Comment by NichoPaolucci 5 hours ago Doesn't that average out to 165K / year? That's not so bad IMO! 7 comments NichoPaolucci Reply boelboel 5 hours ago I'd imagine those 300K years they're not just working 40 hours a week, more like 70+ hours. Add higher taxes on those years and it becomes less attractive. newtonianrules 4 hours ago Oooof. I pity the poor fool who has to pay taxes on their 300k annual salary. bell-cot 5 hours ago If it was a predictable & reliable 300k, 30k, 300k, 30k, 300k, 30k pattern, then yes.But if not... foobarian 4 hours ago I imagine a Bernoulli pattern would work too qup 5 hours ago Yeah, if not, it could be even more! obmelvin 4 hours ago It can also be less
boelboel 5 hours ago I'd imagine those 300K years they're not just working 40 hours a week, more like 70+ hours. Add higher taxes on those years and it becomes less attractive. newtonianrules 4 hours ago Oooof. I pity the poor fool who has to pay taxes on their 300k annual salary.
newtonianrules 4 hours ago Oooof. I pity the poor fool who has to pay taxes on their 300k annual salary.
bell-cot 5 hours ago If it was a predictable & reliable 300k, 30k, 300k, 30k, 300k, 30k pattern, then yes.But if not... foobarian 4 hours ago I imagine a Bernoulli pattern would work too qup 5 hours ago Yeah, if not, it could be even more! obmelvin 4 hours ago It can also be less
I'd imagine those 300K years they're not just working 40 hours a week, more like 70+ hours. Add higher taxes on those years and it becomes less attractive.
Oooof. I pity the poor fool who has to pay taxes on their 300k annual salary.
If it was a predictable & reliable 300k, 30k, 300k, 30k, 300k, 30k pattern, then yes.
But if not...
I imagine a Bernoulli pattern would work too
Yeah, if not, it could be even more!
It can also be less