Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ShuinoZiryu t1_iwl17nt wrote

Reply to comment by nschafer0311 in upmc by Safe-Pop2076

Ok, I'm not going into tax's, as of course you pay more in taxes on $85 an hour than $40. However, it's the same tax rate.

For a $40/hr job to make more than an $85/hr, your stipend would need to be ~$1800 dollars every 2 weeks. Which I am assuming it's not.

2

Do_Be_Suspicious t1_iwl5gur wrote

It probably is. When I worked as a traveler in rural Pennsylvania, I officially made $18 an hour and got a weekly $900 stipend. So yes, it's significantly less in taxes.

3

Generic_Username28 t1_iwlbo9k wrote

All else being equal (e.g., dependents, both W2s not independent contractors), their tax rate probably went up slightly. At $40/hr, they'd be in the 22% bracket with a effective rate of 17% and at $85/hr they'd be in the 32% bracket with an effective rate of 21%. This assumes they are working 2,080 hours in a year and ignores all other tax factors.

That's only federal taxes, but if someone wanted to double my wages for a 4% tax hike, sign me the fuck up.

3

ShuinoZiryu t1_iwld3sf wrote

And let's not forget all tax brackets are marginal. So both people still pay the SAME amount of taxes on the SAME amount of money.

Someone making 40,000 a year pays exactly the same amount of taxes on 40,000 dollars as someone making 80,000.

If you make 40,001 dollars and the cutoff was 40,000. Only a single dollar is taxed at 32%, the 40,000 is still taxed at 22%.

2

Generic_Username28 t1_iwlhnip wrote

Absolutely correct. My effective tax rate captures that, but I didn't word my tax bracket clearly.

1