← Back to context Comment by NichoPaolucci 6 hours ago Doesn't that average out to 165K / year? That's not so bad IMO! 8 comments NichoPaolucci Reply boelboel 6 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 5 hours ago Oooof. I pity the poor fool who has to pay taxes on their 300k annual salary. solenoid0937 1 hour ago 300k per year for a few years is just not that much money. It's a nice boost but let's not pretend it's rich or wealthy.IMO taxes should be on the rolling average of your income so two good years does not mean you get taxed as if that's your steady state bell-cot 6 hours ago If it was a predictable & reliable 300k, 30k, 300k, 30k, 300k, 30k pattern, then yes.But if not... foobarian 5 hours ago I imagine a Bernoulli pattern would work too qup 6 hours ago Yeah, if not, it could be even more! obmelvin 6 hours ago It can also be less
boelboel 6 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 5 hours ago Oooof. I pity the poor fool who has to pay taxes on their 300k annual salary. solenoid0937 1 hour ago 300k per year for a few years is just not that much money. It's a nice boost but let's not pretend it's rich or wealthy.IMO taxes should be on the rolling average of your income so two good years does not mean you get taxed as if that's your steady state
newtonianrules 5 hours ago Oooof. I pity the poor fool who has to pay taxes on their 300k annual salary. solenoid0937 1 hour ago 300k per year for a few years is just not that much money. It's a nice boost but let's not pretend it's rich or wealthy.IMO taxes should be on the rolling average of your income so two good years does not mean you get taxed as if that's your steady state
solenoid0937 1 hour ago 300k per year for a few years is just not that much money. It's a nice boost but let's not pretend it's rich or wealthy.IMO taxes should be on the rolling average of your income so two good years does not mean you get taxed as if that's your steady state
bell-cot 6 hours ago If it was a predictable & reliable 300k, 30k, 300k, 30k, 300k, 30k pattern, then yes.But if not... foobarian 5 hours ago I imagine a Bernoulli pattern would work too qup 6 hours ago Yeah, if not, it could be even more! obmelvin 6 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.
300k per year for a few years is just not that much money. It's a nice boost but let's not pretend it's rich or wealthy.
IMO taxes should be on the rolling average of your income so two good years does not mean you get taxed as if that's your steady state
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