What's new
By:
Filters

#47 dropping tax on O.T.

So the way I heard they were going to drop the overtime on tax is just not pay over time. You would just get straight time for all the hours you'll work. So if you worked 50 hours you just got paid for 50 hours. Not sure if that's true though
 
chaplinfj60 said:
So the way I heard they were going to drop the overtime on tax is just not pay over time. You would just get straight time for all the hours you'll work. So if you worked 50 hours you just got paid for 50 hours. Not sure if that's true though
Click to expand...
I'm all for this because of who it would result in a pay cut for. :laughing:
 
chaplinfj60 said:
So the way I heard they were going to drop the overtime on tax is just not pay over time. You would just get straight time for all the hours you'll work. So if you worked 50 hours you just got paid for 50 hours. Not sure if that's true though
Click to expand...


Pretty srue they'd have a harder time getting that through the house/senate over no OT tax :laughing:
 
arse_sidewards said:
I'm all for this because of who it would result in a pay cut for. :laughing:
Click to expand...
F-O ass hole. And I defended you while you were playing in the band :shaking:

east_beast said:
I hope it happens in part just to watch how the Dems try to spin it as racist as sexist. :laughing:
Click to expand...
Because it wouldn’t benefit those who work part time. So minorities and women :laughing:

I average 750 hours of OT a year
 
JR4X said:
F-O ass hole. And I defended you while you were playing in the band :shaking:
Click to expand...
Collateral damage. :laughing:

I was thinking more along the lines of cops and union fuckwads with enough seniority to reliably build themselves a schedule chock full of gravy at OT rate.

Your employer could just as easily structure your pay with a commission or a bonus to get the same total comp if they wanted.
 
Work 60 hours now, work 60 hours with this in place.. Company still shells out the same amount. Not sure why it would have any affect on highering practices.
For sure tons of people will "scam the system" by working unnecessary OT. Whether it be self scheduling, working slower, whatever. That might, might be enough to make some companies take a look at how many people already do this. More UAW fuckery will ensue, for sure.

rockota said:
IMHO, bad idea with too many unintended consequences and complications. Better to focus on flat tax.
Click to expand...
Yes
 
arse_sidewards said:
Collateral damage. :laughing:

I was thinking more along the lines of cops and union fuckwads with enough seniority to reliably build themselves a schedule chock full of gravy at OT rate.

Your employer could just as easily structure your pay with a commission or a bonus to get the same total comp if they wanted.
Click to expand...


The MO at Hanford is to talk about working on Monday, Tuesday get everything set up to do the job. Wednesday start working and Thursday (4-10s M-T) tell the boss there is no way to finish before Monday unless you work Friday and Saturday. The current contract is 40 hours straight time, the next 8 hours is x1.5 and anything after that is x2. So working 60 hours pays 80. It's 100% a scam and the teamsters out there love it. I turned the OT down when I worked there and everyone looked at me like I had 3 heads. :laughing:
 
arse_sidewards said:
Collateral damage. :laughing:

I was thinking more along the lines of cops and union fuckwads with enough seniority to reliably build themselves a schedule chock full of gravy at OT rate.

Your employer could just as easily structure your pay with a commission or a bonus to get the same total comp if they wanted.
Click to expand...

His employer cant structure his pay that way. About 10 years ago that was pretty much how anyone who had to think in the oilfield got paid but there was several lawsuits and a shit load of positions went from a day rate(bonus) to hourly positions.

If people are reliably getting a schedule full of gravy OT that's their supervisor/companies fault. For a while we had a few guys doing that and when we rearranged their schedule it cut 300 hours a year of OT off their hours worked. Now they could have made up that OT by coming out during outages and working but instead they just grumbled.
 
I doubt it will be 'full' removal of tax on overtime. I will bet it will be removing the extra taxes pulled on overtime that you get back at the end of the year:homer:
 
Am I the only person who thinks that hourly pay is idiotic and lazy? I get it from a policing minimum wage standpoint (not trying to start a minimum wage argument, just acknowledging here the reality of there being one and thus the need to have a legal measuring stick for it) but from a productivity standpoint it's awful. If you're an hourly wage employee not really looking to climb the ladder, just do your job and take you paycheck and go home, then your only real motivation is to do enough to not get fired. There's no incentive to increase productivity beyond that. Hell, if you do there's theoretically a chance that your hours could be reduced because of that increased productivity. It's an idiotic system of pay. If companies weren't so lazy about payroll and didn't see it solely as a cost structure they'd see the opportunity to build in incentive to increase productivity.
 
arse_sidewards said:
Your employer could just as easily structure your pay with a commission or a bonus to get the same total comp if they wanted.
Click to expand...
Bonuses are typically 22% tax at the federal rate. Maybe I'm missing what you are trying to accomplish.
 
Lil'John said:
east_beast Depends... paying by the piece will more than likely result in 'blow-n-go' shit quality. Paying by the day or yearly salary has no incentive to do better either.
Click to expand...

Paying by the day or year is the same thing. You're just buying time. Literally.

Incentive pay doesn't have to be single variable. That's the type of lazy wage scale thinking that leads to simple hourly pay. In a production environment like you're talking about you could have a numbers based incentive system with a QC percentage requirement to qualify. The QC people could have an incentive system based on customer quality satisfaction or something along those lines. The QC side is muddier for me just because I've never directly worked on that side of the house in any industry I've been in. The sales side is easiest for me just because that's where I have the most experience. It always cracked me up when sales managers start harping about moving this or that without talking compensation structure. Folks, salespeople worth hiring are ALWAYS going to sell to the compensation structure. What is going to put the most money in my pocket while keeping my customers happy? That's what I'm gonna do.
 
rockota said:
IMHO, bad idea with too many unintended consequences and complications. Better to focus on flat tax.
Click to expand...
I have a simple plan.

1 tax form.

Line 1: Total household earnings
Line 2: Household size
Line 3: Exempt income (Annual poverty line for household size, below that line is tax-exempt income for all)
Line 4: Line 1 less Line 3
Line 5: Line 4 * 0.12 = Total Tax
Line 6: Total Withholding
Line 7: Line 5 less Line 6 = Amount Owed (Refund)

No exemptions, no deductions. 12% tax on all earnings no matter if you're single, married, have kids, make the money via investments, etc. No loopholes, no welfare, no nothing. The only variance will be the tax-exempt earnings based upon household size (silences the "regressive" argument). This will also allow for a drastic reduction of the IRS, if not total elimination and replacement with a much smaller, more constrained agency.

Next, balanced budget amendment to the Constitution: Every future budget must be balanced with a minimum of 5% total federal debt repayment per year until fulfilled. No other legislation may be considered prior to the passing of a balanced budget, either. All unspent funds must be utilized to pay off the debt, no deferring to other causes. Once the debt is paid, reduction of line 5 to 0.08.

Third, continuation of government streamlining: All future legislation must come with 2 prior acts to be repealed as a requirement to come to a vote.
 
east_beast said:
Am I the only person who thinks that hourly pay is idiotic and lazy? I get it from a policing minimum wage standpoint (not trying to start a minimum wage argument, just acknowledging here the reality of there being one and thus the need to have a legal measuring stick for it) but from a productivity standpoint it's awful. If you're an hourly wage employee not really looking to climb the ladder, just do your job and take you paycheck and go home, then your only real motivation is to do enough to not get fired. There's no incentive to increase productivity beyond that. Hell, if you do there's theoretically a chance that your hours could be reduced because of that increased productivity. It's an idiotic system of pay. If companies weren't so lazy about payroll and didn't see it solely as a cost structure they'd see the opportunity to build in incentive to increase productivity.
Click to expand...


I gotta hear what you think should be done instead.
 
RSWORDS said:
Bonuses are typically 22% tax at the federal rate. Maybe I'm missing what you are trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...
My point is that it doesn't matter whether you structure the pay as hourly with OT @1.5x, hourly with OT@1x or salaried at $Y annually or any one of those options plus some sort of bonus Z you can easily pick values for X Y and Z such that the employee gets paid the same on an annual basis.

If OT goes to 1x just bump the base pay rate a tad.
 
east_beast said:
Am I the only person who thinks that hourly pay is idiotic and lazy? I get it from a policing minimum wage standpoint (not trying to start a minimum wage argument, just acknowledging here the reality of there being one and thus the need to have a legal measuring stick for it) but from a productivity standpoint it's awful. If you're an hourly wage employee not really looking to climb the ladder, just do your job and take you paycheck and go home, then your only real motivation is to do enough to not get fired. There's no incentive to increase productivity beyond that. Hell, if you do there's theoretically a chance that your hours could be reduced because of that increased productivity. It's an idiotic system of pay. If companies weren't so lazy about payroll and didn't see it solely as a cost structure they'd see the opportunity to build in incentive to increase productivity.
Click to expand...
That sounds really fawking dumb for a reactionary work load. You cannot “productivity” your way into less hours outside of a paper pushing gig. I have 78 internal combustion engine powered machines operating in the middle of nowhere that are my responsibility to keep running 24 hours a day 365 days a year. The company tasks me with 98% run time. The closest one to me is one hour away from my house the furthest is two hours away. It is a state law requirement that I see every single one of them every 7 days. If I’m lucky I only do 50 hours a week. So on a good week I have to see 1 1/2 locations an hour including travel time and fix any problems while I’m there. Parts fail, leaks develop, etc. My highest hour machine has over 140,000 hours on the original engine and my run time is 99% because of how hard I “productivity”.

The amount of hours it takes to navigate between locations changes by weather. The next location I need to go to isn’t linear because I have to respond to down units first every day, I can see run status on our automation system. Every 7th week I take a turn of being on call 24 hours a day for 7 days of 12 days in a row. Doing the hours is the job. If I walk into work next Monday (I’m on vacation this week) and find out I’m on salary for the same job scope. I’m quitting on the spot.
 
DRTDEVL said:
I have a simple plan.

1 tax form.

Line 1: Total household earnings
Line 2: Household size
Line 3: Exempt income (Annual poverty line for household size, below that line is tax-exempt income for all)
Line 4: Line 1 less Line 3
Line 5: Line 4 * 0.12 = Total Tax
Line 6: Total Withholding
Line 7: Line 5 less Line 6 = Amount Owed (Refund)

No exemptions, no deductions. 12% tax on all earnings no matter if you're single, married, have kids, make the money via investments, etc. No loopholes, no welfare, no nothing. The only variance will be the tax-exempt earnings based upon household size (silences the "regressive" argument). This will also allow for a drastic reduction of the IRS, if not total elimination and replacement with a much smaller, more constrained agency.

Next, balanced budget amendment to the Constitution: Every future budget must be balanced with a minimum of 5% total federal debt repayment per year until fulfilled. No other legislation may be considered prior to the passing of a balanced budget, either. All unspent funds must be utilized to pay off the debt, no deferring to other causes. Once the debt is paid, reduction of line 5 to 0.08.

Third, continuation of government streamlining: All future legislation must come with 2 prior acts to be repealed as a requirement to come to a vote.
Click to expand...
12% is about 12% too high for an individual income tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh