifice / hard work, or that high-income earners get the wages they do because of the value they add.

There are clearly many cases where both of these statements are true, but also a huge number where they are not.
But that is also a meaningless generality. I've dealt with people getting paid $25 or $35 an hour who definitely don't deserve that because they slack off miserably. Should we increase taxes by a large amount in that group making $50000 - $70000 because some of the people working in that group don't deserve what they get paid?

I can tell you though that a lot of people in finance do work horrible hours. I'm not in finance, but I've known those who do. During busy periods they'd be working from 7 am to 9 pm, at least 5 days a week, and sometimes up to 7 days a week. The other aspect of it is that even when they're not working, they often are working. I hated the environment since I'd go to a club or something with my friends in business and finance, only to discover that even there they're "working" as well, entertaining potential clients and financial partners.
Deal Addict
Nov 24, 2004
3776 posts
465 upvotes
Toronto
EugW wrote:
May 7th, 2014 10:33 am
But that is also a meaningless generality. I've dealt with people getting paid $25 or $35 an hour who definitely deserve that because they slack off miserably. Should we increase taxes by a large amount in that group making $50000 - $70000 because some of the people working in that group don't deserve what they get paid?
Nowhere have I made an argument about what salaries people "deserve" -- I am only concerned here with refuting the blanket statements, made earlier, that high income is the result of risk / sacrifice / hard work, or that high-income earners get the wages they do because of the value they add.

Note that I am not trying to defend Wynne's tax plan. I think we all agree here (with a couple of exceptions) in the idea of a progressive income tax system. I will leave the discussions about where to set the brackets to others who are more familiar with the numbers than I am.
Sr. Member
Apr 6, 2007
506 posts
58 upvotes
JHW wrote:
May 7th, 2014 10:39 am
Nowhere have I made an argument about what salaries people "deserve" -- I am only concerned here with refuting the blanket statements, made earlier, that high income is the result of risk / sacrifice / hard work, or that high-income earners get the wages they do because of the value they add.

Note that I am not trying to defend Wynne's tax plan. I think we all agree here (with a couple of exceptions) in the idea of a progressive income tax system. I will leave the discussions about where to set the brackets to others who are more familiar with the numbers than I am.
OK, I can agree that not everyone gets what they deserve and some get too much. But without risking a blanket statement ;) most entities (people or corporations) won't accept less or give more than they have to. So artificial means of wage suppression or successful union actions aside, supply and demand play into compensation. Since people like money, they will compete for the best jobs. The reason you are able to obtain and hold a great job is because you were the best person available on the day they hired, and the compensation is the minimum required to attract someone who is both willing and able to handle that job. In theory, and theory isn't practice - but it leads in the right direction. Of course there are exceptions, but business has to keep going and can't screw around with minutia, so it makes a decision and moves ahead.
Newbie
Jun 13, 2013
18 posts
2 upvotes
Victoria
It depends how the expenses are used. if your company flies you to Paris for work, its their perogative to fly you in a private jet if they choose or put you up in the Ritz. But if you earn a benefit, its a taxable benefit.

you could earn stock options in the company, and then just pay capital gains tax when you exercise the stocks and make money from their sale.

Top