They need to mandate hourly w/ OT after 40

It can be.

If I were still on our old pay structure (piece rate) instead of our new (mileage plus hourly for line 4) I would be making $70 more today. On the week it's $110. And that's with soft freight. If I actually ran my 70 out running miles instead of sitting around I forecast that I'll lose $150 a week due to being paid hourly.

I've been one of the highest paid drivers in my division for the last decade. I run the same number of days on the road as the "average driver", but make $10,000 more a year than the "average driver". That occurs because I run smart and try and squeeze in those short haul loads that pay frigging great. Under this new pay structure, all that accessory pay went away and I'm getting screwed.

The pay structure doesn't really matter, what matters is "are you being paid adequately for the work you're doing?". A mandate for hourly pay plus overtime isn't going to change the total amount a driver earns, or make pay structures less convoluted. It's trying to out a matchbook under the table leg so it doesn't wobble. It hasn't fixed the problem and likely made things worse.

 

The one and only hourly job I had, just out of high school, (when I was ambitious),OT was paid after 40 hours. I figured out that 55 hours was the most I wanted to work. Anything over that the gooberment would take most of what I made. 60 hours of work netted me about 10 bucks more a week than 55 hours.

I haven't noticed it since I'm paid by the load.

 

The government took most of what you're paid after 55 hours? I doubt that. If you're not paying child support or self-employed or something, there aren't many places in the US where combined brackets can get that high even for big earners.

As for me, I'm OT after 8 in a day*, so I work strategically, go in a few times a week and pull 12-14 hour shifts. It's a good life for now

*it's non-union, but priced to keep the union out!

 

I should clarify I guess. This was 20 years ago, I was working at a John Deere dealership setting up the new equipment. At the time I made $12.50 an hour. I worked as much as I wanted that place, there really was no limit to my cat.
Aynyway, I started to notice that when I put in a 60 hour week, I really didn't make much more thsn if I had only worked 55 hours. The difference on my paycheck was about $25. And it was all from taxes.

So when I say they took most of my money, I should've been more clear

 

That still doesn't make sense. The 5 x 12.50 shoulda been about $62.50 gross, but you weren't earning enuff to be in a top bracket and even in the handful of places where combined local/state/fed can take over 50% you need to earn well into the 6 figures to get hit that hard, even 20 years ago!

I think your math is wrong. The numbers just don't add up.

At my current job most drivers do 55-60 hours per week, and we're all domiciled in PA, MA, and NH. The govt is taking no more than 35%(ish) total combined for any of my co-workers.

 

12.50 per hour, OT pay was $18.75/hr. So a 55 hour week gross pay was $781.25. A 60 hour week was $875. And as I said, 60 hours netted me about an extra $25 over a 55 hour week. Maybe it was a screw up on the payroll end, maybe not. I dunno. It was 20 years ago and that always stuck with me.
I've always heard the more you make the more they take. It seems to be true. It's why I'm a believer of the fair tax system and not this convoluted mess we currently have

 

Paid by the hour? Like a common minion?

Lol, no.

I like being paid by the job, rate based on the miles. Then I control when I leave and where I stop.

If one was paid by the hour then their boss would tell them when to start their day and when to stop for lunch.

My AM simply assigns me a load with a delivery date and time. All the other details are up to me.

Being paid by the hour would mean one would not control the clock, being paid by the mile means I control the clock.

 

I've always heard that you have to wait an hour to swim or you'll drown, but it's no more true that "the more you make the more they take". It the scenario you posted, the effective tax rate increases by .1%,, while total earning increase by 1.1%.

And if by "Fair Tax" you're talking about a national sales tax you might want to read a little more about it. Collection and enforcement would be costly, and every version of it I've seen comes with a "pre-bate" for low income workers which is essentially a Universal Basic Income. Beyond that, anyone making less than $100,000 is going to see their effective tax rate skyrocket while those making more than $1,000,000 will pay almost no taxes. People love pointing out "low tax" states like Tennessee that don't have income tax, but when you look at the total picture, my effective state and local taxes would increase by about 1.5 percentage points if I moved there from "high tax Wisconsin".

 

I actually meant the flat tax. I want everybody to pay the same percentage of their income.
Furthermore, if I only met $25 more per week after working an extra 5 hours, where is my incentive to work extra?

 

https://smartasset.com/taxes/paycheck-calculator#6Hhq9TJFP6

With todays taxes, with 60 hours you should have grossed $875 and 'netted' $633. At 55 hours you gross $781 and net $600

$94 more in income, $33 more in taxes means you made $60 more for those extra 5 hours.

Gross Net Hours G/H N/H
500 390 40 12.5 9.75
594 461 45 13.2 10.24
688 531 50 13.76 10.62
781 600 55 14.2 10.91
875 663 60 14.58 11.05
​

When you look at the table (hopefully it formats correctly) you'll see while you are paying slightly more per hour in taxes, it's still less than the increase in your earnings.

In regards to the flat tax - as long as the corporate rate is the same as the individual rate AND all income is taxes (dividends and interest as well), then we can talk about it. However every American Flat Tax proposal that I am aware of has exempted dividend and interest income, and most of them came with deductions that skew heavily in the favor of the uber wealthy while leaving working class folks footing the bill.