North Korea is worse off than the Soviet Union ever was.

[Tony Alicea]

In defense of the United States of America: North Korea is worse off than the Soviet Union ever was.

"Rogue State: How a Nuclear North Korea Threatens America"

"It's like another planet."

That was the only way one diplomat could describe North Korea.

"North Korean children are taught that Kim Jung Il, the Dear Leader, was born at a secret military base at the foot of a sacred mountain in North Korea and that double rainbows appeared at his birth."
http://nationalreview.com/comment/triplett200403150900.asp

[Jeroen Wenting]

A pretty mild article about North Korea altogether, with no mention of the mandatory deportation of disabled and sick people from the cities into concentration camps where they're systematically starved and tortured to death in an attempt to create a perfect human specimen (it's illegal to live in most North Korean cities if you have physical or mental disabilities, and disabled people are not allowed to have children).
A country moreover where the only parts of the population that have enough to eat are the party elite and the armed forces.
A country where all members of your family are considered guilty of whichever crimes you are accused of by proxy into the 5th generation (so if you're accused of a crime your grandparents and grandchildren face the same sentence you do, which will typically be either execution or deportation to a "reeducation" camp where noone ever returns from).

[Billy Tsai]

North Korea is a threat to the safey and peace of the region just like China

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
A pretty mild article about North Korea altogether, with no mention of the mandatory deportation of disabled and sick people from the cities into concentration camps where they're systematically starved and tortured to death in an attempt to create a perfect human specimen (it's illegal to live in most North Korean cities if you have physical or mental disabilities, and disabled people are not allowed to have children).
A country moreover where the only parts of the population that have enough to eat are the party elite and the armed forces.
A country where all members of your family are considered guilty of whichever crimes you are accused of by proxy into the 5th generation (so if you're accused of a crime your grandparents and grandchildren face the same sentence you do, which will typically be either execution or deportation to a "reeducation" camp where noone ever returns from).

Another example of communism in action; wait, let me correct myself before Map and Joe King step in; another example of attempted communism gone bad (as all the others in the past 80 some years). Maybe if we another 50 North Koreas for another 80 years one of them will end up as the Worker's Paradise. Yeh, Maybe.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Another example of communism in action; wait, let me correct myself before Map and Joe King step in;

Stepping right in....

another example of attempted communism gone bad (as all the others in the past 80 some years).

You're right - I don't think its "proper" communism. One of the main ideas of communism was that every one has equal oportunites - this is clearly not happening in North Korea. One of the other key ideas of communism was that the state should be run by the people, which also is not happening in North Korea.

Maybe if we another 50 North Koreas for another 80 years one of them will end up as the Worker's Paradise. Yeh, Maybe.

You seem to be under the impression that I support communism. I don't. I think its flawed. I also think that we haven't yet seen any state successfuly implement communism in the way in which Marx envisioned. Again, even if they had then I would not support it.
[ March 19, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

[Jeroen Wenting]

Joe, North Korea has equal opportunities for everyone (except a few in the party high command): to be murdered for political reasons.
Communism as Marx describes is impossible to achieve as it is completely contrary to human nature. Marx most likely knew this and didn't care.
Lenin certainly knew it and used it to his advantage to get himself established as the new Czar of Russia.

[Tony Alicea]

communism has been permanently relegated to the ASH HEAP OF HISTORY, as one former US President predicted two decades ago.
Not even the so-called "communist" nations are really communist.
China, Cuba... Bah! Humbug!
It's against Nature. PERIOD!

[Jeroen Wenting]

a "true" communist nation is a contradictio in termines as "true" communism does away with governments and "artificial" boundaries (therefore could work only planetwide or more realistically on a very small island where only 1 person lives).

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
a "true" communist nation is a contradictio in termines as "true" communism does away with governments and "artificial" boundaries (therefore could work only planetwide or more realistically on a very small island where only 1 person lives).

IIRC communism was the method of moving to the "perfect society", not the end result in itself, but yes it did say that in the end the result would be the abolition of the state. Trouble was that the people who got into power in the communist states seemed to quite like the power, and weren't in a hurry to give it up.
I think it could be possible for communism to work, but only in a very small community where most of the people know each other and would be willing to work together. It would also need at least one person who is good enough at economics that they could plan the economy, and it would need to use a lot of modern information technology to record, monitor and simulate as much of the economy as possible. With this in mind, its hard to see how the USSR ever stood a chance of being a successful communist state.....

[Jeroen Wenting]

hmm, abolish the state YET have a plan-economy?
Who's going to enforce the plan?
Having a plan implies having a government to enforce it, something your ideal communist society lacks by definition.
Instead everyone just does what is best for the community in a completely selfless fashion and everything just falls apart (oops, together) because someone will notice that something needs doing and just do it.
Of course such is completely contrary to human nature, which is why I mentioned that a very small island with a single person on it is the only realistic form of communism that can work.
Anything more and within a short while someone will end up on top giving orders to the others and asserting a de-facto role of dictator.

[Mapraputa Is]

Communism as Marx describes is impossible to achieve as it is completely contrary to human nature. Marx most likely knew this and didn't care.
Lenin certainly knew it and used it to his advantage to get himself established as the new Czar of Russia.
Did you learn about Marx and Lenin from this book?

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
[b]
Did you learn about Marx and Lenin from this book?

Are there any factual errors in that book you would like to point out Map?

[Mapraputa Is]

How can I point out factual errors, if there are no facts, only misinterpretations?

[Tonny Tssagovic]

Well, I have seen some documentaries about north korea, and wonder if the US are so sure that they suck, they are more rude then Saddham, and they do indeed have nukes, did invade Iraq first? To see their reaction? I am very happy that saddham endded up like he did, and wish all dictators in the world will have the same end..Amen

[Billy Tsai]

The north korean military is pretty big and strong , they have about 1 million men army near the DMZ and lots of old fighter jets and some new Migs, also lots of military hardware. Thats why the US military won't have any conflict with them because even the US forces successfully defeated the north koreans , Seoul would have been bombed like a living hell.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Billy Tsai:
The north korean military is pretty big and strong , they have about 1 million men army near the DMZ and lots of old fighter jets and some new Migs, also lots of military hardware. Thats why the US military won't have any conflict with them because even the US forces successfully defeated the north koreans , Seoul would have been bombed like a living hell.

Also I doubt the US wants another Vietnam. A war in the jungles of Korea will be a completely different prospect to in the open deserts of Iraq. Yes, the US would most likely win, but the cost would be to high.

[Jeroen Wenting]

I hadn't seen that book, but it's certainly an interesting read and an eyeopener...
While some things may be exagerated, at the core it's truth in there just as at the core there's no truth in the writings of Marx, Engels and the other communist leaders but only deceit in order to get the masses to follow them into oblivion.

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Joe King:

Also I doubt the US wants another Vietnam. A war in the jungles of Korea will be a completely different prospect to in the open deserts of Iraq. Yes, the US would most likely win, but the cost would be to high.

uh... Jungles in Korea?
In the deep south maybe, but the north is pine forests on often mountainous terrain.
The cost would mainly be too high because of the incredible number of troops packed together on a very narrow front.
War in Korea would be more like the Somne in WW1 than the drive on the Rhine in WW2 or the drive on Baghdad in 1990.
That kind of war is a war of attrition, which the US would never win unless they were attacked because public opinion would turn against them at home.

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

uh... Jungles in Korea?
In the deep south maybe, but the north is pine forests on often mountainous terrain.
The cost would mainly be too high because of the incredible number of troops packed together on a very narrow front.
War in Korea would be more like the Somne in WW1 than the drive on the Rhine in WW2 or the drive on Baghdad in 1990.
That kind of war is a war of attrition, which the US would never win unless they were attacked because public opinion would turn against them at home.

I thought the same thing. I didn't see jungles while I was over there.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
How can I point out factual errors, if there are no facts, only misinterpretations?

I saw a number of facts, but I'll play along with you on this.
OK, what "mis-interpretations" did you see?

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
I hadn't seen that book, but it's certainly an interesting read and an eyeopener...
While some things may be exagerated, at the core it's truth in there just as at the core there's no truth in the writings of Marx, Engels and the other communist leaders but only deceit in order to get the masses to follow them into oblivion.

Yes, a great deal of Marx's writings are propaganda, but there are also a lot of factual analyis of economic structures and trends. Saying "there is no truth" in them is a bit over the top. If you study the economic structure of the 1800's and look at the quality of life many people had then, books like the Communist Manefesto are not irrelavent (although personally I don't fully agree with all of it). Much of what Marx wrote would not apply to modern society and economics, but it was not "deceit" and more than Adam Smiths's books on capitalism are. Both are mearly viewpoints made from an analysis of (fairly) accurate data - the conclusions differ, but neither are deceitful.
Interestingly some of what Marx wrote is taken as being normal now - one of the things that he wrote should be done was that states should have proportional taxation. This is now widely used throughout many western-capitalist states.
[ March 26, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

I saw a number of facts, but I'll play along with you on this.
OK, what "mis-interpretations" did you see?

Our beliefs are built on hate.link
is it interpretation or mis-interpretation.
I think Marx was right.

New ideas are not freely created in our minds. They are forced on our minds by other ideas.
Sometimes I see more hate in capatilism than in communism.
And most funny line I found:
We Catholics know that no ideas are forced on our minds.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by R K Singh:


Sometimes I see more hate in capatilism than in communism.

This is absurd. Capitalism is an economic system simply allowing people the liberty to exhange goods and services. Any "hate" is due to people, not the system.
Communism is more than simply an economic system like capitalism, it is also a political system. It oppresses and fosters more hate than any other system than except perhaps fascism and militant islamic fundamentalism. Communism reduces the living standard of all, making all miserable except the unelected ruling class. Then it steals the property of the "rich" and incites class hatred.
Today, the front page of my newspaper tells of communist Cuban refugees (most of which who died) who risked their life just to get out of their "worker's paradise". Of course you also do not need a history lesson of the past 90 years of millions who died as a result of communism...

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Joe King:

Much of what Marx wrote would not apply to modern society and economics, but it was not "deceit" and more than Adam Smiths's books on capitalism are. Both are mearly viewpoints made from an analysis of (fairly) accurate data - the conclusions differ, but neither are deceitful.

Marx's writings have brought nothing but misery and death to untold millions, Smith's conclusions and analysis are still used today, and for the past 200 years, to benefit millions. Using them in the same sentence is unconscieable.

Interestingly some of what Marx wrote is taken as being normal now - one of the things that he wrote should be done was that states should have proportional taxation.
[ March 26, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

You meant "progressive" rather than "proportional" taxation I think.
But there is no legitimate moral justification for progressive taxation.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

You meant "progressive" rather than "proportional" taxation I think.

You're right. You can tell its a friday.....

But there is no legitimate moral justification for progressive taxation.

I'd disagree, as do most western governments.

Marx's writings have brought nothing but misery and death to untold millions,

Yes, there have been many people killed in the name of some of Marx's writings, but then there's been many people killed in the name of the Bible and the Koran. Its not writings that are evil, but how people react to them.

Smith's conclusions and analysis are still used today, and for the past 200 years, to benefit millions. Using them in the same sentence is unconscieable.

No its not. They are both books written about economic theory.
Have you fully read anything by Marx? Marx didn't condone killing millions. He didnt want "death and misery". I very much doubt that he wrote the Communist Manefesto with the intention of killing millions of people. He would have been horrified if he had been able to see the crimes done by the USSR and China in the name of communism. Both of these countries were (and in the case of China, are) not communist as Marx would have described it. The whole point of the Communist Manefesto was that the government (in the transitional period before it is discarded) should work for the benefit of the people, not oppress them like the Soviet government did. The policies of the "Communist" government in the USSR were more to do with Lennin and Stalin's views than Marx. The "misery and death" you spoke of are far more the blame of Lennin, Stalin and Mao than anything Marx wrote. Something we'd both agree on is the nastiness of those three.....

[Anonymous]

"Today, the front page of my newspaper tells of communist Cuban refugees (most of which who died) who risked their life just to get out of their "worker's paradise". Of course you also do not need a history lesson of the past 90 years of millions who died as a result of communism... "
millions of Mexicans also risked their lifes to cross the border to enter US. Is Mexico also a Communist society? Millions of Indians died of what? Communism?
To me you seems politicallized everything.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Al Bundy:
"Today, the front page of my newspaper tells of communist Cuban refugees (most of which who died) who risked their life just to get out of their "worker's paradise". Of course you also do not need a history lesson of the past 90 years of millions who died as a result of communism... "
millions of Mexicans also risked their lifes to cross the border to enter US. Is Mexico also a Communist society? Millions of Indians died of what? Communism?
To me you seems politicallized everything.

To me, it seems you are missing a number of crucial distinctions. First of all, the illegal border crossings by Mexicans have the tacit support and encouragement by their government. The Mexican government wants and benefits tremendously from the illegal immigration in a number of ways :
1. It reduces the burden on their over burdended social services network (healthcare and other public assistance).
2. Mexico city is already seriously overpopulated with a high density of poverty stricken families, moving some of them to the US helps reduce overcrowding.
3. Most of the money earned in the US by illegal aliens is sent back to Mexico and bolsters their economy (I heard one estimate of 10% of total economy of Mexico, but that sounds hard to believe). Because of this, Mexico encourages this type of activity. In contrast, Cuba punishes the rafters if they get caught while leaving (patrol ships circle the island) and may even punish the family members left behind.
In addition to the risk of being caught, there is the more dangerous aspects of the journey itself. The rafts cannot hold sufficient provisions, they usually rely on the currents (not always predictable) to get to the US so the duration of the trip can vary, and there is the danger of sharks, storms, and ordinary drownings. Mexicans face danger too, but about 10 times less chance of dying than typical Cuban rafter.

My political point is that communism produces societies that are so bad people will risk fairly steep odds of death to get out of it. Socialism, the respectable cousin of communism, has an uneven record and produces a fair share of failed economies as well. Mexico has a legacy of heavy government involvment in many aspects of their economy and this is a major reason why people are fleeing. Both communism and socialism are inferior to capitalism, that is why both come to US and risk death. But communism is worse and that is why people from Cuba are willing to face greater odds of death.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Joe King:

Herb :
But there is no legitimate moral justification for progressive taxation.

Joe:
I'd disagree, as do most western governments.

The point of these forums is not merely to poll people's opinions, hopefully we can find out why they believe as they do....
I have serious reservations of any government forcibly taking the property of any of its citizens. I find it totally unacceptable that certain classes of people are singled out and forced to have not only more of their property taken (which would be the effect of proportional taxation at a flat rate), but also taken at a higher discrimnatory rate of confiscation (progressive taxation). On what moral principle do you justify such discriminatory confiscation of their property? My objection is that there are no consistent principles of ethics that justify such theft by governments.

Have you fully read anything by Marx?

I fully read the Manisfesto several times, but I know that doesn't count
Maybe bits and pieces of Das Kapital, but that doesn't count either

Marx didn't condone killing millions. He didnt want "death and misery". ....

Ah, the highway to hell is paved with good intentions. For the past eighty plus years we've seen where Marx has taken any government that has taken his ideas seriously... On the other hand, even the god less Chinese thugs know a good thing when they see it, and are adopting market policies at a rapid rate.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

I have serious reservations of any government forcibly taking the property of any of its citizens. I find it totally unacceptable that certain classes of people are singled out and forced to have not only more of their property taken (which would be the effect of proportional taxation at a flat rate), but also taken at a higher discrimnatory rate of confiscation (progressive taxation). On what moral principle do you justify such discriminatory confiscation of their property? My objection is that there are no consistent principles of ethics that justify such theft by governments.

The difficulty with an issue like this is that it comes down to doing what is best for the individual or best for society. I think there are two main arguments - a moral one and an economic one. Taking the example of a rich person, they could live quite comfortably on 15% of what they earn, and spend the rest of luxury stuff like a second boat, or a holiday home. To me its not quite right that they can waste the money like that when there are people who desperately need it. The trouble is that many people would not voluntarily donate money to help their fellow members of society, so the government needs to take it. Society is like a big family, where people should help each other - the "strong siblings" looks after their "weaker siblings" - progressive taxation is the same - the financially stronger elements of society are helping the rest (via the government). This leads to an increasing average quality of life in the economy - those paying the higher taxes should feel proud that they are helping their government to do this.
The other argument is to do with "propensity to spend" - a poor person will spend a far higher amount of their income then a richer person, who is likely to save it. In times when the economy could do with more spending happening in it, a taxation that redistributes the wealth a bit from the rich to the poor would mean a higher amount of spending in the economy. Thus progressive taxation can be used to boost spending in certain areas of the economy.

I fully read the Manisfesto several times, but I know that doesn't count
Maybe bits and pieces of Das Kapital, but that doesn't count either

I'd say its does. Both are quite interesting even if you dont agree with them.

Ah, the highway to hell is paved with good intentions.

Should we not have any then?

For the past eighty plus years we've seen where Marx has taken any government that has taken his ideas seriously...

Most countries calling themselves communist have taken far more from the theories of Lenin then from Marx. Even the theories and practices of "Marxists" differ largely from what Marx wrote. The number one difference, in my view, was that Marx had a vision of a society being run by the people, whereas many of the so called communist states where dictatorships.

On the other hand, even the god less Chinese thugs

You say "god less" as if it were an insult. This is quite offending.

know a good thing when they see it, and are adopting market policies at a rapid rate

This is a positive move by the Chinese. I think it needs to go a lot further though - I think most public services should remain in the public sector, but luxuries should be supplied by the private sector. Going back to Marx, I think he had an idea that states could either be 100% market run, or 100% state run, but this view is a bit flawed - I'm sure a compromise is best.

[Jeroen Wenting]

The difficulty with an issue like this is that it comes down to doing what is best for the individual or best for society. I think there are two main arguments - a moral one and an economic one. Taking the example of a rich person, they could live quite comfortably on 15% of what they earn, and spend the rest of luxury stuff like a second boat, or a holiday home. To me its not quite right that they can waste the money like that when there are people who desperately need it. The trouble is that many people would not voluntarily donate money to help their fellow members of society, so the government needs to take it. Society is like a big family, where people should help each other - the "strong siblings" looks after their "weaker siblings" - progressive taxation is the same - the financially stronger elements of society are helping the rest (via the government). This leads to an increasing average quality of life in the economy - those paying the higher taxes should feel proud that they are helping their government to do this.

The ultimate in progressive taxation is what the communists (oops, socialists) here in the Netherlands tried to introduce in the 1970s and '80s and luckily failed to do: identical income for everyone.
Basically the government set an amount everyone would get and all your income above that would be taken as taxes.
Complete fairness isn't it? Everyone has the same no matter what you do for it.
The CEO running a multibillion dollar multinational and working 80 hour weeks keeping tens of thousands of people employed has exactly the same net income as the janitor sweeping the floors in the parking garage for 2 hours a day.
[ March 29, 2004: Message edited by: Jeroen Wenting ]

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

The ultimate in progressive taxation is what the communists (oops, socialists)

Yes, very funny

here in the Netherlands tried to introduce in the 1970s and '80s and luckily failed to do: identical income for everyone.
Basically the government set an amount everyone would get and all your income above that would be taken as taxes.
Complete fairness isn't it? Everyone has the same no matter what you do for it.
The CEO running a multibillion dollar multinational and working 80 hour weeks keeping tens of thousands of people employed has exactly the same net income as the janitor sweeping the floors in the parking garage for 2 hours a day.
[ March 29, 2004: Message edited by: Jeroen Wenting ]

Well that does sound a bit odd. The main difference between that and progressive taxation is that under a percentage based progresive scheme, working hard for a pay rise will mean that you get more money, where as the scheme you mentioned means they would not. Although I do support progressive taxation, I wouldn't support the odd idea above - that's just going to far.

[Jeroen Wenting]

OK, then let's try the Swedish idea.
Anyone with an income over a certain amount pays 100% income tax over the rest (actually in Sweden it was 110% or so).
Still fair?
Progressive taxation means punishing people for working their a&* off.
My father had a quite decent income, but due to progressive taxation he got less vacation money than my niece who works as a nurse for under 20% of what my father made.
People with higher incomes are always worse off in many areas.
Child benefits (which they pay more into as it's a percentage of your income...) is a lower amount as income goes up.
Tuition fees are dependent on the income of the parents to such an extend that there are people on higher income who cannot afford to get all their children an education!
Health insurance is government sponsored, up to a certain income after which you have to pay for full private health insurance (this can actually cause your net income to drop 10% or more when you end up just over the boundary amount).
etc. etc. etc.
I'm not saying people on low income shouldn't get these breaks, but to have people with higher incomes first pay more taxes and after that deny them the benefits of all that money they paid is criminal.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
OK, then let's try the Swedish idea.
Anyone with an income over a certain amount pays 100% income tax over the rest (actually in Sweden it was 110% or so).
Still fair?

That's not too much different from the Dutch idea you mentioned. Those two are rather extreme cases. I think its possible to have progressive taxation in a way in which people still earn more money when they get a pay rise ie you pay 10% on everything you earn under X and 15% on everything earned over X etc etc.

Progressive taxation means punishing people for working their a&* off.

Not really. A person getting a pay rise still gets more money. They are still rewarded for working hard unless the tax reaches 100% for a certain band (which, IMHO it should never do).

My father had a quite decent income, but due to progressive taxation he got less vacation money than my niece who works as a nurse for under 20% of what my father made.
People with higher incomes are always worse off in many areas.

Interesting. I'm not sure how the taxation works in your country (US?), but in the UK the idea is that you get taxed the higher rate only in what you earn over the rate boundary, so you can't get a situation where you earn less because of a pay rise. This is probably a good model, although I think the UK taxation could be improved by having more bands rather than just a few.

Child benefits (which they pay more into as it's a percentage of your income...) is a lower amount as income goes up.
Tuition fees are dependent on the income of the parents to such an extend that there are people on higher income who cannot afford to get all their children an education!

Again this may be different in the US, but in the UK the vast majority of children go to state school (ie pre-degree) anyway, so there is no one who cannot afford to send children to school (ignoring some extreme cases such as people not being able to afford school uniform etc).
In the case of university education in the UK, the current system is that all tution fees are the same, but students get a different level of loan depending upon their parent's income. I don't think it reaches the extremes where by rich people can't afford to send children to the same university that poor people can though.
Unfortunately the government is thinking of changing the system here so that different universities can charge different amounts, which will make things a lot worse(then there will be a situation when people will choose universities depending upon what they can afford, not on what is best for them, and we'll end up with the old victorian situation of rich students being able to get better educations then poor students).

Health insurance is government sponsored, up to a certain income after which you have to pay for full private health insurance (this can actually cause your net income to drop 10% or more when you end up just over the boundary amount).

This is quite unfortunate. Its seems strange that the government would put into place a scheme where by a pay rise makes the income reduce. In the UK (sorry to keep using that example, but I don't know many details of taxation in other countries), we have progressive taxation without the pay rise loss problem. On this specific issue we have the NHS anyway, so medical insurance is never mandatory. We do pay a tax (national insurance) towards the NHS cost, but that is an income tax designed in the same way as the rest of the tax ie you don't loose out through a pay rise.

etc. etc. etc.
I'm not saying people on low income shouldn't get these breaks, but to have people with higher incomes first pay more taxes and after that deny them the benefits of all that money they paid is criminal.

I do think that richer people should pay a higher percentage, but I agree with you that they need to have benefits from pay increases (otherwise, why work harder?). For that reason, I think progressive taxation is ok, as long as it doesn't reach (any where near)100% for a band, and as long as it doesn't cause a drop on net income when pay increases.

[Jeroen Wenting]

This is quite unfortunate. Its seems strange that the government would put into place a scheme where by a pay rise makes the income reduce. In the UK (sorry to keep using that example, but I don't know many details of taxation in other countries), we have progressive taxation without the pay rise loss problem. On this specific issue we have the NHS anyway, so medical insurance is never mandatory. We do pay a tax (national insurance) towards the NHS cost, but that is an income tax designed in the same way as the rest of the tax ie you don't loose out through a pay rise.

I live in the Netherlands. Colleagues have turned down raises because they would be worse off after taxes if they accepted them.
Basically, if a raise puts you less than maybe 10% over the boundary between tax percentages you're loosing out, and a raise that big is in the current economic climate almost impossible to get.
Not only do your taxes go up, but especially all the benefits that get lost and the higher social premiums for things like social security are the killer.