As the tax rate increases, the value you get for increasing your income goes down proportionally.

I think if you take it to the limit, you can see the effect more clearly. As the tax rate approaches 100%, say 99%, then even if I make $100,000 before taxes, I'd only keep $1,000. If I push myself hard to earn $200,000, I'd get to keep $2,000. Yes it is still double, and I am doing better, but not much of interest changes in my life and I personally wouldn't say I'm doing well. I can barely afford to take that second vacation, or see much value for my efforts. My efforts are simply less rewarded, giving me less tangible reason to make the extra effort. I think this would kill off the incentive to create wealth in the economy.

Wealth is needed to take care of basic needs, so it would be self defeating if you were trying to take care of everyones needs and make sure they had a little spending money to participate in the economy.

Somewhat as an aside, I didn't consider what benefits I would receive for paying a 99% tax rate, presumably it would be all the basic needs plus some more, but this would start to feel like a planned economy where individuals, with their small discretionary funds, would't have as much input into what is created in the economy, rather it'd be a course political process which could be slow to meet the needs of the citizens, or fraught with other unforeseen difficulties.

Ah yes for the working class, I can see a 99% tax rate would very likely have this effect. I'm still wondering if we stayed in more realistic ranges, is a 40% tax rate, or even a very high 60% tax rate by US standards, a real disincentive to earning more money? I feel like it would take a pretty high tax rate before I stopped caring about my income. Does it actually have that effect in Norway, for example?

I realized I'm also mixing a few different thoughts in my head. I've heard the high taxes being an economic disincentive idea applied to the rich and to corporations and to investors, and I think my question applies more to them than to the middle class. You weren't talking about only the rich, I think I'm projecting a little bit.

Is the idea for businesses and investors that with higher taxes, in the aggregate there are always alternative places for the money, and so behavior changes statistically as tax rates increase? Maybe I'm interpreting "incentive" too literally.

> Ah yes for the working class, I can see a 99% tax rate would very likely have this effect. I'm still wondering if we stayed in more realistic ranges, is a 40% tax rate, or even a very high 60% tax rate by US standards, a real disincentive to earning more money?

For me, and for people like me, it would be. I work high-paying shit jobs precisely because they pay a lot. The amount of saving I'm able to do in these jobs is life-changing (i.e. FU money after 5-8 years). If most of that money went to taxes, there'd be little point in doing them and I might as well induldge in doing something more satisfying instead.

> If we have tax brackets, then yeah sure there could be an unlucky minority of people who just barely land in a higher bracket than someone just under the line, so they pay a higher percentage than someone else.

This statement makes me think you might be confused about tax brackets. This is a common misconception, so I'll explain how tax brackets work.

Tax brackets assign a percentage to tax up to a certain amount of income. Suppose you went over a bracket by $100, then only that $100 is going to taxed the highest amount. The entire income is not taxed the amount in the highest tax bracket. So, while the unlucky people are still taxed at a higher amount, it is for a very small amount of their income. Their after tax income will be still be more than somebody who earned less money and was just under a tax bracket.

Marginal return. If working an extra hour per day will give me $100 pre-tax, tax rate being 10% and 90% will largely determine whether I'd do the extra work, versus spending that hour with family etc. Everyone has different threshold for pay/fun ratios but overall society will be less productive as tax rates go up at least in the static sense (not considering tax money being put into productivity-increasing use).

If people make enough to retire every three years at a 0% tax rate, then most people will retire or switch to a less productive hobby job, because the marginal utility of more money approaches zero after three years.

Tax those same people 90%, and they’ll work for 30 years.

There is evidence of this phenomenon from the early days of the automobile: Craftsmen building cars by hand could and did retire after a few dozen cars, further inflating wages by constricting demand of labor. In contrast, Ford’s screw-turning factory workers worked for decades.

I don’t buy that lowering effective wages decreases the number of hours most people will be willing to work.

Individually, maybe. Let alone the ethical implication of 'tax them high enough so they don't retire early', artificially lowering the income of a trade would - to your point - constrict *supply of labor. And of course this would lower the total productivity of the industry and society.

And the Ford example, while interesting, doesn't have to do with taxes does it? It has to do with Ford lowering the barrier of entry for factory workers AND increasing productivity rate at the same time. I think we can all agree that that advancement was good for society as a whole?

Am I understanding you correctly? Or is there something I am missing?

Say you’re a freelancer and could do one more project but the marginal tax rate is going to be 90%, vs. being maybe ~50% on the previous project you did. So now you’d be doing the same work for 1/5th of the income. Wouldn’t you consider saying “screw this, I’m going on a vacation?”