Spending tax affects mostly poor as they spend all their income. Rich spend more in absolute terms but still very little compare to overall income.
People very rarely negotiate down their amount of work in exchange for more leisure. Especially in America, land of 2-weeks-a-year holidays. Very few people have the realistic option of working more for more income but are put off by the tax system.
Saving isn't really the route to wealth in a land of near-zero interest rates, either. It's just deferred consumption. Leveraged property speculation is the great route to wealth.
The one exception is the decision of whether one parent should stay at home or the labour of childcare should be outsourced, which is quite dependent on the tax levels involved.
Yes, they do. Oh, wait:
>Especially in America
Right, this is a strictly American discussion.
This is not the case in Europe! People do quite frequently negotiate for less work hours, so that they don't enter that 'sour spot' where their monthly income is too high, and they end up working more for less reward, so they scale back. 20-30 hr/weeks are quite common - because the value of working longer isn't as high (40-hour work weeks means you're working half the time for the state..)
Again, we have to distinguish why people are working part time: is it because full time work isn't available, or full time childcare isn't available, or two partners working parttime to split childcare, or is it genuinely a free choice in no other circumstances? And is it part-time low-wage work in the first place? Salaried employees find it a lot harder to negotiate the short week, although it's not impossible.
How many people are doing <37.5 hour weeks that would actually be in the top tax bracket if they worked the full week? It can't be a large group because there aren't that many people in the top bracket to start with.
I think in the UK a part-time worker on minimum wage might pay no income tax at all.