OT - Question on Overtime and Taxes

Page 1 of 2  
At my job, we're behind schedule right now and are working 6 9's to get the building under roof by New Year's Day. BTW, steel stud framing outside in the weather lately has been a real treat. Anyway, on to my question:
Does the rate at which one is taxed vary with time and a half or double time, or does it change with gross pay or does it not change at all? I realize that the W4 exemptions establish the basic rate, but do you pay more (percentage-wise) with overtime? I heard a story from a welder who was making $12/hr said that for 6 months he was working mandatory 50-hour weeks, then went to mandatory 60-hour weeks; his paycheck difference was only about $30. Intuition tells me that this is crazy and I've never paid that much attention to the actual amount withheld when I've worked over 50 hours (other than to cuss the federal and state governments).
Myself, I'd just as soon see income (and property and fuel etc.) tax go away entirely, but since I'm stuck with it I would at least like to know how far they're gonna ram it in before they break it off.
If anybody has some insight, I'd appreciate it.
-Phil Crow
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Phil Crow) wrote:

Changes with gross pay. The more you make, the higher the rate at which you are taxed. Overtime has nothing to do with it: suppose your base rate is $20/hour. If you work 60 hours, 40 at straight time and 20 at time and a half, you make (40 hr x $20) + (20 hr x $30) = $1400. You get taxed the same as if you had worked 40 hours at $35/hour.
-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:47:39 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

...and it's called "progressive income tax rates". If your gross pay in any pay period is extended to a yearly income, and that income bumps you into a higher marginal tax bracket than the one based on your normal number of hours, the federal tax is gonna be at a higher rate. But don't worry, that makes you rich and you don't need that extra money.
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What Doug said. But, let me add, that once you fill out your 1040, you should get a slight refund, since, of course, your annual gross pay isn't (e.g.) $35/hour. You Are making more money (and it May push you into a higher bracket), but you aren't grossing an Annual salary like the OT seems to make it (IOW, you aren' making 52(wks) * 40 (hrs) * (e.g.) $35 (plus the OT hours).
Renata
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:47:39 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

smart, not dumb for email
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He is full of it! You will get taxed at a higher rate with higher income. Overtime or regular time has nothing to do with it. Uncle Sam just looks at the dollars you make in a week, or year, more dollars, higher tax rate. Now the thing that averages it all out, when you do your taxes at the end of the year the rate is based on your total pay for the year, so it pretty much averages out the weeks you work massive over time. Think of it this way, if you normally make $1,000 a week, you get taxed at a $52,000 per year rate. If you work 4 weeks at $2,000 a week, for those 4 weeks you get taxed at a $104,000 per year rate, but when you do your year end taxes you will get taxed at $56,000 per year rate. So you will acually get tax money back for the weeks of OT. Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your actual tax rate charged when you file that final return sometime before April 15 generally will NOT change based on your overtime. There is a slight chance that your total income will increase to the point that you move over to a higher tax bracket, but that will apply only to the income in excess of the tax bracket break point.
That said, however, I believe that you are asking if the rate of WITHHOLDING increases in your periodic paycheck. That very well could happen for various reasons. First, your company's payroll departrment may not be very sophisticated (especially if it is a small company not using a large payroll service firm) and the withholding regulations are complex. Second, the withholding regulations generally assume that what you made during any given pay period is what you will make in ALL pay periods. This often grossly overstates your estimated ANNUAL earnings, puts you into a higher assumed tax bracket and causes the payroll dept to over withhold (this happens a lot with annual bonus situations). Consider filing a new W-4 with additional dependents for the overtime period, switch back after returning to normal hours. In any case, the amount withheld does not impact your actual taxes. It only impacts the size of your refund or additional payment when filing your return. If they take more, the refund is higher (and you gave Uncle Sam an interest free loan). If they take less the refund is smaller or you may owe at year end. If that is the case, don't spend it all before tax time - Uncle Sam doesn't pay interest on those "loans" but he sure charges interest and penalties if you don't pay on time.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Phil Crow) wrote in

    Changes with gross pay, as has already been posted. However, _bonuses_ have tax withheld at a higher rate, 40% IIRC. Where I work, our "overtime" is treated as a bonus (has to do with the fact that we're sort of salaried, sort of hourly), so tax is withheld from that at a higher rate. The actual tax rate isn't any higher, but for some reason the withholding rate is. We get most of that back at the end of the year; just have to wait for it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@familybrown.org says...

--
Mark

The truth as I perceive it to be.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As an employer who does his own payroll, I suspect they are blanket taxing the bonuses at 40% to keep from having to figure them through the tax tables, consider each employees withholding status and them making an IRS deposit each time they write bonus checks. In our business, we add the bonuses into the regular paychecks to cut down on the caclulating overhead and extra deposits to the IRS.
Bernie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The tax withholding rate is based on a formula where:
Gross pay in any given pay period times number of pay periods per year equals an estimated annual income. Based on your W-4 exemptions, the withholding is estimated to be roughly equal to that pay-period's portion of your total tax bill for the year.
The hook is that if you get paid 2 times/month, that's 24 paychecks per year. If you make $10/hr times 40 hours per week, that's about $935 gross per half-month (based on 187 hours per average month at 40 hrs/week). Thus a $935 gross paycheck calculates to an annual income of about $22,440 per year.
On the other hand, if you work an extra 20 hours per week for a month, your income goes up by 75%, or $1636 gross per check. That then looks to the IRS withholding formula like you are making $37,270.
Let's say you are married and your exemptions and deductions are about $12,000 per year, so your taxable income is about $10,000. The tax on that would be somewhere around $1300-1500 per year. BUT, if you had the same deductions and made $37,270, your taxable income is $25,000 per year, and the tax on that is closer to $4000 per year, and the withholding for federal income tax per check with overtime would be close to $175 instead of $50. Add to that the additional social security tax of $55 or so for a total increase of federal taxes of $180 plus additional state income tax, and that knocks a big hole in your overtime income.
It's a screwed-up system, but it's the only game in town.
CE
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It seems many people know all about the tax rules, but what bothers me is Phil's comments on taxes going away. If we don't pay taxes, who paves and fixes roads, who pays for the fire engines and crews that come and attempt to save your house and personal belongings, who pays for the cops that protect you as best they can, who brings water to your house, takes used water and waste away from your house, etc. This would be a sorry country if we didn't have taxes. I agree that taxes are wasted much of the time, but if we didn't have them, we wouldn't have much. My 2 cents.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:01:09 -0800, Jay wrote:

All the things you mentioned are paid by city/count/state (local) taxes, not Federal Income Tax - at least that's the way it's supposed to be. Federal taxes are supposed to pay for the military/defense and commerce/trade related things - at least that's the way it's supposed to be.
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn responds:

"Supposed to be" is right up there with "justice" as a concept, I think. We don't see many things done as they're supposed to be done, nor is justice done with any great regularity.
It would be interesting to see just how schools would fare today if all Federal monies were cut off. Too, how many roads would we have without Federal support? Start by doing a wipe on the entire Eisenhower concept, the Interstates.
Charlie Self
"Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal." Alexander Hamilton
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:35:44 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

All you gotta do is look at the trucking traffic on the interstates (at least in the west) to realize they are a valid commerce item, unlike Social Security and Medicare which for some strange reason have been justified under the commerce clause. OTOH, I expect local taxes to fully fund my side street after I have had a chance to vote on the bond issue.
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn wrote:

The "interstates" were supposedly constructed for military purposes.
-- Jack Novak Buffalo, NY - USA (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:24:58 +0000, Nova wrote:

Correct, military, commerce and travel:
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa052499.htm
-Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message

Federal support for schools is very small. In my District less than 1% of total spending is federally funded. Roads are built by the feds from federal gas taxes. We could build just as many roads if the feds went away and the state levied the additional gas tax - we just wouldn't be able to funnel it to those states and districts with the "right" legislators and senators. A case in point is your Senator, Bob Byrd, and all the road money he brings to WV. That extension of RT 50 being built in Parkersburg comes to mind.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hall writes:

Yeah. Now I'll have a nightmare tonight. That thing will be a lot better, and safer, when it is completed. I hope it will, anyway, though I expect to be long gone from the area by then.
Where does the money for school lunch funding come from? Why are so many school districts so frightened of dropping student enrolments? Is all that a state funding set-up? Seems to me I've read that much of it is federally funded.
Of course, the feds love to nail state and local agencies with grants. Expand like crazy with whopping 2 year grants. At the end of 2 years you've got the choice of letting the new stuff and staff go or paying for it yourself. Bedford County, VA, has bought into this heavily with their sheriff's dept. Ex-FBI agent elected shurf. Ever since, the dept. has been expanding on mostly federal grant bucks. Some are due to start running out shortly, and one of the lowest property tax rates in the state is due to go through the roof. Just about the time I get back there, too.
Charlie Self
"Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal." Alexander Hamilton
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

School Lunch and Breakfast programs are funded by a combination of federal, state, and local tax dollars as well as the sale price of lunches. In our district approximately 15% of the food service program is from federal funding, with a substantial portion of that coming from food donations (this is actually farm welfare where the feds set a minimum price for certain commodities and if farmers can't sell what they grow for that price they sell it to the feds. the feds then use it to donate to schools, for armed services, prisons , etc.). Obviously, federal funds are focused on poorer school districts and the poorest inner city schools and poor rural schools will get a higher percentage of both education dollars as well as school lunch dollars (free and reduced lunch subsidies for poor families). Still, nationally I believe that federal funding amounts to considerably less than 5% of total K-12 education spending. Mostly for remedial programs such as Title I reading and math, IDEA special education, and some teacher continuing education programs (as well as the lunch/breakfast programs). The vast majority of school funding in many states is state funding. West Virginia funds a significant majority of school spending, with local taxes - i.e. excess levies and bond levies- funding a small percentage. Other states such as Pennsylvania focus a large percentage of school costs on local taxpayers. PA state funding is about 35% on average. In my district it is about 18%. Just over 81% of our funding is from local (i.e. municipal or school district specific) taxes - i.e. property taxes, local income taxes, local gross receipts business taxes, amusement taxes, etc. and is heavily weighted toward property taxes. Our local school property tax is 16.5 Mills or 1.65% of assessed market value. This is on top of local municipal property taxes and county property taxes. My total annual property tax is 28 mills or 2.8% of my home's market value. Every state has its own formulas for distributing funding. In many states out west it is very much based on number of students enrolled AND attendance. They tend to spend a lot of money on tracking and enforcement of attendance. In WV I think it is mostly enrollments, number and configuration of buildings, geographic structure (for busing and for distribution of schools). Even the structure of Districts vary widely from state to state. In WV school districts are county-wide. so there are 55 school districts. In PA the districts are much smaller and more numerous. In Allegheny County alone there are 43 school districts - including the rather large city of Pittsburgh District. The state has 501 districts. In Hawaii there is only 1 district - the entire state.
So, in a very long winded way I have bored the socks off anyone still reading concerning school funding. For the libertarians amongst us (as well as the states rights folks) schools are still very much a state function as they should be under the US constitution. The feds are constantly encroaching however. Our nice conservative republican Geo. Bush recently passed the "No Child Left Behind Act" which, whether you like its purpose and intent or not, is clearly the largest transfer of eduction control to the federal government in history (without matching funding, by the way). Some may say it is a victory for children, but it is clearly a defeat for constitutional law.
Dave Hall

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

Well if Michigan quit sending the federal portion of gasoline taxes and used it to pave Michigan roads, we in Michigan would have better roads. Yes, we are a DONOR State.
Federal Support = FEDERAL DEMANDS
Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.