I heard that the extra taxes on an income of over 250,000 will amount to $300.00 for each $10,000.00 over 250,000.00, seems like these folks are crazy!

"Americans need professional news outlets that debunk misconceptions like these, not fuel the fire of ignorance."

Or just professional news outlets ... Please ...

There's no excuse for journalism that's this bad. Americans need professional news outlets that debunk misconceptions like these, not fuel the fire of ignorance.

But that's assuming that these "journalists" actually learned anything in journalism class. I think our lackadaisical educational efforts are coming back to haunt us.

....hmmmm lack of intelligence in media reporting - imagine the consequences....

Louisiana attorney: "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

Totally aside from the tax arguement, but PARDON ME, but remark has to be challenged. How dare this person assume that people who get paid less don't work as hard as he does??? Let's let him work as a janitor, a nurses aide, a grocery clerk (who stands on his/her feet all day), a daycare worker, a landscaper, construction worker, etc, etc. and then try to make that remark.

Go to H*ll, LA atty!!!

Assume, hypothetically, that we lived in the world Emily Friedman imagines. Who would feel sorry for these people? Would people suggest it would be even better to cut their pay down to a level where they could pay no taxes? Personally, I find it hard to believe Friedman found these people. More than likely, someone convinced them to play the stooge.

Any of those idiots needing to off-load income over $249,999 can happily send it to me. I'll coddle their ignorance, and allow them to continue believing that they're intelligent and contributing members of the human race instead of just another walking waste of oxygen who usually happen to breed and create more shitheads.

Hey, great! More work for the rest of us.

The only people who are in a position to do this are people who work by the hour and can control their work schedule. They work less, the rest gets done by someone else.

I encourage my competition to adopt this strategy. It will be good for my business.

Here's a thought: If one wishes to allow themselves to make less money, this is America and the free markets allow people to make as little as they so choose (those free markets also help people make as little as possible, but I digress).

If you want to make less money, go for it. If this is why you want to make less money, it sounds to me like Darwin's theory is in play, so, by all means...have at it.

I don't know if we have the smartest dumb people or the dumbest smart people. Either way, jeebus these people are freaking stupid.

this meme has been getting legs on the Rushbo show. I accidentally had to listen to it one day a week or so ago (at a small shop) and heard folks calling in with this very belief. and Rush jumped all over it as proof of our socialist president...

Louisiana attorney: "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

Right, because when you think of unimpeachable icons for honest hard work, you just have to think "lawyer in Louisiana."

Lest we forget, it is the filthy rich and woefully ignorant of practical matters- like tax law- who OWN NBC/CBS/ABC et al. . .

Louisiana attorney: "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

That's a question that all hard-working, wage-earning employees of any large corporation should ask themselves, as they watch the corporation's ultra-rich CEO collect tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for running the company into the ground, destroying stockholder value and laying off thousands of workers.

I mean really now, the whole premise of the US corporate economy is that large numbers of workers will "kill themselves" working hard so that the wealth produced by their labor can be "given away" to a tiny, ultra-rich, increasingly hereditary minority who don't work as hard as they do.

For anyone interested, I wrote more about this here:
Upper-Class Idiots

Steve Benen wrote: "Americans need professional news outlets that debunk misconceptions like these, not fuel the fire of ignorance."

Sure, but the ultra-rich corporate oligarchs who own the mass media need professional propagandists who will fuel the fire of ignorance rather than informing and educating Americans about actual facts.

There's no excuse for journalism that's this bad.

Well, actually, there is, but only if the purpose of it is to bring to our attention people we should point at and laugh.

How in the world do people who don't even understand the basic concept of marginal tax rates ever make enough money to worry about it?

We're surrounded by morons. Truly.

Correct me if I am wrong here. Since the tax rate will be reduced for income under $250k and increased for income over $250k, wouldn't someone have to make a bit more than $250k to see their actual total taxes rise under this plan? Let's say I made $260k (wouldn't that be nice?). Since my taxes would be reduced somewhat for some or all of my income up to $250k, and only increased somewhat on the much smaller $10k portion, wouldn't I still potentially benefit? There would be some break even point above $250k where I would actually begin to pay more total dollars in tax under the plan compared to previously, depending on the rise and reduction of the various brackets. Am I wrong?

BTW...when I first read this, I thought it said Rich Mormons. I kept asking myself why the Mormons would do that...what religious purpose would this serve.

Reading is an amazing thing, ain't it? :-D

What your exerpt, and TNR's exerpt, fail to mention is where the financial analyst then talked about the effect of the propsed 28% cap on deductions. From that aspect, he inferred that it made some sense.

In addition, the story doesn't mention the amount over $250K these people currently make. If it's a fairly large amount, the combination of the increase in the marginal rate and the cap on deductions may amount to a substantially larger amount of taxes due. At that point, many will look at the effort necessary to earn that increased income and instead decide they'd rather spend time with family, on leisure activities, or just laying on their asses. If you can already cover the necessities and a some fun stuff too, why bust your hump to give an ever increasing portion of each incremental dollar earned to federal, state and local taxes?

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00...."

Yeah, me too. I make $28,000 now so let me know how y'all manage.

There's no excuse for journalism that's this bad.

Unless the people ABC News' Emily Friedman works for are highly concerned about tax increases on incomes above 250 large.

If you can already cover the necessities and a some fun stuff too, why bust your hump to give an ever increasing portion of each incremental dollar earned to federal, state and local taxes?

That's actually a benefit of progressive taxation, as research has shown no marginal benefit in terms of experienced utility (measured by reported satisfaction) for increased income beyond about $200K/year. So reducing the perceived prospective utility (which is evidently misleading) to increased income above that level encourages people to do things that are no less likely to increase their own actual experienced utility and are likely to do more to increase others experienced utility.

This is also why general satisfaction levels are higher than in the US in many developed countries with less inequality in income distribution but lower per capita and even median income: people doing less things that, despite the illusory prospect of personal utility, lack both personal and socially utility.

One more example that the rich are not the smartest, just the greediest.

Lynne, the amount by which marginal tax rates would be increased on those earning more that $250K simply takes us back to Clinton level rates. Back then I didn't notice a whole lot of disincentive to earning more money if you could.

cmdicely - I think you missed a "not".

"If you're so rich, how come you're not smart?"

Love, Curmudgeon

lynne, to add on to what butch just said, look, if the given individual doesn't think the increased amount of take-home pay is worth the incremental effort, fine: lawyering, dentistry, and accounting are not such specialized skills that there aren't plenty of others out there willing to take on the work.

but at no point is it the case that you won't keep more money if you earn more money.

What idiots! These guys also seem to forget that individuals pay FICA tax (12.4% for self employed) on their first $100k or so, so a couple pays for the first $200k.

And the increase, coming in two years, is only 4%. The additional tax on the next $750,000 is $30,000. That is like half a Lexis, or one week of shopping for Sarah Palin.

I think a better plan would be to create a few higher tax brackets, or add FICA taxes back into the mix for income over some high level.

You don't need excuses for being stupid if you're biased toward current rightwingnut ideology like ABC. You are by definition stupid.

I'll bet the Charles Gibson actually wrote that piece of propaganda ...

Even those making $25-50k understood this. So I don't understand how those with such a higher income could be so ignorant. Does their greed blind them to common sense or what? I mean, my God, it's been this way for ever...tax increases on the amounts 'over' the $250k mark not the entire first $250k made.
Aren't reporters supposed to research their reporting...just so 'they' understand the facts first before reporting them to others???

the financial analyst then talked about the effect of the propsed 28% cap on deductions. From that aspect, he inferred that it made some sense. - Lynn

How does that make it make sense? Right now if you are in the 35% marginal tax bracket
and you pay $1000 for a deductible item, it costs you $650. If the rate is reduced to 28% you pay $720. But if you have to give up $1000 in income to get down to $249,000 income, it costs you $1720. How does that benefit you? And how much less work are you going to do to get there?

Butch, you're right about Clinton levels on taxation. However, look at the income levels that triggered entry into the 36% and 39.6% brackets back then and now adjust those figures for inflation. High income tax payers were better off under Clinton, and that doesn't even take the cap on deductions into account. You're using a straw arguement.

Howard, I never said someone would not earn more money. I just stated that for some, the additional net after all taxes money earned might not be worth the additional effort required to earn it.

Look at the bright side - if some high income individuals decide to slow down, that just creates more opportunities for others. Seems like everyone could come out feeling like a winner.

Idiocy abounds among the rich right, but frankly I'd sick of hearing all of these rich bastards whine that they only have that much money because *they* work hard while the poor are living the life of Riley. Does Dr. Donothing *really* think he works harder than the family who picks his heirloom tomatoes? Does he *really* think that the guy who picks up his trash avoided going to med school just because he was lazy? Does he *really* think that the family who lost their home to a usurious rate adjustment was just running a scam against the bank?

I guess I'm just having trouble accepting that the hard-working, silver-spoon sucking, Mercedes-driving rich are inherently better than the rest of us.
. . . jim strain in san diego.

Does Dr. Donothing *really* think he works harder than the family who picks his heirloom tomatoes? Does he *really* think that the guy who picks up his trash avoided going to med school just because he was lazy? Does he *really* think that the family who lost their home to a usurious rate adjustment was just running a scam against the bank?

Uhm, yes, he does. That's the problem.

Lynne, I was IN the 36% tax bracket in 1996. I'm still in the 2nd highest tax bracket. I'm not quite sure how entering the 39.6% tax bracket at $264K says high income tax payers were doing BETTER under Clinton than in 2008 where you are at 33% between $200K and $358K and 35% above that.

If I use the CPI and GDP deflators I get $264,750 in 1996 is worth $361,926 or $343,993 respectively. So the switch to the 2008 top bracket falls between them AND the rate is 4.6% lower.

If they are this stupid, perhaps there is a simple, marketing based solution. Let's just call the 4% return to Clinton era taxes on income over $250K a Tax Bonus. With the brains on these people, they'll be clamoring for it.

Oops - $263,750 in that second sentence...

"The people ABC quoted don't seem to understand that. Worse, ABC doesn't seem to understand it, either."

In a nutshell, that's how Republicans get elected.

Charities should start preying on these maroons, sending them letters about how they can lower their taxable income by fighting homelessness, disease, pollution, etc. Somebody should be getting some good out of these turds in the gene pool.

Please tell me WHY you are trying to disabuse these idiots of their false ideas?

LET them reduce their income, please.

ENCOURAGE them to give more money to charity in order to reduce their income.

ENCOURAGE them to hire more people, or increase their employees' benefits to reduce their own income.

Sheesh.

Lynne:

"In addition, the story doesn't mention the amount over $250K these people currently make. If it's a fairly large amount, the combination of the increase in the marginal rate and the cap on deductions may amount to a substantially larger amount of taxes due. At that point, many will look at the effort necessary to earn that increased income and instead decide they'd rather spend time with family, on leisure activities, or just laying on their asses. If you can already cover the necessities and a some fun stuff too, why bust your hump to give an ever increasing portion of each incremental dollar earned to federal, state and local taxes?"

I think you're asserting something that isn't in evidence. I question the assumption that someone "earning" x amount above 250K is "busting their hump" to a much greater extent than someone taking home, say, 249K. I'm not going to say that that is never true--people on commissions, for instance, do have to work harder to make more money. But many people are paid on some sort of salary level.

I retired 2 1/2 years ago after working for 41 years, mostly as a librarian. In my observation, what people are paid is only indirectly related, if at all, to level of education, previous experience, etc., and certainly there is NO relationship between the job's contribution to society as a whole, and how much a person makes.

No, pay is based mostly on tradition and on how skillful a job applicant is at negotiation. The idea of the hard-working, risk-taking executive is largely a myth. This may be true of someone starting his/her own company, but it's scarcely true of top brass at the big corporations.

I get REALLY REALLY tired of hearing that a progressive tax system takes from the "productive" and gives it to the "undeserving". Some people making top dollar DO work very hard. And there are a few people at the very lower end who subsist on welfare and don't work from choice. But others have already pointed out that jobs at the low end of pay levels are often grueling, back-breaking work. And executives being paid millions and billions to lay of workers and run companies into the ground...I don't need to say more.

I guess there's no tax component on the LA bar exam.

The only similar non-linearity that I'm aware of (where you try to limit your income to save money) is one that my partner actually experienced almost annually:

As a contract engineer working through a large "temp" hiring company for my engineering firm, she was eligible for 401k deductions only if she kept her income below the threshold above which she was considered a "highly-compensated employee" (who are not eligible). If she accidentally went just a bit over that, she had to pay any tax that owed on that now unsheltered income (a difference of just under $10,000). She would give herself some time off, because otherwise, she would be essentially "working for free" for a large company that really didn't need extra-cheap labor like that from her.

Of course we are both hard-core "tax-and-spend Liberals", because unlike Limbo, we want America to succeed.

Wait, I'm confused. Last week we were told that it would be a hardship for bank execs to earn less than $500K. Now we're hearing that professionals will deliberately earn only $249K to avoid the Obama tax increase.

Which Republican talking point should I believe?

First, most Americans don't understand taxes, how they're collected, and are incredibly intimidated by their complexity. That is why something like 60% of people use a professional tax preparer. We aren't taught how to do our taxes, it's not as though there is a class in high school where this is discussed. Most of us start off doing our taxes quite blindly and only some of us really learn as we go about how they work. For instance, anyone who got their first job at 14 is SHOCKED by their first paycheck and how much goes to FICA, etc. $4/hr x 40 hours did not equal anything close to $160 week.

Second, the GOP preys on ignorance when it comes to taxes-- look no further than the "death tax" or the "marriage tax penalty." The tax system is rarely explained so it's easy to make wealthy people freak out about how much they pay in taxes. Sort of like the 14-year old getting their first paycheck, someone who makes A LOT of money is paying A LOT of their paycheck to taxes. Since it's never properly explained about why it's necessary to have a progressive tax system, etc., a lot of people just don't get it.

Frankly, it's one of the few areas where the government needs to do a lot more explaining about how the system works, hows our works and what are the alternatives. It could be an Obama initiative as well as a way to simplifying the tax code, which is something he mentioned here and there on the campaign trail.

I've given up trying to explain to you socialists how this works. Suffice it to say that if you don't understand why cutting your income to $249,999 will reap large financial benefits, you can do the math by reading my book, Einsteins.

In a way it's really no wonder why Madoff was so successful with his Ponzi scheme.

This kind of ignorance isn't all that surprising when you consider the state of our educational system.

I agree that these people in the story are idiots. But here's the thing: Obama has NOT made it clear to the American people that this is a marginal tax increase, not an across-the-board tax increase. Listen to the rhetoric: those making less than $250,000/year will not see your taxes increase; those making more than $250,000 will have to bear some of the national burden and see a tax increase. I have heard several smart, educated people who think that once you hit $250,000 Obama wants to take your money away. I believe the Administration needs to make it VERY clear -- like talking to school children -- that this is a tax increase only on dollars earned above $250,000, not your whole income. Seems simple, but I am telling you that this is the source of a lot of the resistance to his tax plan.

At that point, many will look at the effort necessary to earn that increased income and instead decide they'd rather spend time with family, on leisure activities, or just laying on their asses. If you can already cover the necessities and a some fun stuff too, why bust your hump to give an ever increasing portion of each incremental dollar earned to federal, state and local taxes?

I certainly hope my competitors adopt this attitude. I could use the extra business....

The poll accompanying Friedman's article "Is it fair to reduce your salary to avoid taxes" reads more like one conducted by the Weekly World News or the Onion.

sorry if someone already pointed it out, as I did not read all the comments as of yet:

Even those 'moron' rich people are getting a tax cut from Obama --- on the first 250,000 of income.

In other words, some of the higher taxes they end up paying on what they earn ABOVE the 250,000 will be offset by the small tax CUT they got on their income up to 250,000. Granted it will not amount to much, but at least, they'd need to be honest about looking at that part as well.

As has been explained by many bloggers before; someone making $,500,000 per year will ONLY pay about $12K in extra taxes, above what they otherwise would end up paying.

So, 'how' exactly did those people become rich? If they can't even figure that out? That guy is willing to give up several hundred thousand in income, so he wouldn't have to pay a few thousand.

Talk about incredibly stupid. Then again, he's an attorney, what else would you expect.
/Snark

I know it's unsurprising, but Rush Limbaugh spent most of his Thursday show fielding calls from people upset about Obama's tax plans. One outraged woman refused to say how much her husband made last year except that he paid $150k in taxes! (Poor suffering babies! How are they going feed their children?) Another woman called in and said that her husband is going to intentionally make less because everything he makes over $250k will go to Obama-- because that'll stick it to Obama.

Naturally, Rush didn't correct her inability to grasp the concept of progressive taxation. Rush then actually vented quite angrily about how everyone who isn't super rich should "bow down" and thank all the rich people and that America OWES THEM NOTHING BUT GRATITUDE. I find it extra special that he talks about the rich as though he himself isn't among the uber rich.

I know it doesn't matter since it assumes they care about consistent and coherent messaging, but how is the GOP going to postion themselves as the party that protects Joe the Plumber and Marty the Millionaire?

"I just stated that for some, the additional net after all taxes money earned might not be worth the additional effort required to earn it."

You know, I've been hearing that a lot lately, mostly from moronic rightwing bloggers and their commenters. I have yet to meet one of these mythical individuals, though, and have yet to see any of these people actually carry out their plan.

Show me sufficient numbers of individuals actually *doing* this, as compared to whining about doing it, and I might take this seriously. As it is, it's just a bunch of silliness that's not worth taking seriously, and certainly not worth adjusting tax policy for.

Hey, guys, don't be too hard on these nitwits. They have someone else figuring their taxes so they are totally clueless about how it is done. After all, it is these people who are responsible for the economic mess we're in because they couldn't see the implications of selling mortgages with completely unknown value. And these are the same people who believed that property values would only go up. They're stupid in that they can't understand not so complicated concepts without pictures, and in some cases, even with pictures.

The other possibility is that the people pushing this concept are deliberately lying in order to foment opposition to the package. Why do I suspect that ABC falls into the latter category?

What's really interesting to me is that, in Limbo world, it is *never* appropriate to raise taxes. Think about what's happened over the past eight years.

- The economy is doing well? We need a tax cut to return money to the taxpayers.

- The economy is struggling? We need a tax cut to revive it.

- The economy is recovering? We need to maintain the tax cuts because they were what caused the economy to recover and grow.

- The economy goes into the tank again? We need *more* tax cuts to revive the economy again.

Repeat until taxes are zero.

I just stated that for some, the additional net after all taxes money earned might not be worth the additional effort required to earn it.

But that point on the graph exists for every single wage earner at every income level at every conceivable rate of taxation. Even if the factory is paying double time for people willing to come in on Christmas day, a lot of workers will prefer to spend that day with their families. All you are observing is that that point on the graph may move, slightly, for a small number of wage earners.

this meme has been getting legs on the Rushbo show. I accidentally had to listen to it one day a week or so ago (at a small shop) and heard folks calling in with this very belief. and Rush jumped all over it as proof of our socialist president...

... and then Rush announced that he was returning his $35 million salary and $100 million bonus to Clear Channel and having them reduce his salary to $249,999 so he won't have to pay those higher taxes to Obama, right?

I love how Rush encourages people to do stupid things that he himself would never consider doing. See also, Vietnam, Avoidance Of.

Another observation, after reading some of the comments on other right wing blogs... Most of the commenters, there, don't really make $250K +, they just like to pretend they do.

That must be one of those 'affirmations' knuckle draggers tell themselves each morning before heading out the door with their lunch pail. (No offense to 'real Americans' who walk out the door with a lunch pail

On the other hand, if people who 'really' do make more than $250K have that attitude, then I'd call that a very good thing.

By reducing the amount of time those greedy people work, they're creating plenty of opportunities for other people, who will gladly move up the ladder and pay their fair share of taxes.

I'd say let's all encourage them to do just that. Who would have thought that Republicans actually wanted to create jobs, by offering time-sharing their very own jobs. Kudos to all of them.

paulb, in only very slight defense of lynne (and those who make the kind of point she made), as a self-employed consultant, i have the ability to increase my income by taking on more work (assuming i can find it, but i work in a specialized area and i've been pretty lucky, so let's assume that i can for analytic purposes).

now, there is a minimum nut i want to hit each month, and pretty much that requires me working 40-45 hours weekly; the question then becomes how much "overtime" am i willing to put in.

and actually, i'm only willing to put in "overtime" if i can earn more than my normal billing rate.

that is not, per se, becuase of taxes, but it does reflect an honest calculation of the after-tax amount i can pocket if i choose to go back to my office after putting the 4-year-old to bed at 8:30.

that's as close to the mythical tax-fearing being as i can get, and that is a very specialized situation, so i can't say that it's impossible that there are people who won't take the extra work because they can't charge enough, so to speak, to clear their internal hurdle rate on the same calculation that i make.

but that of course is irrelevant from the standpoint of the economy - the fact that, let us say, 30K households of this ilk exist (i'm saying that $250K is roughly the upper 2% of households, and there's about 120M households, and i'm throwing a margin of error factor on to get to 3M households making $250K or more and then taking 1% of that) is neither here nor there since the work is almost certainly fungible.

that all said, to specifically think that a several point change in marginal rates above $250K should be decisive in this calculation is ludicrous....

The understanding of the basic workings of tax brackets is something every basically capable adult should and would understand. This mistake (assuming I get the problem of it) by an ABC "reporter" is beneath unforgivable.

If you can already cover the necessities and a some fun stuff too, why bust your hump to give an ever increasing portion of each incremental dollar earned to federal, state and local taxes?

"Bust your hump?"

What does that really mean?

Are you assuming that they are working harder, smarter or longer?

And if so, what is the value of that?

Even if you assume that highly compensated people actually work harder for their money, you have to inevitably ask the question why the extra work has any value to them or society beyond that extra money.

Do we really think that compensation correlates with value?

If you had to choose between having working sewers or unbelievable returns on the latest greatest method of gambling with other people's money on Wall Street, which would you choose?

And what's so bad about working fewer hours? It doesn't even have to impact productivity. Is life made of time or money? Maybe working fewer hours would actually be good for us.

This is counterproductive.
Rich idiots are the most likely to donate to the Republicans.

We should be encouraging this story. Spread it far and wide. Earn less money or else!

Why does this nation STILL think rich people got that way because they're somehow superior people?

Why does this nation STILL think rich people got that way because they're somehow superior people?

Because we create jobs and you don't. Get it now?

As someone pathologically unable to admit to error and as an ex-surgeon -- take that combo, punks! -- I was personally responsible for numerous new positions in my hospital's departments of risk management, patient relations and general counsel.

No need to thank me.

Aren't reporters supposed to research their reporting...just so 'they' understand the facts first before reporting them to others?
-------------
Awww ... you're SO cute! I wish I had a camera right now!

I'm glad that Myke K is an EX surgeon. I wouldn't want him to operate on any of my family members and friends.

Someone like him, who spends more time worrying about how much money he's taking home, instead of wondering what his fees are doing to people who probably have no other choice than to get the surgery.

It's not as if there is 'competition' that drives down MD's fees - eventhough he'd love to argue that point.

In case Myke hasn't noticed. Those so called rich people who supposedly create jobs, are mostly the ones who've been cutting jobs by the hundreds BEFORE they even consider taking a pay cut themselves.

EVERYBODY can create jobs, when the economy is humming along; you do NOT need to be a brain surgeon in order to understand that.

But, when times get tough, I'd like to meet the first CEO of a BIG firm who volunteers to take a pay cut BEFORE laying off the first employee.

Did you take a pay cut Myke? Or did you also give some pink slips to subordinates first?

I'm sure plenty of people will be VERY happy to see you pay your fair share of taxes.

Mike K is an annoying and dishonest troll.

Myke K is an amusing parody troll. He is occassionally too subtle but I didn't think this was one of those times. To quote:

"As someone pathologically unable to admit to error and as an ex-surgeon -- take that combo, punks! -- I was personally responsible for numerous new positions in my hospital's departments of risk management, patient relations and general counsel."

Did you notice where the new jobs he claimed to create were? Risk management? Patient relations? General counsel?

In previous threads, he has claimed a number of different job titles. He once refered to an age/date combo that would have made him over 110 years old now. He routinely links to "his website" or to "his books" he has written about the subject of the current thread. These almost always lead to Amazon book reviews for romance novels (generally by female authors).

So please don't confuse him with a real troll, just enjoy the humor.

"I just stated that for some, the additional net after all taxes money earned might not be worth the additional effort required to earn it."

Declining marginal value of capital, bitches, you heard of it?

Seriously, even absent taxation, the 2,001st dollar you make has more value than the 250,001st dollar you make--because presumably the first 2,000 is necessary to pay basic expenses, etc and presumably greater income is more disposable. And income often (but not always) correlates to how long/hard you work. So there's always this tradeoff between the marginal wage-hour and the marginal hour of free time. Would you rather work a year for 250k or half a year for 125k?

The only people who don't realize this are the stupid whackocompetitive dickwads that view "income" as a score in the video game of life and base their self-worth off of it. Anything that reduces this mindset will clearly be a social boon.