• SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    44k to 54k, you’re right, but the post says 10k, so unless we accidentally dropped a 0 on the floor somewhere?

    • nyctre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      He’s talking about thresholds, not the actual salary. The fact that they said 44k to 45k and not 44.9k to 45k or 44.5k to 45k is just a coincidence.

      For example. Say there’s a threshold at 100k and the guy was currently at 90k salary. 10k would put him at 100k and that’s no good. He would’ve accepted a 9k raise, however. He had an issue with going from 99k to 100k, not the whole raise. Or in op’s case, 44 to 45k.

      Or at least that’s how I understood it.

      • SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        This person believed that going from 44k to 45k would then change their tax bracket and their gross income would be taxed at 22%, thus reducing their net income.

      • Crazyslinkz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Commenter says this person believes… And proceeds to change the numbers in the post. I feel should have been consistent with the 10k as example.