unfortunately, you make a similar mistake...why 48 hrs and why 96 hrs ?
Huh? You just made that mistake, not me. The point isn't about 48 and 96 hours, the point is about both the proportion of increase in effort relative to wages, and also that there are other factors to bear in mind with increases in effort (like the increasing value of the alternative, leisure).
So where did those numbers come from? 48 hours is your '9-5' job for 6 days a week. 96 hours is double that, and means you're getting pretty well no sleep or free time meaning the value of 1 hours leisure is much more.
Since I expect you still don't understand, let me go through it more simply:
You asked which was better, earning $1000 and paying 25% taxes on it ... net ($750) OR
making $2000 and paying 33% taxes on it ($1340). Now if you could just choose to earn more without doing anything, everyone would. In reality if you wanted to increase what you earnt from $1k to $2k it would involve more effort. Since you're doubling your income, it stands to reason you'd need to roughly double your effort (although it would be more/less depending on how it affected your productivity, overtime, etc.). So there you get your '100% increase in effort for 79% increase in takehome pay' that I used in my example.
Now lets give another example to look at it (since 96 hours is an unrealistically high amount). You could work part time (25 hours) and get $750, or work full time (50 hours) and get $1340. You also want to sleep 8 hours a day (recommended amount), and will need on average 1 1/2 hours a day to travel to+from work, eat, go to the toilet, etc.; your total available time in a week is therefore 105 hours. At 25 hours a week 1 hours leisure basically means a 1.2% increase in your leisure time, so likely won't be worth as much to you as at 50 hours a week where 1 hours leisure would mean a 1.8% increase in your leisure (that is, a 45% increase in the proportion of leisure increase from 1 hour). This will then be measured against the increase you're getting in your takehome pay.
Are you really still telling me you can't understand how those higher taxes might just discourage you from working more (and hence earning more)?
with all that tax cuts for the rich... where are the jobs that was supposed to be created as a result?
compare that to 24 million jobs during Clinton yrs DESPITE the fact he increased taxes mostly on the rich
Even if the figures are accurate (I can't be bothered to check), that doesn't disprove it. If you inherit the economy at the start of a nice boom period, jobs will likely be created. If you inherit it and suffer external events that have a negative impact on the economy, jobs may be lost. Hence you need to account for other key factors before trying to work out whether a tax policy was that effective.
To give you an example, lets say you're right with your implicit statement, and raising taxes on the rich will create jobs, and lets say Obama does just that. However jobs actually fall marginally. Does that mean the policy was a failure? Probably not if it was only a slight fall, since Obama's taken over when the US is starting into a recession. Not to say a recession/cyclical effects are the only thing that should be taken into consideration, they're just an example of just one factor.
