The OPs logic fails so badly.

The opposite is actually true. Those who earn Higher incomes are more likely to work >40 hrs a week and be salaried while lower income workers tend to work only 40 hrs a week or less and be paid hourly.

This is nothing more than a sad wealth envy attempt. Get over it, the person making more money than you does so becuase they work harder than you do.

The only time people reach a leisure point when they stop working is when they save enough to retire. At which point a progressive income tax doesnt matter because they no longer earn an income. So if anything you are arguing towards a progressive capital gains tax.

define working harder, ive debate many users on that, none have managed to prove that higher earners work harder, largely becuase many dont, infact, one could argue that lower earners work harder, ever seen the amount of work a nurse does? for less than the average wage often?

I don't really have much to be envious about... both of my parents' incomes are over the maximum tax barrier, my dad's, almost twice over. This is not envy.

This is stuff that I've put together myself, coupled with information I picked up from my economics text books/ lessons.

Quoted:

"Work is, arguably, an inferior good, whilst leisure, its alternative, is a normal good. The higher an individual's income, the less willing he or she is to work."

I can see this with my dad. When he earned little (below the minimum wage... because it was before the minimum wage) he worked six days a week and he worked overtime most nights. This is because the extra money, which, although wasn't a lot, was a lot to him relatively. Now, he only works 4-41/2 days a week (and that's starting to drop a little for more golf) because he doesn't need the extra money

The numbers are largely inconculusive in terms of GDP.

Personally i'm worried a lack of at least one major capitalistic country will lower medical research a lot stunting development without a country to subsidize the rest of the world.

@Kasz

Hmmm, I dunno, I mean, the Government could easily invest in medical research itself if not enough funding comes from the private sector.

btw, just because I feel this way about income taxation doesn't mean I think the same for corporate tax. I like the current system, you get tax on profits, but if you choose to invest more of your profits, rather than just paying out to shareholders/holding back the money, you get lower levels of taxation.

Basically, the corporation gets to keep more of its profits if it invests them itself.

Yeah, his logic does not fail. What he is posting about is often called the "backward bending labor curve." The backward bending curve is quite simple: as a worker earns more income, a worker is likely to spend a portion of that income buying more leisure time and therefore working less. 

The Gov't announced a 50% tax rate at £150,000 - though this is obviously going to be to try and improve tax revenue rather than encourage AS growth.

Still, it paves the way.

Person 1: I worked hard and became a doctor and make a lot of money, but I get taxed 50% of my salary

Person 2: I dropped out of high school and work as a janitor. I barely make enough money. But I only get taxed 20%.


How is this fair? Person 2 is getting rewarded with tax cuts for their laziness.

Person 1 still has way more money.