• MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 months ago

      At least in the US there is no possible situation where you’d get less money for making more money.

      • Dashi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Exactly, or that’s how it was explained to me. Say you get a 10k raise from 94k to 104k and the next bracket is at 100k. If your old percent was 20% and the 100k bracket is 25% only the “extra” 4k would be taxed at 25% and the 6k before that would be 20%.

        Or so I’ve been told by smarter people than me. Numbers/ brackets and percentages are all made up to make it easier.

        Midwest, US if it matters.

      • Fogle@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t believe that’s actually true. I think in the USA there are a few programs that have a hard cap on income to disqualify you. Food and housing assistance related things. I’m not American so I’m not 100% sure on them but I do think there are some scenarios

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s true. You’ll still be making more money, but you’ll also have more expenses. This doesn’t apply to most people though, and for sure not ones getting a $10k raise. The progressive tax system we have only applies the tax as you progress through the levels. The first $10k will be taxed at one level, then the next bracket, then the next, etc. It’s not done as one lump tax.

          Different programs should be set up to slowly decrease how much you get instead of cutoff amounts. That’d remove that issue. Obviously some things are either on or off so they can’t be done this way though. Ideally a lot of it should just be provided to everyone no matter what though.

        • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Oh yeah. That’s absolutely the case for disability I believe. If you start to make a certain amount they just take away benefits. And the amount you have to make to lose benefits it’s actually less money than what the benefits themselves are.

          I know people personally who are affected by that situation.

          Very good thing to point out and wasn’t something I was thinking about. Thank you.

          I guess it would be more accurate to say your paycheck from your job will never be less money due to making more money.

        • orbitz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m sure there are cases but that’s effectively a $4.80 / hour raise at full time, you’d need a lot of dependants or other assistance programs to make that not worth it if you’re already working full time.

      • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Never say never. There are hard income limits for certain tax credits, like EV tax credits, and some weird COVID relief funds for dependents that actually do result in situations where you get less money for making more money. Also things like ability to fund a Roth IRA. I know because it has happened to me. Even following the tax table results in some situations where you can make a few bucks less by earning more, as someone pointed out above. Other folks have pointed out other benefits cliffs and higher education shenanigans. But you’re generally right.

      • Longpork3@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Its not the direct tax, it’s the often counterproductive limits around welfare that many people receive alongside employment income. Welfare cliffs.

        To give NZ as an example, a person can earn up to 37k and be eligible for a “community services card” which entitles them to discounts on a lot of things such as doctors fees, public transit and dental care. Earn just a dollar over thay threshold though, and you lose all the benefits, having to pay them out of pocket. Which means for someone on the cusp of eligibility, theyre often better off to turn down small pay raises.

        The student allowance is similar but less punitive in that you are allowed to earn 270 per week without affecting your allowance, but after that, your allowance is reduced dollar for dollar up to the 360 per week of your allowance. A student working minimum wage would therefore need to get a 30 per hour payrise before their total income actually changed.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      There are some very specific triggers to end up paying more tax than you earned - and some of those triggers are not wages (in the US). Also, those triggers are not recurring, they’re usually caused by selling capital like a home or stocks, or maxing out certain write offs, so once the extra income has been taxed you won’t see it again unless you repeat the tiggers again.

      Straight up getting a raise with no other confounding factors should not cause your taxes to increase beyond your wage as the typical rule applies - you only get taxed on the wages that fall into the new tax bracket, not on all of your wages, which will still fall into their normal brackets.