TED Conversations

Rick Hall

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

No taxes on earnings past 40 hours.

Can you imagine what this would do to the country? Putting more money into the pockets of people thats willing to work for it. This country seems to punish people that works long hours. So why not let them keep what they earned? It would create more jobs due to the extra spending.

+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    Robert Winner 50+

    • 0
    Jan 14 2013: No. If I was an executive and you did this then I would allow 60 hour weeks and lay off one in four.

    This would favor the companies not the workers.

    • Brock Hardwood

      • 0
      Jan 20 2013: Rick's idea is dumb, but so is yours. You would be paying time and a half, and your productivity would fall through the floor.

  • Mark Meijer 100+

    • 0
    HostAssociate
    Jan 12 2013: I say no taxes on earnings below 40 hours, punish only those who insist on working more ;).

    Who knows, maybe that's what will create more jobs. One person working 80 hours or two persons working 40, what do you think? How about instead of redistributing earnings, we redistribute workloads. How sick is it that some people are begging for work because they have none, while others are pleading not to be punished for their overtime. That's called a workaholic, whatever the heck gave anyone the idea that it should be encouraged? One way or another we always seem to be hoarding something, don't we. How about we get a life.

  • Brock Hardwood

    • +2
    Jan 8 2013: Just pay your taxes.

  • John Smith 30+

    • 0
    Jan 7 2013: The people who make the most money don't have 9-to-5 jobs so they have a lot of headroom to forge the number of hours they work, so this measure would favor the executives and entrepeneurs over mid-level, and lower, employees, so it would not reward people working the most hours, it would just be one more way for the rich to evade taxes and would therefore not lead to many new jobs being created (the rich will not spend their extra money on consumer goods).
    • thumb

      Andrew Wiggin

      • 0
      Jan 8 2013: Those people are not on hourly pay, but rather salary. If they do count there hours it is not common practice of anywhere I've heard, and records of such would certainly not be applicable in this situation. Mr. Hall is referring employees who are those blue collar workers who have opportunity to make overtime, and wants those earnings to not be taxed.

      • John Smith 30+

        • 0
        Jan 8 2013: They aren't on hourly pay today, but they would be if no taxes had to be paid past 40 hours of work. They make so much money that they can easily set an hourly rate that's above the minimum wage and still declare 100 hours of work. Blue collar workers working more than 40 hours per week would probably have their hourly wages cut up to the point where they don't gain anything from the tax break.

        @below

        You don't understand: the people I'm talking about are the people who run the businesses, shareholders seldomly step in to stop executive pay raises so why should they stop in now when it's the government, not the shareholders who would lose out if executives put themselves on the clock?
        • thumb

          Andrew Wiggin

          • 0
          Jan 10 2013: I see the point that salary workers could put themselves on the clock to gain the tax break, but is doubtful. The clock would run 24/7. The guys I work with that are on salary are never off the job. I've heard stories of the late night calls to deal with one thing or another. Their work technically never stops. Now if I was a business owner I definitely would not want to keep the clock on for those guys all the time. In fact I would most likely refuse them the overtime. Which would in turn cause issues as those late night calls would then understandably be refused. It would create an inefficient business, that would most likely fail.

          Not saying I support the purposed idea, just mainly trying to explain the thought process better. It would most likely create foreseen and unforeseen negative externalities that would create an inefficient economy.
Showing all 10 comments