How about taxing income per hour instead of per year?

[Jack_DeLeon]

I got a better paying job, but I also choose to keep my other job. So during part of the week I'm working longer days so I can pay off my debts and save some money too.

My annual income will be jumping up and I might actually get to pay taxes this year. lol.

I was just thinking tax wise how is it fair that someone who chooses to or has to work two jobs, long hours, or even overtime has to pay as much taxes as someone who only works one job or even part time but gets paid a whole lot for it.

[jtuck004]

1. How bout we start taxing capital gains at 39%? Leave yours alone... n/t

[LiberalArkie]

2. Or move back to the 93% tax rate for the wealthy

[Codeine]

3. What about people who get a salary rather than a wage? nt

[Jack_DeLeon]

6. I suppose we could have a tax structure for hourly people and salary...

cant be much more complicated than taxes are now.

[keep_it_real]

4. And at what rate shalll be taxed an hour: 1 percent? 1/2 percent 3/4 percent? Etc.?

[Jack_DeLeon]

7. Thats the real question....

I dont have answers yet.

[JVS]

5. I'm ok with the fact that the tax structure doesn't encourage you to take two jobs.

That other job could be done by someone who has no job.

[customerserviceguy]

8. Would you really want to file all of those tax returns?

Seriously, it all comes out in the wash at the end of the year, no matter how you earn what you earn.

[Jack_DeLeon]

9. I'm not talking about filing taxes every hour....

but instead having your tax rate be based on your average hourly rate.

So that for example someone who gets paid $15 an hour but works enough hours to earn $62k a year wont get taxed as much as someone who also earns $62k a year but makes 30$ an hour.

[customerserviceguy]

13. Why should the two be taxed differently?

They have the same amount of money to spend.

[Jack_DeLeon]

16. but one person spent a longer part of thier life earning it...

why should someone who works twice as long as someone else for the same money have to pay the same amount of taxes?

[customerserviceguy]

17. Money has tax consequences, time does not.

Unless we're talking about a long term capital gains holding period, or some other such artificial tax construct.

At some point, you have to have a 'fairness' where we use a period of time to measure the increment of income earned. I really don't see any way to even out the situation where I was only working part-time last year (got full time a couple of months ago) with someone who made the same money as me, yet worked 40 hours a week for it.

[Freetradesucks]

18. Because they earned the same amount of money,

and taxes are based on your income, not "how long you worked".

If it takes you two jobs to earn what someone earns with one, so what?

Go back to school, get better at your current job, or go into business for yourself.

[AnArmyVeteran]

10. Tax 'productive income' at 0-5%, but 'unproductive income' at 75-90%!!!

This is a first draft of a new tax program that I feel would change the way people are rewarded for their actual contributions to society, and how those who produce nothing for society would be prevented from amassing unlimited amounts of money.

Non productive tax plan. 

Everyone who has a real job where they put in 40 hours a week or more would only be taxed at 5% if they made over $150,000. 

A person who did not work and produced no products beneficial for society should be taxed at at minimum tax of 75% on all money made with static money that is just hoarded or in current low capital gains tax accounts. 

Money should be taxed depending on whether it was 'working money' or it was 'static money' (non-productive money). Those who earn 'working money' because their money is constantly being reinvested into our society should be taxed at an extremely low rate. Millionaires and billionaires who have their money hidden away in non-productive accounts where their money is not being immediately reinvested into society should be taxed at a minimum rate of 75%. 

Each of the Walton clan who each own more than 22 billion just for squirming out of their momma's womb would have all of their wealth that is in static accounts taxed at a an even higher tax rate of 90% because their fortunes are sitting in vaults or off shore accounts increasing in value while the Walton clan is producing nothing for society. Any money not immediately reinvested in hiring néw workers or building be businesses should be considered purely 'non-productive' income and taxed at the maximum amount of 90%. With this 'Walton Example' each heir of Sam Walton would still get to retain 10% of their wealth, or a staggering $2.2 billion dollars, still not bad for Deadbeats who  do not produce anything for society. 

To ensure the average worker, whose income is based entirely on his labor (or his productivity and contributions to society) shall be allowed to have his savings in a government protected savings accounts that is completely untaxed up to a million dollars because all of his income was earned from labor and not by sitting on his ass and getting huge capital gains windfalls for doing absolutely nothing for society. Those who saved 'working & productive' money would only be taxed when their retirement incomes exceeded $1 million dollars. But because they actually earned their money through hard work their tax rate would only be 5% for the first $100,000 over one million and 5% for each additional $100,000 over a million dollars. 

If all taxes were taken from non-productive accounts from the deadbeat rich the poor and middle classes would only pay taxes on any money made over a threshold of $150,000 per person and $300,000 per couple. 

All of the taxes explained above would have no impact on Social Security investments because all workers who contributed to that savings plan would receive all of the money they put into the SS program, including interest for having their 'productive income' in the account. Their income would be considered 'productive money' because it was earned from the sweat and toil of the average worker whose efforts actually helped to build this country and help society. 

The new 'non productive' tax would also be known ad the Deadbeat Rich tax, because unless they actually earn the money they acquire through actual work it will be taxed to the fullest extent of this new tax law. 

This new tax plan would lead to economic prosperity for our entire society because working income would be taxed an an extremely low rate, while the lazy deadbeat rich would have all of their 'unproductive income' taxed at a minimum of 90%. This new tax law would prevent the laziest deadbeats in our country from acquiring huge amounts of wealth for doing nothing productive, and it would reward the hardest working people by allowing them to keep most, if not all, of their money earned by actual labor which is essential to a healthy growth of our economy and to the financial security of those who actually have done the work to build our country. This law would reverse the outrageous income disparity between the rich and poor and income would be based on hard work and merit instead of those having the best tax lawyers and the most secret offshore tax shelters. 

Without a drastic change in the way wealth is accumulated our country is doomed to be eventually owned by a handful of the laziest deadbeats in our country, while those who produced the most for society would continue their downward financial slide into total poverty and become nothing more than slaves to the ruling class of the Deadbeat Rich. 

[Gaedel]

20. Just what is a "static account"?

I have money invested in the stock market and own shares of CVS, Ford, Intell, and CSX which makes me a part owner of those firms which do employ quite a few productive people. Is my money "static" or is it dynamically contributing to the US economy which provides jobs?

Granted, I do not do any work for those companies (other than a daily tracking to make sure my money is all right.

I also draw an army retirement check for 28 years of letting Sam use my warm, pink body in various unpleasant ways.

I sit on my butt while that check hits the bank every month (I am 71). Is that money coming in "static" and subject to the higher tax rates under your proposal?

[AnArmyVeteran]

21. It's just a rough proposal. But until your investments reach 1 million you aren't taxed.

In my hypothetical scheme 'unproductive income' would be taxed at a higher rate. People would have the option on investing (gambling) on the stock market or having it a secure account. To be sure, the plan I proposed has a lot of gaps but I believe 'unproductive income' that is made by millionaires and billionaires should be taxed at a very high rate. Since their money isn't helping the economy or helping to create new businesses why should they be taxed at the lowest tax rate? If money is invested for productive ventures than that money should receive tax breaks. I'm tired of the wealthy getting huge tax cuts and then just hoarding their money and paying little, if any, tax on it. A new system where money was designated as 'static incime' versus 'productive income' should be adopted to force money back into the economy. It's based on either 'you use it or you lose it philosophy. I think we need a tax system that rewarded people who used their money to actively participate in the economy.

Of course, the average American who lives on modest means with less than $500,000 in savings should be exempt from the deadbeat rich taxes I proposed. Currently, the deadbeat rich are holding on to trillions of dollars they received in tax breaks because they are consumed with greed. But if they were forced to use their money in a 'productive' way then they would be spared the deadbeat rich tax plan I have suggested.

Thanks for your input. This is a work in progress and will take a lot of fine tuning.

[HuckleB]

11. What about people who don't get paid by the hour?

:shrug:

[mrmpa]

12. How about 10% with 5% going to the feds, 3% to your state of residence and 2% to your municipality

if not 10%, 20% with 10% to the feds, 6% to your state and 4% to your locals

[quaker bill]

14. Excellent point

Should someone working 75 hours a week to earn their pay be taxed the same as a person working 40 to earn the same total? Now, we probably don't want to tax hourly wage folks to highly either way, but should some consideration be given to those working much longer hours? I think so, but how to get about it becomes interesting.

I have and I know many salaried folks that have technically only been paid for the first 40 hours, but are fairly well expected to put in much longer hours. In the private sector it was not unusual for me to bill out an extra 10 to 15 hours a week, beyond the compensated 40, but it was variable from week to week. This would be tough to calculate taxes against.

[KharmaTrain]

15. Income Is Income...

It's not how you earn the money, it's how much you earn that the IRS cares about (as long as its legal. There were times I worked three jobs and actually paid less in taxes than I did in one as I was writing off travel and an as independent contractor. The good thing about working that much is you don't have the time to spend money but wears you down over time. But it's understandable in this day and age...you take what you can.

If you're income does jump you surely will be paying more in some type of taxes...depending on your state. Let's hope your good fortune falls on others who are out of work.

[Spike89]

19. Not even close to practical

How would you ever figure the hours for entertainers (not just superstars) who may earn a month's wages for performing a couple shows? Of course, to get those gigs, they practiced every day for 8 hours. Actually, every freelance employee, business person, and salaried employee would simply claim (many with justification) that they were always on the clock.

[county worker]

22. Tax is based on income. Calculate your income for the year and adjust your withholding