|
Senor P. posted:So why are they taxed the same? No one's seen fit to weight tax liability according to hours-worked. I haven't even really seen argumentation along those lines. Seems like it'd be more trouble than it's worth.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
There are deductions and adjustments for loving everything, why not that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:If you're working long hours it's either because 1) You want to work long hours or 2) You need to work long hours to live. People who 1) perhaps need therapy, but I don't see why they deserve a tax break and people who 2) should fall below whatever minimum income is for our state income tax, and therefore not be concerned about how overtime is taxed. Uh, dude, seriously? How can you not realize that there are folks who are on the regular told to work OT without a choice?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Because it would be impossible to manage and tax policy is usually altered for a reason. Which jobs are 'hard work'? Do you want to go through and make catagories for all of them? And wouldn't this open up situations where someone is paid a lower salary but 'works' 100 hours a week to avoid taxes? It's not worth messing with. If you want to help blue collar workers, reduce sales taxes, tax higher incomes, and use that money for expanded services and health care. Edit: Not to mention that removing taxes on OT will make it more desirable and reduce available jobs. Peachfart fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Because it would be impossible to manage and tax policy is usually altered for a reason. Which jobs are 'hard work'? Do you want to go through and make catagories for all of them? And wouldn't this open up situations where someone is paid a lower salary but 'works' 100 hours a week to avoid taxes? Also a hypothetical state income tax should let you deduct rent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:If you're working long hours it's either because 1) You want to work long hours or 2) You need to work long hours to live. People who 1) perhaps need therapy, but I don't see why they deserve a tax break and people who 2) should fall below whatever minimum income is for our state income tax, and therefore not be concerned about how overtime is taxed. There are some industries and facilities are are required to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (Like powerplants for electricity and gas distrubtion for heat) preferrably without unscheduled shutdowns. Dragging up and walking out because you don't want to work more than 40 hours even though you're in the middle of an emergency overhaul of the plant, is generally not 'acceptable'. People die when the electricity cuts out or when they can't heat their houses. So yes, sometimes 50-60-70 hours per week for some amount of time is mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Javid posted:There are deductions and adjustments for loving everything, why not that? It'd amount to a messily administered tax-cut to the rich, mainly, and we have enough of that poo poo. You're discussing tax law so the real question is, "Why?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:There are some industries and facilities are are required to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (Like powerplants for electricity and gas distrubtion for heat) preferrably without unscheduled shutdowns. If this is happening constantly, then they need to hire more people. This isn't rocket science.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:There are some industries and facilities are are required to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (Like powerplants for electricity and gas distrubtion for heat) preferrably without unscheduled shutdowns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
I'm going to guess that 99.999% of people paid for labor on an hourly basis aren't the kind of rich people we need to be taxing more.Ardlen posted:It sounds like these places should hire more staff, instead of overworking their employees. As if every company literally ever doesn't hire the bare minimum amount of staff to not go down in flames. I would love for minimum staffing laws to be a thing, really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Uh, dude, seriously? How can you not realize that there are folks who are on the regular told to work OT without a choice? Senor P. posted:There are some industries and facilities are are required to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (Like powerplants for electricity and gas distrubtion for heat) preferrably without unscheduled shutdowns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Also a hypothetical state income tax should let you deduct rent. This... would be difficult. Remember: we are talking about a small percentage of the income made over 50k. Rent should be covered by 50k, so why would it be exempt?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:Those people are either working for a living in which case they won't be taxed by any proposed Washington state income tax, or can afford to quit. Yes, choosing to work at the only place I could get work, because I had just gotten my notice! That was certainly a choice. (Get off your loving high horse.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Javid posted:I'm going to guess that 99.999% of people paid for labor on an hourly basis aren't the kind of rich people we need to be taxing more. Everyone with influence over their own hours would game this poo poo. Javid posted:I would love for minimum staffing laws to be a thing, really. Or maximum overtime laws. Jack2142 posted:Also a hypothetical state income tax should let you deduct rent. That's why everyone's first $0 to $10,000 or so is taxed at 0%. Edit: If you want to lower taxes on the lower/middle class, cut regressive taxes or shift tax-revenue from regressive to progressive taxes to redistribute liability up the income gradient. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:You're choosing to work in that industry. If your industry isn't adequately paying you for your time, either negotiate better pay or shut up. Ah yes, because people working hourly can simply walk out of a job that isn't treating them fairly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Javid posted:Ah yes, because people working hourly can simply walk out of a job that isn't treating them fairly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
If people held corporations to the same level of skepticism they held their governments to, Senor P would have twice as many co-workers. ...in fact I'm not convinced there isn't a labor violation going on there right now, if things truly are as described.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:There are some industries and facilities are are required to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (Like powerplants for electricity and gas distrubtion for heat) preferrably without unscheduled shutdowns. My dad did shutdowns at paper mills as a welder 30 years ago. I think his longest shift was something like 30 hours. He doesn't have poo poo to show for it and the mill owners are loving loaded. These work conditions are bullshit, and not something we should just live with. You talk about 70k for a software job, but that was what I made out of college 10 years ago. It would be a loving joke now. You are not benefiting from current tax structure. It is designed by people richer than me, so that they can pay as little as possible. There is a reason that 2 of the 8 richest people live in the Seattle area. The tax structure benefits them. They are the ones the convince you that an income tax is bad. They are not your friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:Yes, choosing to work at the only place I could get work, because I had just gotten my notice! That was certainly a choice. (Get off your loving high horse.) Javid posted:Ah yes, because people working hourly can simply walk out of a job that isn't treating them fairly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:
I dont disagree with you, the tax system does need an overhaul, however good luck passing comprehensive tax reform thats not regressive as gently caress in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:I still think this is an East vs. West problem. How many rich people live in say the greater Seattle area compared to East of the cascades? How much money is anchored on that rich enclave, Mercer Island? The fact of the matter, most of the money is on the West Side. You are correct that a state income tax would be a greater burden on Western Washington than Eastern vs. sales and property taxes. I think we all agree the fat cats in Mercer Island need to pay their fair share to support the state at large.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
twodot posted:You're making 70k a year, if you can't afford to quit that's on you. This is a pretty lovely stance to take. You have no clue what his circumstances are. He might be paying down huge medical debt for all you know. People working are not the enemy here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Yeah folks need to chill about this. I sympathize with his point that not all $70k incomes are created equal but it's so easy to abuse what he's proposing that I think the solution has to lie elsewhere in the tax code.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
George posted:Yeah folks need to chill about this. I sympathize with his point that not all $70k incomes are created equal but it's so easy to abuse what he's proposing that I think the solution has to lie elsewhere in the tax code. "Mr Gates you plan to die with a normal wealth level and I would like to build The Daedalus Ladder. We can call it the Gates if you like."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:Those people are either working for a living in which case they won't be taxed by any proposed Washington state income tax, or can afford to quit. Uh, you can be working insane hours while being salaried at 60k. And just walk off the job? Most people in this country are living paycheck to paycheck as it is, so how can you consider this a realistic option for so many? Ardlen posted:This is the exact problem that unions are meant to address. No poo poo my friend, but good luck setting one up or not being excluded because your job as an analyst "advises management" and is thus exempt from the bargaining unit. I've actually tried this by the way, it's incredibly difficult and relies on all of your coworkers being willing to take a huge risk and not fall prey to the massive anti-union campaign to follow. I don't want to get into my own details, but I really wish folks here would shut up and listen to the people who actually experience these working conditions rather than telling them that their experiences are wrong. Also, many of you seem to have forgotten that I am in favor of an income tax.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Uh, you can be working insane hours while being salaried at 60k. Some industries go through demand cycles. That's a real bitch to staff for in the long term. In bad times I do 60 to 80 hours a week. Good times like 30. As long as one gets the good and bad its ok. But the new trend is oh it's slow we are flying you to X for several weeks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
DevNull posted:This is a pretty lovely stance to take. You have no clue what his circumstances are. He might be paying down huge medical debt for all you know. People working are not the enemy here. Solkanar512 posted:Uh, you can be working insane hours while being salaried at 60k. And just walk off the job? Most people in this country are living paycheck to paycheck as it is, so how can you consider this a realistic option for so many?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Some industries go through demand cycles. That's a real bitch to staff for in the long term. In bad times I do 60 to 80 hours a week. Good times like 30. As long as one gets the good and bad its ok. But the new trend is oh it's slow we are flying you to X for several weeks. No, they fire massive amounts of people while buying back billions of dollars in stock instead of having 30 hour weeks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:People opposing progressive income taxes are specifically the enemy. Capitalists are the enemy, not workers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
DevNull posted:Capitalists are the enemy, not workers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:Capitalists and people supporting the interests of capitalists, also known as people opposed to progressive income taxes. If they only thing between me and the workers' revolution is delusional workers, I'm not stopping to convince them. Good luck with your workers revolution that doesn't actually include any workers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
DevNull posted:Good luck with your workers revolution that doesn't actually include any workers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
*sees taxes get suggested* You Bitch Mother Fucker *sees capitalists exploiting the working class through wage theft* Wlel, that's his beliefs and I respect that
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:*sees taxes get suggested* You Bitch Mother Fucker *sees capitalists exploiting the working class through wage theft* Wlel, that's his beliefs and I respect that Put this in the op tia
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Put this in the op tia
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Some industries go through demand cycles. That's a real bitch to staff for in the long term. In bad times I do 60 to 80 hours a week. Good times like 30. As long as one gets the good and bad its ok. But the new trend is oh it's slow we are flying you to X for several weeks. I work in a product testing environment and you better believe that layoffs come on strong when we wrap up testing a specific program. On the one hand, my union is what gets me the wages & benefits I enjoy that other non-union employees don't get. However, what a union won't do is protect you from getting laid off if you're the new guy. I like to espouse the benefits of labor unions, but it's pretty frustrating how they protect senior workers who often suck total rear end at their jobs (and they know they can't get fired or laid off so whatever dude I'm taking two naps today).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
I just wonder about the lack of heart someone must have to panic and have a breakdown because an income tax that only affects a small percentage of income over 50k is suggested, and to use part of it to lower sales taxes to assist the poor. Pretty sure if you made like 70k a year it wouldn't even cost you anything. Let's use 5%. 5% of 20k is 1000 dollars. It would almost certainly be less than that due to credits, reductions from federal taxes, not to mention the reduction in sales taxes that I proposed. But ignoring all that, if you are making 70k/year, you can afford it. And the richer you are, the more you can afford it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:I just wonder about the lack of heart someone must have to panic and have a breakdown because an income tax that only affects a small percentage of income over 50k is suggested, and to use part of it to lower sales taxes to assist the poor. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Actually, if I can direct your attention to this Wall Street Journal infographic for a second, I disagree with corgi killing, but the rest? eh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:No, they fire massive amounts of people while buying back billions of dollars in stock instead of having 30 hour weeks. Not for me specifically (not for profit) but yes generally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 06:15
|
|