Tipping in USA/Canada

Craig Welch wrote:

Sarah Czepiel said:


Most wait staff are not allowed to keep on their person money of any
kind. It is often on the employment contract as a reason for
immediate termination.


Perhaps in your world. Not the case in mine.


I had never heard of this until Sarah mentioned it. When I worked was a
waiter many years ago, this was never an issue. I don't understand what
preventing people from carrying money would do, unless the employer
forces employees to empty pockets at the end of the shift to see how
much they have in tips.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:14:55 -0800 in rec.travel.air, mrtravel
wrote:

Maybe she felt it would answer your other questions about the minimum
wage and tipping, but you failed to read it. The main issue you were
asking about at the time was quite visible after a couple of seconds of
reading.

procter's disability must be mental, which is why he's in my
killfile, shortly to be joined by sarah because she insists on
feeding the troll. i suggest you add him to your killfile too.

i hope in his next life he's reborn as an immigrant busboy. ;^)

Greg Procter wrote:

DevilsPGD wrote:

In message Greg Procter
wrote:


mrtravel wrote:

DevilsPGD wrote:


It's a compulsory minimum. However, it's a minimum of total gross pay
(averaged on a daily basis here, if I recall correctly).

In other words, as long as the combination of hourly pay, plus tips,
plus commission, plus bonuses, plus whatever else, is greater then
minimum wage, it's all good.

Additionally, if the tip is paid by credit card, the employer can dedcut
that fee, as long as the total of wage and tips are at least as much as
the minimum wage.

What point is there in the customer attempting to reward excellent
service when that tip will be handed to the employer and then the
remainder to the entire waiter staff?

You misunderstand. Credit card transactions have a percentage taken off
by the merchant account provider.

If you pay $20 on credit card, your receipt shows $20, but the merchant
will get at most $19.85 or so (and probably less unless they're
extremely high volume, low fraud)

The wait staff will pay their share of merchant fees too.


That's hardly fair!

Huh? Why should the employer pay for the employee's tip?

Dennis P. Harris wrote:

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:14:55 -0800 in rec.travel.air, mrtravel
wrote:


Maybe she felt it would answer your other questions about the minimum
wage and tipping, but you failed to read it. The main issue you were
asking about at the time was quite visible after a couple of seconds of
reading.


procter's disability must be mental, which is why he's in my
killfile, shortly to be joined by sarah because she insists on
feeding the troll. i suggest you add him to your killfile too.

i hope in his next life he's reborn as an immigrant busboy. ;^)


Well, that would be an intellectual improvement.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:41:48 -0700 in rec.travel.air, Hatunen
wrote:

If "tips" are placed in a communal pool, with first call by the employer
to bring the employee wages up to the "US minimum wage" level and then
the remainder divided (evenly?) between all employees, where do you
imagine the "incentive" is applied to the individual to give other than
average service?

to my astonishment, you make a good point there. I've alwasy
taken a dim view of tip-pooling for that reason.

in a decent place, as i've previously posted, i can assure you
that a server that doesn't consistently come close to the average
amount in tips won't be working there for long. the other
servers will make it hard on him, and the supervisor or owner
will make sure her/his service improves or she/he will be
dismissed.

when an employees gets good tips, that's an indication to
management that she/he is doing a good job, as is the cooking
staff. if *everyone's* tips go down consistently, that's an
indication that the problem isn't service, it's either the
cooking staff or management. tip levels provide very rapid
feedback to attentive managers.

Greg Procter wrote:
Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:44:37 GMT, Larry in AZ
wrote:


Waiving the right to remain silent, mrtravel said:


Greg Procter wrote:


Brian wrote:


On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:22:50 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:



I drive my lawnmower off the sides of hills numerous times every week
when I mow my lawns - I've yet to injure myself in any way doing so.

Why, then, can't you understand that someone making the minimum wage
doesn't pay income tax but that people of higher incomes do pay tax?


I can understand such a tax break. What I can't follow is why you yanks
would have a tax structure where anyone earning a little more than
minimum wage would take home less that the minimum wage earner.


It's a sliding scale. It's not like people just below a certain level
get 10 percent of income back, and people avoe that line pay a 10
percent tax. Are you really this stupid?

It's a bit like the standard income tax before EIC existed.
Let's say you pay 10 percent tax on income of $30000 to $39999 and 15
percent if 40000 or more. The person at 40000 isn't paying 15 percent
of 40000, he is paying the extra 5 percent on the extra dollar earned.

If you want to figure this out, the tax tables are at the IRS web site.
Try reading it, then your next comments might not sound so stupid.

You're dealing with Groggy, the imbecile. Show him proof, and he either
ignores it, or tells you he can't be bothered looking up your cites.

I'm telling you - give up with this thick *******. You'll get nowhere.

I've plonked him. Makes life more pldeasant.


You plonked yourself.

When you stop plonking yourself is when the problems start.

--
Chris F.
Long Island

UN tries to take over our internet AGAIN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDDitDBPFW8

American military power!!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FuilPdrkN_Y

British military power.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gdbR2d2BZSw

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark on
Aristocrats and Mongoloids, plus sings.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ybDZLzNrB-Y

DevilsPGD wrote:

In message Greg Procter
wrote:


mrtravel wrote:

DevilsPGD wrote:


It's a compulsory minimum. However, it's a minimum of total gross pay
(averaged on a daily basis here, if I recall correctly).

In other words, as long as the combination of hourly pay, plus tips,
plus commission, plus bonuses, plus whatever else, is greater then
minimum wage, it's all good.

Additionally, if the tip is paid by credit card, the employer can dedcut
that fee, as long as the total of wage and tips are at least as much as
the minimum wage.

What point is there in the customer attempting to reward excellent
service when that tip will be handed to the employer and then the
remainder to the entire waiter staff?


You misunderstand. Credit card transactions have a percentage taken off
by the merchant account provider.

If you pay $20 on credit card, your receipt shows $20, but the merchant
will get at most $19.85 or so (and probably less unless they're
extremely high volume, low fraud)

The wait staff will pay their share of merchant fees too.

As far paying tips if the tip is split among the staff, the point is
exactly the same as if it's not split amongst the staff.

I always decline paying gratuities directly to the cashier - I don't
trust that the wait staff will receive the tip. Plus, the amount they
receive will be taxed. I always pay the tip in cash and personally to
the waitress.

--
Chris F.
Long Island

UN tries to take over our internet AGAIN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDDitDBPFW8

American military power!!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FuilPdrkN_Y

British military power.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gdbR2d2BZSw

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark on
Aristocrats and Mongoloids, plus sings.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ybDZLzNrB-Y

DevilsPGD wrote:

In message Greg Procter
wrote:


DevilsPGD wrote:

If you pay $20 on credit card, your receipt shows $20, but the merchant
will get at most $19.85 or so (and probably less unless they're
extremely high volume, low fraud)

The wait staff will pay their share of merchant fees too.

That's hardly fair!


How is that unfair?

Now you've done it!!!

--
Chris F.
Long Island

UN tries to take over our internet AGAIN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDDitDBPFW8

American military power!!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FuilPdrkN_Y

British military power.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gdbR2d2BZSw

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark on
Aristocrats and Mongoloids, plus sings.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ybDZLzNrB-Y

mrtravel wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

mrtravel wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


Hatunen wrote:


On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:25:07 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:



Sarah Czepiel wrote:


Where's the nearest Dodge dealership, I need a Viper!


They still sell Dodges???


Why wouldn't they?

They don't sell Plymouths anymore, though.



A list of US car brands that are no longer sold would run into hundreds
of makes.


How many NZ car brands are there?



One dead and gone


So, would that be a 100 percent failure rate?

Given that, it seems odd that you would make negative comments about US
autos.

They're a nation of hippies and don't have the drive for excelence. Greg
himself has a collection of broken down VW vans.

--
Chris F.
Long Island

UN tries to take over our internet AGAIN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDDitDBPFW8

American military power!!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FuilPdrkN_Y

British military power.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gdbR2d2BZSw

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark on
Aristocrats and Mongoloids, plus sings.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ybDZLzNrB-Y

mrtravel wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

\



One of us is!
So far you've told me that people receiving lest than a certain income
pay no income tax and that people earning more than that sum pay tax on
all their income.

On that basis let's take a ficticious example. Say the dividing line was
$10,000- and income tax was 10%

Person A is earning $9,999- pa. His take home pay would be $9,999- and
the Tax Department take would be $0-
Person B is earning $10,001- pa. His take home pay would be $9,000.90
and the Tax Department take would be $1,000.10


You seem to not understand how a progressive tax rate works, even after
I have described it to you earlier.

The 10 percent would not be charge be all of the income, just the part
of the income over 10000.

Person A would take home 9999
Person B would take home 10001 less 10 percent of the amount over 10000.
So, only $1 in income would be subject to the 10 percent tax, and he
would net $10000.90 after the tax.

That is absolutely correct. Many people worry about working too much as
they will be brought into a higher tax bracket which will lower their
take-home pay. But they fail to realize that only the extra money is
brought into the higher bracket. So working extra overtime will ALWAYS
increase your take-home.

--
Chris F.
Long Island

UN tries to take over our internet AGAIN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDDitDBPFW8

American military power!!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FuilPdrkN_Y

British military power.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gdbR2d2BZSw

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark on
Aristocrats and Mongoloids, plus sings.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ybDZLzNrB-Y