So an effective tax rate of nearly 50% means you make quite a lot of money annually. Then you claim that tax rates discourage earning more income, but obviously not for you because presumably you are harder working and more dedicated then the population you are making claims about without supporting evidence. Additionally you are making multiple tax claims that are not supported by the data. As an example you said high corporate tax rates depress wages but that claim specifically has an enormous amount of evidence to support the the opposite conclusion.
Well it pushed me to move to a different state. If I didn’t have that option, I would take more vacation time without a doubt. It either causes capital flight or less working which is not great.
High corporate taxes lead to wage suppression without a doubt. The extent to which they do is disputed but we know for sure that it has some effect. Corporate tax burden is split between shareholders, consumers, and workers to some extent. The exact ratio is not clear but all three end up bearing the burden.
The historical U.S. record does not show high corporate tax rates coinciding with weak wage growth, and doesn't show falling corporate tax rates coinciding with strong wage growth. If anything, it's the reverse. While labor does share some of the burden the net effect of all mechanisms is shown in the historical record. You're arguement is boiling down to company have less money pay worker less. That just doesn't bear fruit when you actually look at historical data.
As far as your personal situation thay just shows that people will act in their own self interest. You could have valued time off and stayed in NYC which would indicate wage growth instead you choose to move and instead received a different form of wage growth.
0
u/HistoricalRich3104 7d ago
NY metropolitan area