I don't understand what you're asking here.
"And do you really mean to tax per hour rather than per year which is where we currently base income taxes on?"
You'd continue to be taxed the same way. But all the income from the subsidy would be taxed at a higher rate than the income the business paid.
In this way, you are always incentivized as the employee to take a higher paying job.
What’s the difference?
What stops you doing a deal where you (on paper) work 80 hours a week for $8 rather than 40 for $16, you’d cost the employer the same, but you would get twice the income ($1280 a week).
How do you even define when you’re working.
12 plus 4
15 plus 1
I’d expect it to be more like
12 plus 4
16 plus 3
20 plus 2
24 plus 1
A 20% marginal tax rate.
The hour thing seems massively corruptible
Earn 15 get 1 subsidy
Earn 12 get 4 subsidy
What’s the difference to the worker?
Fork 4/3rds harder to earn 16 not 12, see no gain. Equivelent of 100% marginal tax.
Pretty bad example - where’s the incentive to work harder for the extra $3/hour when you get nothing?
And do you really mean to tax per hour rather than per year which is where we currently base income taxes on? Wouldn’t that continue to encourage 70, 80, 90 hour weeks which is really bad.