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)?

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.

Really? Where do you get your data for this claim?

According to a NY Times article published 8/25/08, IRS figures indicate...

And despite claims that the rich are gaining while the rest of us are falling behind:

It seems that the highest paid folks are the ones who's incomes have actually decreased in the past 8 years, not the average worker. But then perhaps the NY Times is just spreading false income information to help defend the Bush administration?

These figures come from analysis of IRS tax return data, as reported by the NY Times and they indicate quite clearly that average incomes for all but the top tier salried people have been increasing since the tax cuts, not decreasing as some try to claim. One should note that average income grew significantly following the 2003 tax cuts.

Ah, the clueless liberals of the world.

When someone buys a car or orders a pizza or pays their electric bill, the price would depend on how much you make if liberals ran the world.

My lifestyle won't change if my taxes are raised. Not in the slightest. But it'll result in either fewer people being hired or me having to lay people off. That's the real world.

well mason, from those same numbers you posted. if you took time to just add things up here is what you would have discovered:

$51970 is 90% of the income in 2000. i.e income in 2000 was$57633.

now, the total increase up to 2006 was $5770 ... that puts the avrg income by 2006 at $57740 ..... is that the increase they are talking about Mason... 0.2%? and that is up to 2006

now consider the slow down in 2007 and 2008 ... and you will realize, according to the same NY times, that NOW (and that is the time frame i was talking about) the avrg income is around $1000 less than what it was 2000.

and even assuming it is a 0.5 or 1 % higher (which it is not)... do you really consider that an increase? 1% increase in 8 yrs????

from 1993 to 2000, the increase was a total of about $7500 i.e 13% (7500/57633) during those 8 yrs ... (all figures are adj for inflations and from the NY times also)

you could have done those same calcultaions yourself ...

now you see why i always said that there is another fallacy i.e. "the MSM is a left-biased media" .. in fact they twist everything (as the above openning statement does and which is disproved by the details they provided) to the benefits of the Right not the Left... where is that "avrg higher income" that Americans enjoyed????

Correction: that should have been 15% (7500/50133) ...

the editor stinks ... impossible to edit sometimes

I understand completely what you and the others said, but as you can see if you read your comments again,  you and the others are ignoring the main argument.

you just assumed that you can choose on your own and according to your own wishes to work 50 hrs instead of 25 hrs !!!! is that how the "real world" works? ... really?? ... you never asked yourself ... how did I get the chance to work those extra 25 hrs...?

not only that .... 50 hrs are more than the normal working hrs ... which is 40 ... did you ask yourself how did the busn owner get the need to ask you to work that overtime? ... my argumnet answers that for you .. but you ignored it .... he, the busn owner,  is the one who now makes 2000 instead of 1000 ... that is why he asked you to work overtime ....

and as you noticed ... it is not going to be that much good for you .... you know why? ... because it is designed to create more jobs i.e. higher more people ... not to make people work overtime ... yes the busn owner can use overtime for a short period ... but if the need is a long-term then he should hire more people ... that is how more jobs are created.

and by expanding his busn and his work force .. and if you are good at what you do ... the busn owner will be forced to make you train and supervise those new people ... and that is when you will get your extra income WITHOUT WORKING EXTRA HOURS

do i have to spell every little detail of the dynamics of the whole process???? whoever didnt know what i said beforehand ... then they dont know what they are talking about

NO .. but it means HE was a failure .... the system is not just TAX CUTS ... and that was one of my points .... the fixation of the TAX CUTS is a terrible fallacy ... along with a targeted tax cuts designed to lift the middle class and the poor ... it must be accompanied by making sure that the jobs are created here not outsourced ... which is tied to trade policies ... and also Busn tax policies ...

If Obama cut taxes for the middle class and the poor but neglected the other actions needed to encourage busn to expand here not abroad ... then he fails ...

The middle class and the poor are the backbone of Busn (they are the workforce and the consumers)  ... both sides ARE the economy ... and both must be encouraged to grow and prosper .... ... that is how the whole country prospers and the Rich will be the first to gain from that. as they should ... they provided the capital and the management that made busn itslef possible ... and they should be rewarded ... the question is how far do you go about that ...... they provide the seed for growth (though taxes and capital) .. if you cut that ... busn suffer and things slow ... and they make less

hope that expalins the whole cycle for you ... it is not a Left or Right policy it is economics, markets and their dynamics and interdependence....

but to gain elections ... the Right focuses on what people see in their paycheck and make them ignore all other issues involved ... and people believe it ...

as long as you look at the issue as an ideologue ... the issues never get resolved ... as i said above it is not Liberal or Conservative ... it is demand to be created by a workforce with wages to spend ... you provide the capital (your higher taxes and your assets) to satisfy that demand and the power to spend... and in the process make more money ... much more than if you only provide assets .. your higher taxes create more demand for your product

no one ever said prices to be set by anything other than by what the market will bear .... please dont imagine things that do not exist ...

btw, thanks for providing the proof that cutting taxes for the higher-income group of the consumers doesnt create that much more demand for most of the products .... that is exactly my point .... but cutting taxes for the poor and the middle class increases the demand for all products ... that is when you will need to hire more people and that is how you make more money ...

also, does the real world make you hire more people just because you got more income from a tax cut? C'mon now .... you know much better than that !!!!

you and I know the following as facts (and please tell me if i am wrong in these facts":

1- If a busn have a need to expand based on a solid evidence of a need for the product, all they have to do provide the feasibility study, the plan, and the design to a bank and they will provide the capital needed ...

2- based on the above the Bank gladly provide the capital needed .... your downpayment is your design and your plans and your technology .... nothing else is needed

(now you know why it was a disaster when the credit market froze!!!!! because all Banks got scared !!!)

3- you dont use your own money ....

for your information ... i done that for hundreds of projects for chemical and pharmaceutical companies ... the last one was $1.5 B  project .......unfortunately in China ... the capital came from here .... to hire people there and produce products to be used here !!!!! amazing isnt it?

Yes, there was a sharp drop in 2001/2002. Incomes began to increase again, albeit slowly, after that. Just because they haven't gone back to that 2000 level is not the same thing as "they have dropped over the last 8 years" which is what you were trying to claim, which is misleading. Incomes have not dropped over the course of the last 8 years, they dropped and have been slowly climbing again as the numbers indicate.

YOu amaze me.  Really.  YOu are not easily defined.  On the one hand you argue for tax increases (or are you just playing devil's advocate?) and then write an excellent simple piece on the money value of time!  Whatever you believe, it is obvious you at least understand this issue.  Have some karma for an excellent response!