(09-12-2024 05:30 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  Trump just announced for the 1st time today at his rally in Arizona that in addition to removing taxes on tips and on Social Security for seniors that he will also remove taxes on overtime pay - anything over 40 hours per week.

Man, where was he when I was young man working for a car rental place and putting in all that Chinese Overtime hours. I’ll bet I didn’t make $5 an hour the government stole so much out of my check.

Didn’t take long to jump ship when the first opportunity came along.

Bottom line he cares more about average Americans than that fake Puppet ever will.

She touts abortion and child mutilation because there is money to be made for her constituents at taxpayer expense.

She has never worked a day outside of Government in the real world just like her boss.

Same ol same ol if you are happy struggling carry on.

This weekend, Lamella Harris is going to release her groundbreaking plan not to tax overtime wages.

How do we know this was said... Kamala said that nobody watches his rallies....

Anyway.. I don't see this as a bad thing nor do I see it as a good thing either...

(09-13-2024 06:41 AM)gdunn Wrote:  How do we know this was said... Kamala said that nobody watches his rallies....

Anyway.. I don't see this as a bad thing nor do I see it as a good thing either...

I don't see it as a thing period since the President doesn't decide tax law. Tips, SS, Overtime, etc are just campaign trail words.

Now if he made a announcement with Johnson about legislation that would be brought to his desk Spring 2025 it would have a lot more validity.

(09-13-2024 06:48 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 06:41 AM)gdunn Wrote:  How do we know this was said... Kamala said that nobody watches his rallies....

Anyway.. I don't see this as a bad thing nor do I see it as a good thing either...

I don't see it as a thing period since the President doesn't decide tax law. Tips, SS, Overtime, etc are just campaign trail words.

Now if he made a announcement with Johnson about legislation that would be brought to his desk Spring 2025 it would have a lot more validity.

Good point..

(09-13-2024 06:48 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 06:41 AM)gdunn Wrote:  How do we know this was said... Kamala said that nobody watches his rallies....

Anyway.. I don't see this as a bad thing nor do I see it as a good thing either...

I don't see it as a thing period since the President doesn't decide tax law. Tips, SS, Overtime, etc are just campaign trail words.

Now if he made a announcement with Johnson about legislation that would be brought to his desk Spring 2025 it would have a lot more validity.

You don't think the man has ran this past the republican leadership? So lets say it happened the way you want it. What do you think Biden does this morning or I should say the VP?

Headline....

if congress can pass this bill, why wait, do so with in the next 60 days and "we" will sign it the same day it passes the senate.

btw anything a president says or anyone running says.... "are just campaign trail words". Congress passes ALL BILLS

There are many plusses and minuses to this... but these are food for thought:

- There will be a push by employees to work extra hours when the hours aren't available, and knowing how people love to rig the system, people will get to OT hours more often now without actually working them. See WFH abuses.

- That same push may also hurt if not cripple hiring. Overtime pay is a lot cheaper than a new hire with a new round of benefits.



As we enter a likely recession and certainly an increasing unemployment environment, the Employers will finally take the stick back from the Employees. If an employer has been trying to get people back in the office and they have had to compromise more than they want, that sh*t is over....

If this OT thing becomes a thing, plus a tightening job market.... this may make hurt unemployment even more.

IMO the OT thing is a "careful what you wish for" at this point in the economic cycle. [yes, I am not for something Trump says].

Not a good idea IMHO. Reducing the rates is better IF we're to stick with the income tax structure. IMHO, national and state sales taxes are a much better way to collect taxes from regular people. Saving and investment should not be penalized - for poor and middle class people at least.

It's easy to spot the people that are on salary....

LOL

(09-13-2024 07:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Not a good idea IMHO. Reducing the rates is better IF we're to stick with the income tax structure. IMHO, national and state sales taxes are a much better way to collect taxes from regular people. Saving and investment should not be penalized - for poor and middle class people at least.

Agreed, consumption takes should all but replace income taxes.

and/or

A very simple to understand Flat tax - with graduated increases with increased income.

Virtually nobody pays the actual tax rate for their income bracket. Calculate a real rate and apply. Your tax rate is based on your projected annual rate of pay. If you get a new job with a raise, you are taxed at the new rate on the new job only, not aggregate where there is a clawback on the other job's earnings.

If you are a full time student and working (not NIL income stuff though) you do not pay taxes.

A little more complicated with commercial, but it can be done applying a rate based on projected revenues OR they pay some kind of consumption adjunct rate on their sales.


Enough with a 9,000 page tax code. You can do the whole thing in about 20 pages.

(09-12-2024 10:09 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I will like to see, "no taxes on active military members". They have it bad enough trying to maintain a home with the pay they get and the way they are deployed numerous times. If the GI works a second job then that pay will be taxed but not the one given by Uncle Sam. If they separate from the service then that benefit goes away.

I'm a veteran and I think ONLY the active GI should be able to benefit. Maybe, just maybe it will also get more recruits.

This is a great idea as well, but we should automatically audit Tim Walz every year to ensure he doesnt claim himself as active military.

Well, looks like Kamala will be updating "her" policy soon.

(09-13-2024 07:33 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  It's easy to spot the people that are on salary....

LOL

Ha!

Salary or not, the things I pointed out are (among other things) going to happen real quick.

(09-13-2024 07:38 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 07:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Not a good idea IMHO. Reducing the rates is better IF we're to stick with the income tax structure. IMHO, national and state sales taxes are a much better way to collect taxes from regular people. Saving and investment should not be penalized - for poor and middle class people at least.

Agreed, consumption takes should all but replace income taxes.

and/or

A very simple to understand Flat tax - with graduated increases with increased income.

Virtually nobody pays the actual tax rate for their income bracket. Calculate a real rate and apply. Your tax rate is based on your projected annual rate of pay. If you get a new job with a raise, you are taxed at the new rate on the new job only, not aggregate where there is a clawback on the other job's earnings.

If you are a full time student and working (not NIL income stuff though) you do not pay taxes.

A little more complicated with commercial, but it can be done applying a rate based on projected revenues OR they pay some kind of consumption adjunct rate on their sales.


Enough with a 9,000 page tax code. You can do the whole thing in about 20 pages.

Why do you think a VAT can replace the income tax and at what rate? Do you not realize all of Europe has a VAT of 20 to 25%...plus a income tax?

What in the world would make anyone believe it wouldn't take the same in America? Plus any VAT is just a starting rate and I guess people think it's not going up.....

most of you people are paying a income tax rate of under 10% when it's all said and done. A family with 2 children making $100,000 a year and each putting 5% into retirement has a....

Effective Tax Rate
4.87%

That same family making $150,000 and their only deductions is the standard, with a retirement of 5% has a....

Effective Tax Rate
11.06%


Same family making $80,000 a year....

Effective Tax Rate
2.81%

If that couple making $80,000 a year has ZERO children....

Effective Tax Rate
11.09%

Be very careful of what you ask for because very very few countries have NO INCOME tax. Most if not all of those that have a VAT also have a income tax rate and a total tax rate of....

close to if not over 50%

With America's defense budget you think we will be that one country without both taxes? If so it wont be long before a VAT that starts out at 20% will be 25% and then 30%

American families making 100,000 to 149,999 16.4%

(09-13-2024 07:33 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  It's easy to spot the people that are on salary....

LOL

You'd be amazed at the guys I work with that will tell me I'm getting screwed cause I'm on salary..

I'm probably putting in close to 60 hours a week.. 20 more than most of the non-salaried person..

I told them you're probably right (and with them being union) I say you're probably making more than me with your pay without OT.. But when I'm sick I get paid, when I take vacation I'm paid, if something happens with my kid and I have to work from home I get paid... You probably get sick days and vacation, but you can't do your work from home.. And sometimes the abuse your body takes on day in and day out you won't be able to keep up the pace well into your 50s if you don't move into a management position, where I'll be able to still do so maybe into my 60s.. But I'll say this some of these union guys are smart with their decisions and if they can hang on until 62 or 63, their retirement benefits are pretty good.. Not all unions are created equal though. A few of the younger guys were asking me about my retirement benefits, and I let them know since I've been working in my 20s I've paid in to some type of retirement. I don't have the nice nest egg to walk away right now, but it's getting there.. One of the guys in his 30s said he hasn't put a dime in retirement, he opted out but was thinking about it. I told him to he needed to consider it.

(09-13-2024 08:47 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 07:33 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  It's easy to spot the people that are on salary....

LOL

You'd be amazed at the guys I work with that will tell me I'm getting screwed cause I'm on salary..

I'm probably putting in close to 60 hours a week.. 20 more than most of the non-salaried person..

I told them you're probably right (and with them being union) I say you're probably making more than me with your pay without OT.. But when I'm sick I get paid, when I take vacation I'm paid, if something happens with my kid and I have to work from home I get paid... You probably get sick days and vacation, but you can't do your work from home.. And sometimes the abuse your body takes on day in and day out you won't be able to keep up the pace well into your 50s if you don't move into a management position, where I'll be able to still do so maybe into my 60s.. But I'll say this some of these union guys are smart with their decisions and if they can hang on until 62 or 63, their retirement benefits are pretty good.. Not all unions are created equal though. A few of the younger guys were asking me about my retirement benefits, and I let them know since I've been working in my 20s I've paid in to some type of retirement. I don't have the nice nest egg to walk away right now, but it's getting there.. One of the guys in his 30s said he hasn't put a dime in retirement, he opted out but was thinking about it. I told him to he needed to consider it.

At the age of 18 I started out in a management position (boss) and never been anything but that so most people I talk to when this type of subject comes up are very surprised....

I usually take the side of the hourly worker.

I know someone that just took a stepdown from salary and he will make 15% more this year working 20% less hours. But of course the perks dropped with that.

(09-13-2024 09:00 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 08:47 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 07:33 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  It's easy to spot the people that are on salary....

LOL

You'd be amazed at the guys I work with that will tell me I'm getting screwed cause I'm on salary..

I'm probably putting in close to 60 hours a week.. 20 more than most of the non-salaried person..

I told them you're probably right (and with them being union) I say you're probably making more than me with your pay without OT.. But when I'm sick I get paid, when I take vacation I'm paid, if something happens with my kid and I have to work from home I get paid... You probably get sick days and vacation, but you can't do your work from home.. And sometimes the abuse your body takes on day in and day out you won't be able to keep up the pace well into your 50s if you don't move into a management position, where I'll be able to still do so maybe into my 60s.. But I'll say this some of these union guys are smart with their decisions and if they can hang on until 62 or 63, their retirement benefits are pretty good.. Not all unions are created equal though. A few of the younger guys were asking me about my retirement benefits, and I let them know since I've been working in my 20s I've paid in to some type of retirement. I don't have the nice nest egg to walk away right now, but it's getting there.. One of the guys in his 30s said he hasn't put a dime in retirement, he opted out but was thinking about it. I told him to he needed to consider it.

At the age of 18 I started out in a management position (boss) and never been anything but that so most people I talk to when this type of subject comes up are very surprised....

I usually take the side of the hourly worker.

I know someone that just took a stepdown from salary and he will make 15% more this year working 20% less hours. But of course the perks dropped with that.

Absolutely. A buddy of mine installs fire alarms and tests those systems, one day he sat down with all his stubs and figured out how much he made over the previous year and when it was time for his yearly eval he offered to go to salary, he'd still work like they needed him to, but the understanding was that if something came up he still got paid due to the hours he put in.. It was like he told me this year he could make a ton with all the OT but the next year they may not have as much and he could be called off and not get paid, at least with the salary he was guaranteed money. He found the happy medium with the understanding that if he was due a raise he'd get it. Made his life easier and the company was happy with it.. It wasn't like he said I noticed I made (I'm throwing numbers out there) $95k this past year I want my salary to be fixated on that.. He put out a reasonable number, which what was his base salary and figured another $10k to it.. Not only did it ensure he get paid, but it guaranteed he'd be there in tough times..

(09-13-2024 09:13 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 09:00 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 08:47 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 07:33 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  It's easy to spot the people that are on salary....

LOL

You'd be amazed at the guys I work with that will tell me I'm getting screwed cause I'm on salary..

I'm probably putting in close to 60 hours a week.. 20 more than most of the non-salaried person..

I told them you're probably right (and with them being union) I say you're probably making more than me with your pay without OT.. But when I'm sick I get paid, when I take vacation I'm paid, if something happens with my kid and I have to work from home I get paid... You probably get sick days and vacation, but you can't do your work from home.. And sometimes the abuse your body takes on day in and day out you won't be able to keep up the pace well into your 50s if you don't move into a management position, where I'll be able to still do so maybe into my 60s.. But I'll say this some of these union guys are smart with their decisions and if they can hang on until 62 or 63, their retirement benefits are pretty good.. Not all unions are created equal though. A few of the younger guys were asking me about my retirement benefits, and I let them know since I've been working in my 20s I've paid in to some type of retirement. I don't have the nice nest egg to walk away right now, but it's getting there.. One of the guys in his 30s said he hasn't put a dime in retirement, he opted out but was thinking about it. I told him to he needed to consider it.

At the age of 18 I started out in a management position (boss) and never been anything but that so most people I talk to when this type of subject comes up are very surprised....

I usually take the side of the hourly worker.

I know someone that just took a stepdown from salary and he will make 15% more this year working 20% less hours. But of course the perks dropped with that.

Absolutely. A buddy of mine installs fire alarms and tests those systems, one day he sat down with all his stubs and figured out how much he made over the previous year and when it was time for his yearly eval he offered to go to salary, he'd still work like they needed him to, but the understanding was that if something came up he still got paid due to the hours he put in.. It was like he told me this year he could make a ton with all the OT but the next year they may not have as much and he could be called off and not get paid, at least with the salary he was guaranteed money. He found the happy medium with the understanding that if he was due a raise he'd get it. Made his life easier and the company was happy with it.. It wasn't like he said I noticed I made (I'm throwing numbers out there) $95k this past year I want my salary to be fixated on that.. He put out a reasonable number, which what was his base salary and figured another $10k to it.. Not only did it ensure he get paid, but it guaranteed he'd be there in tough times..

It also flatlines you from moving up into the company the guy I'm talking about is basically maxed out at $35 an hour and with in two maybe three years he would have been a store manager making $135k with 8 weeks off and a higher bonus sharing and better retirement benefits. That track usually means regional 4 to 5 years after that at $175k and stock

But he was newly married and the salary position added a two hour round trip drive plus all the extra time he had to put in. I think if it was 5 years from then he would have made a different decision.

(09-13-2024 10:05 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 09:13 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 09:00 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 08:47 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-13-2024 07:33 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  It's easy to spot the people that are on salary....

LOL

You'd be amazed at the guys I work with that will tell me I'm getting screwed cause I'm on salary..

I'm probably putting in close to 60 hours a week.. 20 more than most of the non-salaried person..

I told them you're probably right (and with them being union) I say you're probably making more than me with your pay without OT.. But when I'm sick I get paid, when I take vacation I'm paid, if something happens with my kid and I have to work from home I get paid... You probably get sick days and vacation, but you can't do your work from home.. And sometimes the abuse your body takes on day in and day out you won't be able to keep up the pace well into your 50s if you don't move into a management position, where I'll be able to still do so maybe into my 60s.. But I'll say this some of these union guys are smart with their decisions and if they can hang on until 62 or 63, their retirement benefits are pretty good.. Not all unions are created equal though. A few of the younger guys were asking me about my retirement benefits, and I let them know since I've been working in my 20s I've paid in to some type of retirement. I don't have the nice nest egg to walk away right now, but it's getting there.. One of the guys in his 30s said he hasn't put a dime in retirement, he opted out but was thinking about it. I told him to he needed to consider it.

At the age of 18 I started out in a management position (boss) and never been anything but that so most people I talk to when this type of subject comes up are very surprised....

I usually take the side of the hourly worker.

I know someone that just took a stepdown from salary and he will make 15% more this year working 20% less hours. But of course the perks dropped with that.

Absolutely. A buddy of mine installs fire alarms and tests those systems, one day he sat down with all his stubs and figured out how much he made over the previous year and when it was time for his yearly eval he offered to go to salary, he'd still work like they needed him to, but the understanding was that if something came up he still got paid due to the hours he put in.. It was like he told me this year he could make a ton with all the OT but the next year they may not have as much and he could be called off and not get paid, at least with the salary he was guaranteed money. He found the happy medium with the understanding that if he was due a raise he'd get it. Made his life easier and the company was happy with it.. It wasn't like he said I noticed I made (I'm throwing numbers out there) $95k this past year I want my salary to be fixated on that.. He put out a reasonable number, which what was his base salary and figured another $10k to it.. Not only did it ensure he get paid, but it guaranteed he'd be there in tough times..

It also flatlines you from moving up into the company the guy I'm talking about is basically maxed out at $35 an hour and with in two maybe three years he would have been a store manager making $135k with 8 weeks off and a higher bonus sharing and better retirement benefits. That track usually means regional 4 to 5 years after that at $175k and stock

But he was newly married and the salary position added a two hour round trip drive plus all the extra time he had to put in. I think if it was 5 years from then he would have made a different decision.

Who knows.. In 5 years he may go jump back in...