I'm Playing Devil's Advocate????
 

I am not the one who is taking the side of big government in this discussion! :)

But like you said.....Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

> Or maybe you do and you're just playing
> devil's advocate...... :)

> :)
> EM

You are??? At what theatre??? ;)
 

"I am not the one who is taking the side of big government in this discussion! :) "

******Silly rabbit, I'm not siding with the government. I'm just saying every American citizen (including those who make up our government) should take responsibility for their own actions/choices. Otherwise, they're just a bunch of whiners and blamers. There's two types of people; them's that learns from their mistakes and move forward and them's that get pouty when they screw up and refuse to accept responsiblity which leads to stagnation and failure. The government has no control over what kind of person we'll choose to be and shouldn't be blamed when we choose the later option.

"But like you said.....Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion."

******Actually, I lied. They should all adopt my opinions. But peasants will be peasants...... (just kidding!!!)

:)
Queen Elizabeth

Well Elizabeth.....Despite Your Claims to the Contrary....
 

It's pretty obvious you love "Big Brother"
You're not any relation to "Winston" by any chance? :)

Gary

> ******Silly rabbit, I'm not siding with the
> government. I'm just saying every American
> citizen (including those who make up our
> government) should take responsibility for
> their own actions/choices. Otherwise,
> they're just a bunch of whiners and blamers.
> There's two types of people; them's that
> learns from their mistakes and move forward
> and them's that get pouty when they screw up
> and refuse to accept responsiblity which
> leads to stagnation and failure. The
> government has no control over what kind of
> person we'll choose to be and shouldn't be
> blamed when we choose the later option.

> "But like you said.....Everyone is
> entitled to his or her opinion."

> ******Actually, I lied. They should all
> adopt my opinions. But peasants will be
> peasants...... (just kidding!!!)

> :)
> Queen Elizabeth

BRIAN SPEAKS!
 

This is beginning to look like a sketch from The Life of Brian....

FRANCIS: We're gettin' in through the underground heating system here, up through into the main audience chamber here, and Pilate's wife's bedroom is here. Having grabbed his wife, we inform Pilate that she is in our custody and forthwith issue our demands. Any questions?

COMMANDO XERXES: What exactly are the demands?

REG: We're giving Pilate two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman Imperialist State, and if he doesn't agree immediately, we execute her.

MATTHIAS: Cut her head off?

FRANCIS: Cut all her bits off. Send 'em back on the hour every hour. Show them we're not to be trifled with.

REG: Also, we're demanding a ten foot mahogany statue of the Emperor Julius Caesar with his dock hangin' out.

P.F.J.: laughing

LORETTA: What? They'll never agree to that, Reg.

REG: That's just a bar-- a bargaining counter. And of course, we point out that they bear full responsibility when we chop her up, and that we shall not submit to blackmail!

COMMANDOS: No blackmail!

REG: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.

LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.

REG: Yeah.

LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.

REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!

XERXES: The aqueduct?

REG: What?

XERXES: The aqueduct.

REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.

COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation.

LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?

REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.

MATTHIAS: And the roads.

REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--

COMMANDO: Irrigation.

XERXES: Medicine.

COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh...

COMMANDO #2: Education.

COMMANDOS: Ohh...

REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.

COMMANDO #1: And the wine.

COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah...

FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.

COMMANDO: Public baths.

LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.

FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.

COMMANDOS: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.

REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

XERXES: Brought peace.

REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

You are confused
 

Perhaps you failed Reading 101.

I never questioned the need to collect taxes. And it was not "his" taxes that were in question. The issue was did the IRS have the right to tell a business man how he should run his business. The tax LAWS you claim he ignored, do not define independant contractors. These definitions are IRS interpretations of the intent of Congress. I blame Congress, not the IRS for the complexity of our tax code. Congress held hearings two years ago suggesting to the IRS that tax payers were being bullied and abused. Since then, I think the IRS has improved. I have found them very helpful on some recent issues I had with them. However they can only help you if they understand the code themselves. Money magazine's annual calls to the IRS for help, proves they do not.

I still feel that the IRS harshly defines independant contractors, because they are addicted to businesses collecting their taxes and they don't want a bunch of truck drivers fumbling though a Schedule C.

> "They (our wonderful government)
> disallowed his claim that these individuals
> were independant contractors on the basis
> that he controlled their time. They fined
> him a hefty sum and made him pay all the
> back taxes on their earnings. He had to buy
> the trucks back and put everyone back on the
> payroll.

> ******Actually "they" didn't
> disallow his claim. The Law did.
> "They" were simply doing their
> jobs and applying the Law. That is what
> "they" get paid to do.

> Who says we live in a "free"
> society? We need to have another tea
> party."

> *****Anyone who says we live in a "free
> society" obviously slept through US
> Government 101. ;) Considering the amount of
> taxes we pay, it's hardly free. However, the
> taxes we pay fund our defense systems, our
> roadways, our Social Security program, our
> judicial system (which we don't hesitate to
> use when we feel someone has grievously
> wronged us), etc... We might pay taxes but,
> in general, the taxes pay for things we use
> so really, we're rewarding ourselves when we
> pay taxes. All we have to do is hand over
> the cash (or simply have it deducted from
> paychecks) and we get lots of benefits from
> those taxes except we don't have to build
> our own freeways or arrange for court
> proceedings or monitor businesses to make
> sure they are complying with federal
> environmental laws or organize rescue
> missions and monetary bailouts in areas
> declared a national disaster area or.......

> Further, the man in your story had the
> **freedom** and **legal right** to check
> with his federal government and state
> government to determine what constitutes
> independent contracting and how it affects
> his taxes and his business. Since he didn't
> do his homework he risked his business by
> making assumptions. "They" can't
> force him to seek information.

> The government (all levels) is MORE than
> happy to help business owners/newbie learn
> the Law so the business owner/newbie doesn't
> end up in this sort of pickle. However, like
> so many people, the man in your story either
> didn't know he could meet with his tax paid
> public servant and get the info OR has a
> resentful attitude towards our government OR
> didn't want the hassle of filling out
> paperwork OR simply was too lazy to make an
> effort to get the necessary information
> before deciding how to classify the people
> who work for him.

> The man in your story screwed himself.
> "They" had nothing to do with the
> choices he made. "They" simply did
> the job the rest of us tax paying citizens
> require them to do. If this guy didn't pay
> up on the taxes, we'd be pitching a fit that
> he got away with not complying with the Law
> and that our taxes went even higher to make
> up for it. "They" aren't perfect
> but "they" do what they can to
> make sure we have a fairly even playing
> field regarding responsibility and
> accountibility.

> And them's my 4 cents......don't spend them
> all in one place. ;)

> :)
> EM

I Tried To Explain This to Her...
 

But I was told not to be a "Whiner"

For many years the IRS arbitrarily made up their own rules with *total* disregard for any law that congress had made and as you and I have already mentioned, were *ordered* by congress to shape up a couple of years ago in the wake of endless horror stories by American citizens during their hearings into IRS abuses.

Some people feel that no matter what "Big Brother" does, you need to just go along with it and not utter a word of complaint and if you have the gall to complain you are just crying and whining.

I'm with you.....I think another "Tea Party" is in order!

Gary
> Perhaps you failed Reading 101.

> I never questioned the need to collect
> taxes. And it was not "his" taxes
> that were in question. The issue was did the
> IRS have the right to tell a business man
> how he should run his business. The tax LAWS
> you claim he ignored, do not define
> independant contractors. These definitions
> are IRS interpretations of the intent of
> Congress. I blame Congress, not the IRS for
> the complexity of our tax code. Congress
> held hearings two years ago suggesting to
> the IRS that tax payers were being bullied
> and abused. Since then, I think the IRS has
> improved. I have found them very helpful on
> some recent issues I had with them. However
> they can only help you if they understand
> the code themselves. Money magazine's annual
> calls to the IRS for help, proves they do
> not.

> I still feel that the IRS harshly defines
> independant contractors, because they are
> addicted to businesses collecting their
> taxes and they don't want a bunch of truck
> drivers fumbling though a Schedule C.

Interesting response.
 

"Perhaps you failed Reading 101."

*****My reading comprehension is just fine but perhaps your's is a wee bit off since you don't seemed to have comprehended the rules posted about "Also, please no insults or personal attacks." which is posted at the top of this forum.

> I never questioned the need to collect
> taxes. And it was not "his" taxes
> that were in question.

*****No, but it was "his" money that suddenly had to be coughed up for the witholding the IRS told him he should have been paying. Then he has to turn around and collect the money (which would normally have been a standard payroll deduction)from the drivers. And since we live in litigious times, what are the odds some of them considered not paying and seeking legal action against your friend, their employer, because he gave them incorrect information about what constitutes an independent contractor and now they suddenly have to pony up the payment to him instead of waiting 'til later on when they would normally file their tax return? (And I genuinely hope, for your friend's sake, none of them did that especially since they, too, could have checked this out before accepting the working arrangement.)

The issue was did the
> IRS have the right to tell a business man
> how he should run his business.

******At what point did the IRS tell your friend how he should run his business? Did the IRS tell him he was not allowed to use independent contractors? Or did the IRS tell him, and the drivers, they did not fit the criteria, set forth by our Department of Labor, of what the legal definition of contract labor is? Surely a man of your comprehension level can see those are severely different issues. Perhaps your friend wasn't aware that "control of time" is one of the biggies when determining whether or not a worker is considered, by the Feds and the State, to be contract labor.

The tax LAWS you claim he ignored, do not define independant contractors. These definitions are IRS interpretations of the intent of Congress.

*****You're correct on one thing, the tax laws don't define who is/isn't an independent contractor. The Department of Labor defines that. State government may also define that. Yep, more of those pesky government agencies. And I know you probably won't believe me but the laws determining contract labor are specific and don't leave room for interpretation (unless it's Clarence Darrow doing the interpretation). The criteria is set and you either meet it or you don't. If you don't meet the legal definitions of contract labor, then it doesn't matter what you put on your business card because the method and amount of your taxation is set according to how the government defines your employment/business situation.

> I still feel that the IRS harshly defines
> independant contractors, because they are
> addicted to businesses collecting their
> taxes and they don't want a bunch of truck
> drivers fumbling though a Schedule C.

*****Or maybe it's because independent contractors are businesses and are taxed at a different rate and payment schedule than employees. It could also be because a lot of so-called independent contractors (I'm not pointing fingers at the drivers working for your friend, just speaking generally.)are flying under the radar and aren't reporting their taxable earnings/profits (which, again, means higher taxes for the rest of us). It could also be because State governed unemployment benefits and labor law rights can be affected because of the distinction of whether or not a person was an employee or an independent contractor.

And since you seem to think I was attacking your friend (which was NEVER my intent) let me be very, very clear on the point of my messages:

Anyone who wants to run a business which involves using the services of other people should contact someone knowledgeable (the government agencies, business accountants, etc....don't go to Uncle Harry or Aunt Betty unless they actually work in the those fields) about Department of Labor laws and business tax laws so they won't end up in a situation like the man and drivers in the story. To do otherwise is irresponsible. I'm not saying it makes a person a horrible person, I'm saying it's irresponsible.

:)
EM

And again you post unsubstantiated statements....
 

"I Tried To Explain This to Her... "

*****Actually, you did no such thing. Here are your responses:

"You failed to mention the congressional hearings a couple years ago where the IRS was called to task on their strong arm tactics involving taxpayers.

Seems I remember congress told them they had better shape up."

(No explanation there......)

"That "Big Brother", who you seem to love, ain't all you crack it up to be!"

(Again, no explanation....)

"I am not the one who is taking the side of big government in this discussion! :)

But like you said.....Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion."

(And yet, still no explanation....)

"It's pretty obvious you love "Big Brother"
You're not any relation to "Winston" by any chance? :)"

(Maybe Tom's right and my reading comprehension IS lacking since I don't see any explanatory statements in that one, either......)

> But I was told not to be a
> "Whiner"

*****I've never told YOU to not be a whiner. If you want to whine, that's fine. I'm not going to try to stop you. My statements about whining were generalized to include ANYONE who refuses to be held accountable for their actions and the resulting blame they prefer to heap upon others instead of looking to see what they did wrong and how they can learn from it and get back on track.

> Some people feel that no matter what
> "Big Brother" does, you need to
> just go along with it and not utter a word
> of complaint and if you have the gall to
> complain you are just crying and whining.

*****I have no doubt there are people who believe that however, I'm not one of them. I would never plead guilty to a criminal charge if I didn't commit the crime. I would never accept the IRS's decision regarding my taxes if I believed their calculations were incorrect. I always encourage anyone who feels the government has made a wrong decision to do ***everything*** they can to get the decision reversed using the appeal system every government agency has including our Court system.

No one should ever allow a government entity (or anyone else for that matter!) to get away with ripping them off. However, just because someone doesn't like the decision doesn't mean the decision is wrong or not based on the laws. Often times, the complaintant just disagrees with the fact they lost, not the actual facts of the case.

> I'm with you.....I think another "Tea Party" is in order!

*****Great!!! I'm guessing this means you're willing to be the leader who rises up to lead the way on government reform, right? I wish you much success on that endeavor. I don't wish you luck because I think it's impossible to change our laws and procedures, I wish you luck because it will be a very long war you're planning.

:)
EM

And lest we forget, they invented toga parties! ;) (dno)
 

Boo!