Hacker News Reader

Comment by NicoJuicy | Hacker News Reader

You have no idea how Belgium is.

Inflexible , huge employer costs (highest costs in the world for employment),...

Because of the taxes, employers don't want you to work extra hours and as an employee, you don't have much benefit of it (governement taxes that A LOT if you do overtime).

Some things that are forbidden (or pay extra taxes)

- Only normal hours (5 days a week, ...)

- Don't employ people outside of their working schedule

- forbidden to work on Sundays

- forbidden to work on Holidays

- Don't work at night

But there are exceptions (but it's complicated)

View on HN

But those things should be forbidden and in the hands of the employee.

That said, I have signed the "I will work more than 48 hours if required" waiver at my current employer; mostly because I know it will hardly happen and if it does it will be extra-ordinary and I will be willing to pull with the team.

There's nothing wrong with a world where :

"We need you to work this weekend"

"No thanks, see you Monday"

Is perfectly reasonable.

I'm an employee, it should also be my right to work more without the governement always taxing me extra.

I want to work more, but i see no financial benefit from it for working a day in a weekend (eg. when i have a deadline), nor does my employer.

PS. Overhours in Belgum don't get payed a lot or aren't encouraged because of the extra cost. Employees don't mind because their happy to have jobs here... But i shouldn't say that out loud, because it's illegal. But a lot of people work an hour / day for free (from my personal experience here in Belgium)

I'm an employee, it should also be my right to work more without the governement always taxing me extra. I want to work more, but i see no financial benefit from it for working a day in a weekend (eg. when i have a deadline), nor does my employer.

I'm not sure I understand here. Surely if you're making more money, then you should expect to pay a portion of that in tax? And you'll see a financial benefit as a result?

Let's say that a normal hour is taxed 50 %, extra hours are taxed under a different tax tabel, so more % goes to the governement. Also, if you work something more, there is a chance, you get in a higher tax zone.

So even if you work more and get more the current month. You are going to get taxed more on the end of the year.

As a result, you have earned less on the end of the year (because you get in the higher income zone, so you are taxed more).

Edit: below.

I didn't fully explained it, but it's complicated then that. If you get in a different tax bracket (didn't knew the term in English), you lose certain financial benefits.

I'd wish some Belgian accountant was here to explain it better, although i'm aware of tax brackets. They don't include some financial benefits when you have a lower income.

I don't think you understand how tax brackets/tax zones work.

For example, say there is no tax up to $50000, and a 50% bracket starts at $50000. If you make $50001, you only pay a 50% tax on that one dollar over 50k, the first 50k remains untaxed. This is how pretty much any tax regime in the world works.

So while you may have to pay a higher tax rate on extra overtime money earned, it would be just on that money, not on your base pay. It's impossible for you to make less money at the end of the year because you worked overtime.

I'm not aware of any common tax regime that results in a marginal tax rate of over 100%, which is what you're describing there.

Even if your additional income pushes you into another tax bracket, you will only be paying additional tax on the amount made over the lower threshold. In the UK, for example, the top rate of income tax is 45%, and this is charged only on earning over ~£150,000 annually. If you earned £150,100, you would be £55 cash-in-hand better off than if you'd earned £150,000.

Unfortunately a lot of people don't understand the basic math you described. I know several people who think they lose money after getting bonuses and such.

It's not a matter of losing money; it's a matter of losing certain tax benefits that exceed the value of the bonus. It's a very real issue for people who straddle various thresholds for credits, deductions, and other benefits.

For example, in the US once you make over $75,000 (before most deductions), you no longer qualify for student loan interest payment deductions. For someone making $74,000 before who receives a $2000 bonus, they lose out on the deduction--potentially worth significantly more in tax-adjusted terms than the gross amount of the bonus before taxes.

> For example, in the US once you make over $75,000 (before most deductions), you no longer qualify for student loan interest payment deductions. For someone making $74,000 before who receives a $2000 bonus, they lose out on the deduction--potentially worth significantly more in tax-adjusted terms than the gross amount of the bonus before taxes.

The student loan interest deduction (and this is true of most -- AFAIK, actually all -- deductions with an income cap) doesn't have a sharp cutoff, it has a phaseout -- you get the full deduction up to $60,000, and it is reduced continuously with income down to zero at $75,000.

At $74,000, the maximum student loan interest deduction is a $167 deduction (which, at that income, is worth $42 in reduced tax liability.) Even with a $1,000 bonus that takes you just to the cutoff, its not possible for the loss of the deduction to be "worth significantly more in tax-adjusted terms than the gross amount of the bonus before taxes". [1]

[1] http://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch04.html#en_US_2013_pu...

Thank you for debunking the previous comment. Just goes to show how many people don't understand the way deductions and taxes work.

It's unfortunate that the system for paying taxes has become so complicated. It's no wonder that people complain about rich people exploiting tax-law. Whereas they simply have the inclination/money to hire accountants that do the books properly, and give them the advice they need to keep their affairs in perfect-tax working order.

This is not how Belgian income tax works. Your pay gets divided up into tax brackets, and you pay a certain tax rate per tax bracket. You will pay a low rate for the first ~8.5k you earn, a higher rate for the next ~5k, higher still for the next ~10k and so on.

The result is that while you can be taxed more on additional income if it bumps your total income up to a certain tax bracket, you will only ever pay more money on the part that's actually above the lower limit for that bracket. This will never ever cause you to pay more taxes on the money you've already earned.

This is also a problem in the US if you manage to just cross a tax bracket.

No it isnt. See other comments in this thread.

> This is also a problem in the US if you manage to just cross a tax bracket.

Well, it would be, if the US adopted a tax bracket with a > 100% marginal rate. But it hasn't, so it doesn't. Though its a persistent myth, because people don't understand marginal tax rates and confuse them with total tax rates. (Or, for a similar problem, as illustrated in another subthread, don't understand the related concept of how deductions phase out before you reach the point where they are no longer available.)

I get it. You're explaining the point of a "flat tax": increased tax rates just because you're more productive (and fairly compensated for it) isn't fair. Likewise, getting unusual lump payments (overtime, bonuses) often have tax deducted at the highest rate to ensure you pay at least enough, getting the over-deducted fraction back later only when you've proven that you're not in the higher tax bracket after all (you may be in a 30% bracket, but get a bonus deducted as if you're in the 50%, getting back the over-paid 20% only after the end of the tax year, which could be upwards of a year).

Working harder, under most "progressive" tax systems, provides diminishing returns because of higher tax rates - right at the point when the personal cost of extra work grow exponentially.

>it should also be my right to work more without the governement always taxing me extra //

I don't agree. Partly the government has to be concerned with the entire workforce. Some people doing more work means that other people may not be employed, or may be under-employed. Preventing overtime, or at least providing financial pressure against it, means that those who don't want to work all hours can avoid it more easily and also helps to make sure companies employ enough workers rather than simply squeezing dry fewer than they really need.

Lower taxes and companies would hire employees easier. Now we have a very dificult system. Everyone is on probation for 6 months and the governement pays this (interns and a system called IBO).

Having 1 full-time employee or doing it all by yourselve is mostly the difference between loss and profit in Belgium (for an SMB).

Also, the taxes are so high, every company with > 1000 workmen is subsidized by the governement (most recent example: 7,5 Million € goo.gl/HluVNB for keeping a company here).

There is not a single car manufactorer, that makes profits here in Belgium without subsidisement. (a lot of them moved away from Belgium the last years)

> There is not a single car manufactorer, that makes profits here in Belgium without subsidisement. (a lot of them moved away from Belgium the last years)

It's the same in Germany though: http://europe.autonews.com/article/20130226/ANE/302269903/vo...

It's not the same, in Belgium they got subsidised and they still leave (Ford Genk, ...) :)

That's not the same, they stay in Germany...

PS. That also costed € 144,000 per employee for firing them :)

"I'm an employee, it should also be my right to work more without the governement always taxing me extra." Working extra means you earn more. You live in a society that taxes a percentage of your earnings. What part of those two concepts don't you understand?

Stop trying to get an ought from an is.

I'm not using the deriving ought from is logical fallacy. I'm simply pointing out the facts, and the logical conclusions from that. But if you want to be all formal with your argumentation, here it is for you in all its simplistic and formal glory:

P1. Taxes are based on percentage of earnings.

P2. More work implies higher pay

P3. You work more

Conclusion1: Your pay is higher

Conclusion2: You will pay higher taxes.

The comment you replied to said that it "should" be possible to work more without being taxed more, not that it "is". So what's your point?

I think you're just trying to be argumentative/pedantic for no reason that I can think of or immediately see. Besides, you took one interpretation of "should", and I took another; nothing wrong with both. So you can either choose to be pedantic and continue nitpicking, or you can admit you were wrong in accusing me of a logical fallacy, or bask in the glory that you just watched me make an actual fallacy (before my edit).

"We need you to work this weekend"

"We want you to work this weekend"

But if they said "need" they might actually need you, so you could bargain back with I will need 3 extra holiday days.

Personally if i knew it was "need" then I would be saying "Ok".

I have also heard the sentence "I need a new dress"

I mostly agree - it depresses me that people have managed to be so brainwashed that if you dare to suggest that you only want to do the job that you're being paid for, you are seen as a radical troublemaker (of course, employers insisting that you do at least what you are paid for are seen as entirely reasonable).

The one bit I would partly question would be the response to "We need you to work this weekend". Every relationship needs a bit of give and take, and every now and then an emergency, or an unexpected big piece of work might mean that the company really needs you in the office, and (assuming that it's not a huge inconvenience for you) it would be reasonable to expect you to try to help out - in the same way that a "Boss, I need to shoot off early today to pick my kid up because he's had an accident" shouldn't be met with a "'fraid not, you're staying until you've done your hours" response.

The important thing, in both cases, is that it's an exception. An employer demanding that you come in every weekend for the next 3 months would be as unreasonable as an employee doing short hours every day because they continually need to run some errand or other.

Of course employers would suggest that if you were hired on salary, they're paying you to work any time they need you to work. I've gotten that line before: "your job is to be on call 24x7". Every employment contract, at least in the US, will say "other duties as assigned".

> There's nothing wrong with a world where :

> "We need you to work this weekend"

> "No thanks, see you Monday"

> Is perfectly reasonable.

This is likely to lead to another conversation later in the year:

"Why did John get the promotion I was up for?"

"He provided more value to the company by working those two weekends when we were delivering to our most valuable customer."

Do you consider that reasonable as well?

> Do you consider that reasonable as well?

Yes, assuming the employer considering actual output when they talk about "value" and not "seat time". Otherwise the next conversation is:

"Good for him, I'm starting at B co. in two weeks."

Also one of the most reliable ways to get better positions & pay appears to change jobs, suggesting your scenario is just a carrot on a stick that rarely happens in practice.

I have never seen a single one of my co-workers promoted into a better position, ever, after more than 12 years in the industry.

No one. Ever. And that group numbers in the hundreds. The hypothetical scenario is completely bogus.

That sounds pretty awful!

I've never worked anywhere that promotions were just not given. And I'm including retail/fast food jobs from high school!

I would have expected that career paths in software development would emerge as the industry matures. Instead I have seen promotion paths vanishing, even in older lines of work.

The companies where you can work your way up from entry level to executive are disappearing. The only one I am actually aware of that still promotes from within, even up to the top levels, is Publix.

Belgium and most other EU countries have pretty strict labor code. This prevents both the overeager Johns and their employers from setting up the race to the bottom where everybody has to work on weekends just not to fall behind.

So this conversation of yours would probably end in an investigation from the labor office to check whether John didn't cross the limits and was compensated fairly for the overtime.

If all that discriminates you from another employee is the weekend's work then you don't deserve promotion anyway.

Plenty wrong.

I've been in a country where:

"You need me to work this weekend, and I'm happy to do so with no financial gain. I won't be on this continent for long, so I want to work what time I can to do the best job I can because I take pride in my work."

"Don't you dare work this weekend. If you do, as your manager I risk criminal prosecution and jail time."

That is absolutely unreasonable.

There's a huge gap between things that are forbidden and things that are simply discouraged through extra taxation. The result is that employers have to think long and hard before they have people come in on weekends or do tons of overwork, thereby protecting employees while being flexible enough to allow for weird work schedules when they're absolutely needed. How is that not a good compromise?

- non-disgruntled Belgian

> (governement taxes that A LOT if you do overtime).

Let's say the tax rate on overtime is 60%. And that you would be motivated/consider the overtime pay fair if you got € X an hour.

Well then the employer needs to offer € X * 1/(1-0.6) gross pay to get the employee the right amount of net pay. It's not difficult, merely expensive, but since overtime like this is rare, I doubt it's impossible.

>(highest costs in the world for employment)

I was curious about that, but apparently it's not, both Norway and Switzerland are more expensive than Belgium (at least in manufacturing):

http://www.bls.gov/fls/ichcc.htm

They're apparently the highest taxed OECD country when you add together income tax, VAT and both employee and employee social security contributions. Perhaps that's what he was thinking of.

Indeed.

But not only that, countries like Norway give you more "bang for the buck", meaning free education, ...

Not only that, but Norway and Switzerland have one of the highest per capita income in the world, Switzerland even has a minimal income of 2800$ / month!

Per comparison, Belgium is on #17, Norway on #2 and Switzerland on #4.

Living in Belgium, i only notice an enormous inefficiency and a complex accounting system, both are hurting SMB's.

Switzerland is as "low income tax/we want you to work" as it gets in Europe. The closest to a red EU country as it gets (but still much more responsible than any us state).

Indeed, that's what Chart 3 is implying, but housing in Switzerland is also a big problem IIRC.

Yep. I still have nightmares about dealing with the gerance in Lausanne.

Switzerland is not part of the EU.

Rats, of course its not. Not sure why I said it was.

It's amazing what the government can do when they have all those corrupt bank accounts.

Oh dear god yes. Norway and Switzerland are mostly funded by oil and banks. I've paid €90 a night for a youth hostel in Switzerland, and a friend paid €11 a beer in Norway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com