I'd be fine with ditching both time and a half with payroll taxes. Limiting most people to 40 hours a week is bogus. How much time you spend and how much you get paid for it is between you and your employer.
When was 40 hours a limit? It isn't, it just means they have to pay me more if I go over that threshold. And I'm fine with that. Places like Wal-Mart would schedule people seven days a fucking week if they could work them without worrying about paying OT.
If you're on the schedule and you don't show up for that shift, you're terminated. So it isn't "however many hours they want." It's however many hours Wal-Mart would work them. Which is all of the hours.
The 32 hours or benefits kick in thing doesn't work like that either. Wal-Mart works "part time" people 40 hours a week routinely. Designated as part time, they don't get benefits. No one outside Wal-Mart is looking in to make sure these people are getting the shit they deserve. You don't get benefits until you're made Full Time.
On top of that, the CEO thinks it's fucking rainbow land and people would work even if they weren't getting paid. He said those words in an interview. "They just love serving. They would do it even without a paycheck."
It is however many hours agreed upon between the employer and employee. If some want to work more, then others can work less, it'd be all the same to the company.
Companies have to compete for labor. Walmart will not overwork their employees like that or they won't have employees.
Right now minimum wage jobs suck because the labor pool is artificially small due to artificially high wages and arbitrary hour limits before the labor price doubles.
If you ever worked a minimum wage job, imagine how much easier the job would be with 50% more staff working. With the lower cost of living from no minimum wage there would be no/negligible "real" loss of income, but quality of life would go way up.
how about get rid of the employee side payroll tax, and reduce the bottom 3 tax brackets by 4 percent.
so you would pay 6% up to $10k, 8% from 10k to 40k and 18% from 40k to 85k
that would push your effective tax rate ignoring any deductions and assuming you make around the median closer to 10% total for federal. for most people that would be huge.
especially if you live in a low income tax state.
new yorkers and californians would still be pretty boned, but just more reason to move out of the shitholes. then basic economics will require those states to cut taxes to entice people to live there, and of course spend more conservatively, making for a smaller less intrusive state government.
winning all around.
I still want time and a half for overtime though, at minimum. lots of people really depend on those overtime hours. theres a huge difference between 60 hours and 70 hours a week. If you are relying on that overtime pay the option to just work more hours isn't really viable for people who need it most, those with a family and both parents working.
Maybe phase out overtime pay or legal protection for it at multiples of the median wage, that way it won't be exploited by overpaid government goons as it is now, or union contracts for $150/hr "prevailing wage" that is actually over a hundred dollars per hour more than any private sector job before overtime!
anyway, I trust the Trump, lower taxes for the masses, it encourages and rewards workers the way it should be.
then basic economics will require those states to cut taxes to entice people to live there
That's rich. States abiding by advice of economists. HA! More likely, the high taxes will continue because of a huge burdensome debt. Services will drop.
The rest of what you say, however, I haven't thought through yet.
Playing devil’s advocate here, if you’re an employee why wouldn’t you limit the work week to 40 if you get the same pay? If your coworker works 65 hours for the same pay as you, that will start to become the expectation for all employees, so employees would be working for less, due to working more hours for the same pay.
Some employers would offer overtime pay as an incentive to work more.
BUT
Currently alot of employers don't want to pay overtime so you are just stuck at a max of 40 hours a week. (32 because of ACA. Thanks obama!)
If you want more than 40 (32) hours worth of pay you would need a second job with all the headaches that entails. Many employees would rather just get more hours at a primary job even without OT.
Its not like its a permanent thing, unless you are mentally deficient you won't be working a minimum wage job forever.
I worked at MCDs for 6 years out of high school to qualify my opinion
There is a difference between same pay and same pay per hour. I said the one with fewer syllables but meant the longer one.
40 hrs at $10 per hour = $400 a week
65 hrs at $10 per hour = $650 a week
65 hrs with time and a half (normal) = $775 a week
Right now the middle is not an option, but it is obviously better for someone that wants to get ahead. Making it available might make some lucky few at the third option move down. But those lucky few are essentially paid $12 an hour, so they can argue with their boss to just pay $12 or $11 no matter how many hours are worked.
I get that, but then it sets the standard that the employer will not pay 1.5 rate.
If Joe is willing to work extra hours at the same hourly pay, but John says that he will only work extra hours at 1.5, the employer will just say that they don’t pay 1.5 OT and if he wants extra hours he has to accept no increase. This effectively undercuts John.
How is that any difference than hiring illegals or H1Bs? They undercut pay and put Americans at a disadvantage.
It does undercut, but it also opens up more hours. Right now, maybe Joe or John is getting overtime, but it is rare in many businesses. Getting rid of regulation may sink John's pay, but it will increase many others'. If John has a job where 1.5 OT occurs commonly, the employer factors that into John's base pay already.
I'd be fine with ditching both time and a half with payroll taxes. Limiting most people to 40 hours a week is bogus. How much time you spend and how much you get paid for it is between you and your employer.
When was 40 hours a limit? It isn't, it just means they have to pay me more if I go over that threshold. And I'm fine with that. Places like Wal-Mart would schedule people seven days a fucking week if they could work them without worrying about paying OT.
And those people could get however many hours they want. But now, they can't get 32 or else the benefits kick in, so the worker gets neither.
If Walmart employee's got 70 hours a week with no overtime or benefits, they'd still be much better off.
Instead people have to find two or three jobs and work out that scheduling nightmare to get enough hours.
If you're on the schedule and you don't show up for that shift, you're terminated. So it isn't "however many hours they want." It's however many hours Wal-Mart would work them. Which is all of the hours.
The 32 hours or benefits kick in thing doesn't work like that either. Wal-Mart works "part time" people 40 hours a week routinely. Designated as part time, they don't get benefits. No one outside Wal-Mart is looking in to make sure these people are getting the shit they deserve. You don't get benefits until you're made Full Time.
On top of that, the CEO thinks it's fucking rainbow land and people would work even if they weren't getting paid. He said those words in an interview. "They just love serving. They would do it even without a paycheck."
It is however many hours agreed upon between the employer and employee. If some want to work more, then others can work less, it'd be all the same to the company.
Companies have to compete for labor. Walmart will not overwork their employees like that or they won't have employees.
Right now minimum wage jobs suck because the labor pool is artificially small due to artificially high wages and arbitrary hour limits before the labor price doubles.
If you ever worked a minimum wage job, imagine how much easier the job would be with 50% more staff working. With the lower cost of living from no minimum wage there would be no/negligible "real" loss of income, but quality of life would go way up.
how about get rid of the employee side payroll tax, and reduce the bottom 3 tax brackets by 4 percent.
so you would pay 6% up to $10k, 8% from 10k to 40k and 18% from 40k to 85k
that would push your effective tax rate ignoring any deductions and assuming you make around the median closer to 10% total for federal. for most people that would be huge.
especially if you live in a low income tax state.
new yorkers and californians would still be pretty boned, but just more reason to move out of the shitholes. then basic economics will require those states to cut taxes to entice people to live there, and of course spend more conservatively, making for a smaller less intrusive state government.
winning all around.
I still want time and a half for overtime though, at minimum. lots of people really depend on those overtime hours. theres a huge difference between 60 hours and 70 hours a week. If you are relying on that overtime pay the option to just work more hours isn't really viable for people who need it most, those with a family and both parents working.
Maybe phase out overtime pay or legal protection for it at multiples of the median wage, that way it won't be exploited by overpaid government goons as it is now, or union contracts for $150/hr "prevailing wage" that is actually over a hundred dollars per hour more than any private sector job before overtime!
anyway, I trust the Trump, lower taxes for the masses, it encourages and rewards workers the way it should be.
That's rich. States abiding by advice of economists. HA! More likely, the high taxes will continue because of a huge burdensome debt. Services will drop.
The rest of what you say, however, I haven't thought through yet.
Playing devil’s advocate here, if you’re an employee why wouldn’t you limit the work week to 40 if you get the same pay? If your coworker works 65 hours for the same pay as you, that will start to become the expectation for all employees, so employees would be working for less, due to working more hours for the same pay.
Some employers would offer overtime pay as an incentive to work more.
BUT
Currently alot of employers don't want to pay overtime so you are just stuck at a max of 40 hours a week. (32 because of ACA. Thanks obama!)
If you want more than 40 (32) hours worth of pay you would need a second job with all the headaches that entails. Many employees would rather just get more hours at a primary job even without OT.
Its not like its a permanent thing, unless you are mentally deficient you won't be working a minimum wage job forever.
I worked at MCDs for 6 years out of high school to qualify my opinion
There is a difference between same pay and same pay per hour. I said the one with fewer syllables but meant the longer one.
40 hrs at $10 per hour = $400 a week 65 hrs at $10 per hour = $650 a week 65 hrs with time and a half (normal) = $775 a week
Right now the middle is not an option, but it is obviously better for someone that wants to get ahead. Making it available might make some lucky few at the third option move down. But those lucky few are essentially paid $12 an hour, so they can argue with their boss to just pay $12 or $11 no matter how many hours are worked.
I get that, but then it sets the standard that the employer will not pay 1.5 rate.
If Joe is willing to work extra hours at the same hourly pay, but John says that he will only work extra hours at 1.5, the employer will just say that they don’t pay 1.5 OT and if he wants extra hours he has to accept no increase. This effectively undercuts John.
How is that any difference than hiring illegals or H1Bs? They undercut pay and put Americans at a disadvantage.
It does undercut, but it also opens up more hours. Right now, maybe Joe or John is getting overtime, but it is rare in many businesses. Getting rid of regulation may sink John's pay, but it will increase many others'. If John has a job where 1.5 OT occurs commonly, the employer factors that into John's base pay already.