I don't think the company cares if your overtime is taxed or not. They pay the same amount either way. Now, though, the worker putting that time in is basically getting a raise. What's the problem with that?
Well, it's a worker protection law in the US. If you work more than 40 hours in a week, you must get paid 150% of your normal rate for each extra hour. In many cases, the company is loathe to pay OT, and thus keeps workers to 40 hours or less. Some companies decide that the OT is worth it, and many guys (especially blue collar types) love to collect a bunch of premium pay every week. This system gives the company incentive to shy away from saying, "oh, we need a shift covered? Meh, just make Joe pick up a sixth day every week. Yay, problem solved!"
If you're trying to say income shouldn't be taxed at all, I agree with you. This is a good step, though.
Well, it's a worker protection law in the US. If you work more than 40 hours in a week, you must get paid 150% of your normal rate for each extra hour
Really? I thought overtime need not be paid out at all. If this is true, your laws are actually better than the European laws I know, where it depends on your contract and sometimes need not be paid out at all (although basically no one actually does it).
This system gives the company incentive to shy away from saying, "oh, we need a shift covered? Meh, just make Joe pick up a sixth day every week. Yay, problem solved!"
I don't quite get this. Doesn't this incentivize getting people to work more? Or do you mean forcing a random bastard to do it, who doesn't want to do it, beause they find willing people?
If you're trying to say income shouldn't be taxed at all, I agree with you.
It's not realistic. That is what annoys me about the "taxation is theft" lolbertarians. If they spend it on collective goods for ME, then it is not theft. If they send it to Ukraine or bring in fake refugees to kill me, then it is.
In America there are two common wages: salary and paid per hour. 150% for overtime is typically referring to hourly paid employees. Salaried employees get fucked over and do not receive overtime pay, just a fixed annual wage, regardless of if the work in excess of 40 hours in a given week.
Yeah, though as PooperSnooper said, this doesn't apply to salaried workers. However, that's basically always for things like management, so the position won't stay filled for long if the company tries to lowball. Basically every "regular worker" including things like welders, etc. get paid hourly.
If this is true, your laws are actually better than the European laws I know
Really? Europe doesn't make companies pay more for over 40 hours?
Doesn't this incentivize getting people to work more?
I... guess? If you want the OT, that is. I'm not sure why that's bad, though. Certainly the company wouldn't pay 150% if they didn't have to, so a lot of them are anal about not paying any OT at all and getting their workers out right at 40 hours.
Or do you mean forcing a random bastard to do it, who doesn't want to do it
Yes, that's what I mean. If the premium wasn't there, they could easily force that poor bastard to do it without recourse or concern (because they would pay the same either way).
I don't think the company cares if your overtime is taxed or not. They pay the same amount either way. Now, though, the worker putting that time in is basically getting a raise. What's the problem with that?
Right, but why should workers be incentivized to do overtime like this? What's special about overtime?
Well, it's a worker protection law in the US. If you work more than 40 hours in a week, you must get paid 150% of your normal rate for each extra hour. In many cases, the company is loathe to pay OT, and thus keeps workers to 40 hours or less. Some companies decide that the OT is worth it, and many guys (especially blue collar types) love to collect a bunch of premium pay every week. This system gives the company incentive to shy away from saying, "oh, we need a shift covered? Meh, just make Joe pick up a sixth day every week. Yay, problem solved!"
If you're trying to say income shouldn't be taxed at all, I agree with you. This is a good step, though.
Really? I thought overtime need not be paid out at all. If this is true, your laws are actually better than the European laws I know, where it depends on your contract and sometimes need not be paid out at all (although basically no one actually does it).
I don't quite get this. Doesn't this incentivize getting people to work more? Or do you mean forcing a random bastard to do it, who doesn't want to do it, beause they find willing people?
It's not realistic. That is what annoys me about the "taxation is theft" lolbertarians. If they spend it on collective goods for ME, then it is not theft. If they send it to Ukraine or bring in fake refugees to kill me, then it is.
In America there are two common wages: salary and paid per hour. 150% for overtime is typically referring to hourly paid employees. Salaried employees get fucked over and do not receive overtime pay, just a fixed annual wage, regardless of if the work in excess of 40 hours in a given week.
Yeah, though as PooperSnooper said, this doesn't apply to salaried workers. However, that's basically always for things like management, so the position won't stay filled for long if the company tries to lowball. Basically every "regular worker" including things like welders, etc. get paid hourly.
Really? Europe doesn't make companies pay more for over 40 hours?
I... guess? If you want the OT, that is. I'm not sure why that's bad, though. Certainly the company wouldn't pay 150% if they didn't have to, so a lot of them are anal about not paying any OT at all and getting their workers out right at 40 hours.
Yes, that's what I mean. If the premium wasn't there, they could easily force that poor bastard to do it without recourse or concern (because they would pay the same either way).