Hacker News Reader

Comment by zweiterlinde | Hacker News Reader

One key element that is missing from much of this discussion is an understanding of comparative advantage and its importance to society.

If someone has the skill and ambition to succeed in a demanding professional career,isn't it better that they do so rather than doing their own gardening for fear of being judged? In general, it seems obviously good for society for a married couple to both work and outsource some of their domestic responsibilities that others can perform more cheaply. But our current (and even more, our future) tax code discriminates against this heavily.

View on HN

But our current tax code discriminates against this heavily

Why? You can always make more money. A higher marginal tax rate is at most a minor disincentive since you still end up with more overall. Everyone likes to complain about taxes, but I think it's pretty much bullshit if anyone says they turned down an opportunity for more money because of the marginal tax rate.

A better argument is that the rich spend money more wisely than the government, which is at least debatable.

A higher marginal tax rate is at most a minor disincentive since you still end up with more overall

That's not necessarily true. As I point out elsewhere, there's much more going on than just ones top marginal rate. I pointed out the discontinuity when one hits AMT.

But also, more topical to this aspect of the argument, is the other expenses involved in employment. It may be that I'm still making 60% of my labor after tax. But in so doing, I also have to forgo the work that I'd been doing myself, and pay someone else to do it.

Most relevant is childcare, since it's something that one can't readily avoid if both spouses are to be employed, and is extremely costly. It's quite possible that the loss to taxes plus the expense of childcare together exceed the potential income of the second spouse. Indeed, I'd guess that is a leading reason for single-income families.

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. Especially in the case of dual-income homes, there is a discrete hurdle you must overcome that makes the marginal tax rate misleading. In this context, you have to make $40-50k just to break even. Ouch. And working hard enough to justify a $100k salary to bring home $30k? That's a disincentive, in my book.

Even further, consider the impact that this tax structure has on people deciding to take on debt for higher education (ok, so that's frequently a bad idea anyway, but there have been other discussions about that). A smart single person might well decide to take on $100k (or perhaps even $250k as the law professor seemed to imply) to raise their lifetime earning potential. But then two smart single people get married. They would like to have kids, but what was originally a reasonable investment is now quite a handicap because of the fixed cost + marginal tax cost related to the second income.

I'm not sure it happens much, but the way you're framing it makes it sound more ridiculous than it is. Cutting into my profits diminishes the return I get on my investment. This reduces my incentive to chase any particular investment unless I'm simply ravenous for money.

Similarly, most people decline to work 20 hours a day, seven days a week. People who earn overtime could earn a lot more money if they did, but the ROI doesn't justify it in most cases.

They could also, you know, do without the fancy garden that needs so much upkeep. Being in Chicago, I doubt they have a large lawn and garden, so how much upkeep could it require?

And they could do the housework themselves or maybe let things get a little dusty, like 99% of the population does.

you're being either difficult or dense ... nice gardens are nice, people generally agree that clean homes are too, this is a fact and it won't change cause it'd be neat if professionals did that and kept working even tough they would rather have a clean house than a bit more money (that isn't enough to have the house cleaned)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com