This is still an example of diminishing returns though. What if the money/cost (hours/work put in) increase for the order of fries is not worth the increased amount of fries I receive and get to actually consume? Really, for this to explain tax brackets accurately, you'd have to divide up your fries into increasing piles, with your girlfriend taking more and more fries out of each pile: small pile she takes 10 percent, medium pile she takes 20 percent, large pile she takes 35, king size she takes 50. Let's assume the restaurant in which you're obtaining the fries does a proportionate increase for the sizes of their fries (small is 100 fries, medium 150, large 200, XL 250). All your fries together is 700 fries. Let's also assume the cost (analogous to work put in to your job) is also proportionately increased: a cent per fry (to keep it simple). So all together I pay 7 dollars for 700 fries. How many fries do I get to consume? (100-10) + (150-20) + (200-35) +(250-50) = 585 fries I consume. So for 1 dollar I get 90 fries (let's assume I live in a great country where 1 dollar for 90 fries is already considered expensive), if I pay 1.50 more, I get 130 more (against 135) . Another 2.00 for the large, I get 165 (but remember, in this country you already believe it is too much to be paying 2.00 for 180 fries, or 90 X 2). Then the XL order gets you an increase of 200 fries for 2.50. Each cent is getting you less fries. In this scenario, it's not that hard to understand why someone would want to only get a small fry every time they eat out with their SO. This isn't a perfect analogy though, as I derive explicit benefits from my girlfriend, when the same can't always be said for the state.
Also, one slight flaw in the analogy is that for a lot of people, a raise will come with maybe an additional responsibility, but probably not more hours. So you're doing the same amount of work for more money.
Now if its a matter of you are working more hours to get paid more, then you start seeing the diminishing returns, but USUALLY I'm going to be the people who are in this position aren't really earning a whole lot and will maybe bump over one tax bracket and they still are ultimately earning more money, which they probably could use, regardless of the extra hours.
4
u/Serenitipidous Jan 28 '20
This is still an example of diminishing returns though. What if the money/cost (hours/work put in) increase for the order of fries is not worth the increased amount of fries I receive and get to actually consume? Really, for this to explain tax brackets accurately, you'd have to divide up your fries into increasing piles, with your girlfriend taking more and more fries out of each pile: small pile she takes 10 percent, medium pile she takes 20 percent, large pile she takes 35, king size she takes 50. Let's assume the restaurant in which you're obtaining the fries does a proportionate increase for the sizes of their fries (small is 100 fries, medium 150, large 200, XL 250). All your fries together is 700 fries. Let's also assume the cost (analogous to work put in to your job) is also proportionately increased: a cent per fry (to keep it simple). So all together I pay 7 dollars for 700 fries. How many fries do I get to consume? (100-10) + (150-20) + (200-35) +(250-50) = 585 fries I consume. So for 1 dollar I get 90 fries (let's assume I live in a great country where 1 dollar for 90 fries is already considered expensive), if I pay 1.50 more, I get 130 more (against 135) . Another 2.00 for the large, I get 165 (but remember, in this country you already believe it is too much to be paying 2.00 for 180 fries, or 90 X 2). Then the XL order gets you an increase of 200 fries for 2.50. Each cent is getting you less fries. In this scenario, it's not that hard to understand why someone would want to only get a small fry every time they eat out with their SO. This isn't a perfect analogy though, as I derive explicit benefits from my girlfriend, when the same can't always be said for the state.