Assuming for the sake of argument that all your figures are correct, that still puts you $40k&#x2F;year better off with the $100k salary than without it. I am still not seeing how it can possibly be correct to describe this by saying that it&#x27;s at about $100k&#x2F;year gross that you start to &quot;pull out the other side&quot;.<p>Programmes for which &quot;you can&#x27;t just stop working and start claiming them&quot; are surely irrelevant to this particular discussion, which is entirely about the effect of earning more or less (at, presumably, a fixed level of assets).<p>Also: 4160 hours of work is over 11 hours&#x2F;day, 365 days&#x2F;year. I&#x27;m sure there <i>are</i> people working such hours, unfortunately, but if you&#x27;re implying that that&#x27;s in any way typical then I must gently suggest that you might be wrong.<p>(For the avoidance of doubt: I think &quot;poverty traps&quot; are a very bad thing, and I would love to see taxation and benefits everywhere reformed so that effective income rises smoothly as a function of gross earnings, and I agree that the US tax and benefit system is a mess and makes it unprofitable for some lowish earners to earn more. All I&#x27;m disagreeing with is the suggestion that the point at which this stops happening is anywhere near as high as $100k&#x2F;year gross.)