Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (174584)	5/14/2003 3:43:38 PM
From: Robert O	Respond to of 186894

ot Much, if not all, of these expenses MAY go away or get consolidated after marriage. Without commenting on the overall concept here I just wanted to note that married couples almost always pay more in taxes filing jointly (or married but separate) than if the two filed as individuals. In conjunction with your theme the additional tax may be based on the idea that the couple will have a net savings on other items in their life. But clearly the idea that all expenses will go away forgets the add'l tax burden. If the couple both do well in wages you really get it up the arse (in a bad way!). RO

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (174584)	5/14/2003 4:39:39 PM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

So I guess then shareholders and laborers should get married and live in one compound? Your argument is specious. You switched context (gross vs net) and made one further assumption not implicit in your original argument (that two people can live cheaper than one). Might as well argue that the wife/employee now has a baby and the company must not only support an unproductive mouth but also replace her by paying a wage. However, I don’t think there is anyone who doubts that incentive stock options may rotate and shift the labor supply curve with respect to wages.