Hiring "Independent Contractors"
 

Does anyone have any tips on hiring people for specific jobs? My ad for deck renewal is running today and I'm going to see what the response is before I take the next step, but I'm thinking ahead.

I know there are lots of college students & landscaper-types who need work for the summer. I'd really prefer not to do the deck renewal myself if I can help it. What is the best way to find local help with a little experience in this area? Another newspaper ad?

And what red tape is involved in hiring someone as an "independent contractor" rather than as an employee?

Any advice is appreciated. I'll share all my results as well.

Thanks.

And thanks Dien and Gordon for this excellent forum!

John

Re: Hiring "Independent Contractors"
 

Before you jump into this thing whole hog you might want to check out this post at Mike Rodmans forum.

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=166590&messageid=1021557741

> Does anyone have any tips on hiring people
> for specific jobs? My ad for deck renewal is
> running today and I'm going to see what the
> response is before I take the next step, but
> I'm thinking ahead.

> I know there are lots of college students
> & landscaper-types who need work for the
> summer. I'd really prefer not to do the deck
> renewal myself if I can help it. What is the
> best way to find local help with a little
> experience in this area? Another newspaper
> ad?

> And what red tape is involved in hiring
> someone as an "independent
> contractor" rather than as an employee?

> Any advice is appreciated. I'll share all my
> results as well.

> Thanks.

> And thanks Dien and Gordon for this
> excellent forum!

> John

My freight train has come to a grinding halt...SCREECH!
 

The pitfalls Mike mentions are a lot to consider. Time to pause for reflection and investigation.

Thanks for the tip, Keith.

Don, did you get a building permit? Did you purchase casualty insurance? Did you investigate the local building codes?

John

Re: My freight train has come to a grinding halt...SCREECH!
 

John,
I read Mike's post also and while it was good I think what he says applies mostly to people who would hire others to do the work for you on a sub-contract type basis.
What Don suggested as far as I could tell is for a lone man operation doing a few decks per week and turning a good profit. I'd say with this type of setup, as long as it didn't get too big, you would be OK without all the building permits etc..
I know a guy who for the past 15 years has made a VERY good full time living selling and laying carpet by himself(he sometimes uses a helper who he pays in cash) and no one has ever hassled him about permits or anything.

If you did this you might want to try and just keep it small for right now, then as you hire sub-contractors etc... worry about the things that Mike said.

Gary

> The pitfalls Mike mentions are a lot to
> consider. Time to pause for reflection and
> investigation.

> Thanks for the tip, Keith.

> Don, did you get a building permit? Did you
> purchase casualty insurance? Did you
> investigate the local building codes?

> John

Part of business is about solving problems as they come up.... because they ALWAYS do....
 

Hi John,

I don't know enough about the deck renewal biz to say much about it....

BUT, don't let your enthusiasm go to waste!

First, maybe there is a solution - you're right to ask around further. Maybe someone can clarify things such as the need for insurance.

It would surprise me if you needed a "building permit" but I admittedly don't know much about these things. However, the best people to ask about this are those who are DOING it already, if you can get hold of someone who's already doing it.... You could try this forum (which "TR" mentioned further down).... http://www.deckseal.com/bbs/index.html

SECOND, this is just ONE example of many of these TYPES of businesses, which Michael Ross posted about a couple weeks ago....

For example, Michael said,

Car wash solution is available almost everywhere. Car washing businesses exist.

Vacuum cleaners, mop buckets, cleaning chemicals, etc., are readily available. Cleaning businesses exist.

Dog shampoo is available. Dog washing businesses exist.

Based on this pattern, IF you find something readily available to the public - cleaning chemicals, some kind of machine or tool, etc., - then it PROVES people buy those items to get the results the items provide.

A percentage of people would rather pay someone else to use those chemicals, machines, tools, etc., to do what they could do themselves.

Essentially, find a product people buy to DO something with it - whether it's stuff to renew your deck with, shampoo for your dog, or whatever else you can find. Then, use that product as the basis for your business, DOING those things for them....

You can read Michael Ross's post here....

http://www.sowpub.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?read=7895

Back to deck renewal, there are people who do this as their business, so they must have solved some of these problems. The key now is to find out WHAT they did to solve the problems, and figure out whether it's feasible for you....

- Dien Rice

A twist, a turn, a two and a half summersault from the high dive...
 

into the waterless pool. OUCH.

Liability is a BIG issue. Risk Management is hottest topic going in business and in Government...why?

Cause we DO have a lot of lawyers that need work...and so even the most trivial of harms finds its way to litigation. Tsk..Tsk.

Truth. Fact. Don't hide from it.

NOW then.

A few posts down I mentioned BROKERING for funeral services. Any would be salesman must watch Glengary Glenross...and learn about LEADS.

I'm sure that every town has someone already doing decks. As even Don must admit, the LEAD to new business is extremely valuable, he's building a new empire supplying leads to realtors and auto dealers.

So why can't you 'QUALIFY' the deck owner who wants his/her deck to look like new...and be a BROKER in effect, without all the hassles and liability.

You get 100 bucks for every JOB your local licensed, insured, bonded and trained professional deck guy gets as a result of your ads or contacts. First time he doesn't pay, you NEVER give him another lead.

If you can generate 5 leads a week from your classified ads or Hotsheets you are distributing...that could be 500 bucks in your pocket minus a few hours of work...

This is leverage. QUALIFIED leads, those with a raised hand...those hungry people in front of the hot dog stand...those with the WANT...

are QUALIFIED leads. And there should be enough qualified contractors in any area to perform the work. YOU stand in the GAP between the Deck Owner and the Deck Restorer.

The cost of an ad would be recouped with ONE hot lead. If A doesn't want it for 100 bucks, offer it to B. Or C or D.

I recall a story Mike Rodman related about the guy who bought ATV's from a classified ad, and sold them to a guy WANTING ATV's from the same classified ad section (as I recall the story)...

the MAN (Mike's friend) simply used the Gordon Alexander's PROFITS (the GAP) strategy and got his little toll booth between the buyer and the seller.

That is what a Real Estate Broker does. Stands in the GAP...and is willing to pay big money as Don will testify...for QUALIFIED leads.

The great thing about doing CHATTEL...it might be hard to come across a lot of liablity when you sell your bike AS IS to someone who wants it.

Find a SELLER. Then a BUYER. Stand in the GAP between the two...and make your 500 bux that way...and you don't get wet, tired out, have to hire day labor, get splinters in your fingers, lug around chemicals, buy supplies, pay help...and make sure you keep the customer satisfied and safe...

sheesh...if there is anything that beats CHATTELING, I sure don't know what it is.

Except maybe being a bird dog (think affiliate) of the people who WANT something done...

and the people who DO it.

Stand there with your hands out, palms up, and watch them put some cold hard cash in your hands.

Get QUALIFIED LEADS for people who will pay for them.

Or get busy CHATTELING.

What is an affiliate program other than giving someone a % for a QUALIFIED (AS IN BUYER) lead?

Just a little twist, a turn, a concept that may have escaped you in the heat of the moment.

Gordon Alexander

Re: My freight train has come to a grinding halt...SCREECH!
 

Gary--

You wrote:

> John,
> I read Mike's post also and while it was
> good I think what he says applies mostly to
> people who would hire others to do the work
> for you on a sub-contract type basis.
> What Don suggested as far as I could tell is
> for a lone man operation doing a few decks
> per week and turning a good profit.

No, go back and read Don's original post. You don't honestly think he'd ever go do the work himself, do you? He wrote he would hire (like "McDonalds") people to do the actual work.

See, I have trouble starting a lawn mower. If I could pay guys who know deck work but who don't have the incentive to be the "brains of the operation", that's the way I would want to work it.

But all the rigamarole that goes with it, like Boyd alluded to, is a real spanner in the works! But maybe not...we'll see...

Thanks for your words. And thanks, Dien, for your encouragement as well.

John

Aha! A whole new GAP has opened up!
 

Leave it to Gordon to fill in the GAPs...

It's worth a go! I'll take all the people I find from my classified ad and offer them to licensed, bonded deck restorers for a fee! Ha! By Jove, Holmes, I think you've got it!

As for chatteling, that's my ultimate goal here anyway...looking forward to the course.

John

Keeping from getting rogered
 

Hi,

The author of "Winning Through Intimidation" made it clear that middlemen will always be rogered unless they work like fiends to keep it from happening.

I wonder how you could make sure you got your commission, when the deck restorer can make another $100 just by forgetting to pay you?

If we just sold leads to restorers, I wonder what a "raised-hand" but otherwise raw lead would be worth? Now I wish I could look at a deck restorer's books....

Best,

- Boyd

Here's another way
 

There are a couple of ways you could still do this without worrying about workers comp issues and building permits. I’m in California, one of the most regulated places on earth. Here if you’re just doing maintenance, and not structural changes you don’t need a permit. Painting, and repairs aren’t structural, so I don’t think applying cleaner would require a permit. Although you would need a business license, and most communities in California, you need a local business license even if you just delivering freight.

There are a number of temporary labor companies, like Labor Ready, that will let you hire their employees by the hour, usually a 4-hour minimum, but for this situation, that’s great. Once, I’ve even had a person I wanted to do the work and I took him to Labor Ready, they hired him immediately and I put him to work same day. Temporary Labor companies cover all the employment issues like workers’ comp, etc.

Of course, you’d need general liability insurance, and this is generally based upon the type of business and gross revenues, but you could get it with a deposit, inexpensive to start.

That’s just a few quick ideas, hope it has helped.




Business Opportunities List

Another add on alternative..
 

If you go to http://www.lakemetro.com/dever/default.htm you will find they also have a sales opportunity that could be coupled in...no minimum sales...just commission.

How about either supplying local retailers, or deck cleaners, or.....

...users directly - offer a training/demo session on how to apply the products and then collect the order....having restored decks in a past business and judging from the product, a 10 - 15 minute demo would be all it would take....and the company offers a 7 year product warranty to boot.

These products at the above site lend themselves very nicely to do it yourselfers.

Cornell

The "Independent Contractors" nightmare
 

This may or may not have much to do with deck cleaning, but this true story should make you think twice about independant contractors.

I knew a man who owned a small trucking livery service. He had about ten van type trucks. His drivers were all employees. They cared little about how they treated the trucks and were continually abusing them. He decided to make them independant contractors by financing the sale of the trucks to the employees. Everyone was happy. He no longer had to worry about maintenance and the drivers loved the benefits of owning their own business. They now had tax benefits etc. Well everyone was happy except the IRS. They no longer had the payroll taxes being withheld from drivers paychecks and now they would have to put up with all these independant businesses - no way Jose`.

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.

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

> Does anyone have any tips on hiring people
> for specific jobs? My ad for deck renewal is
> running today and I'm going to see what the
> response is before I take the next step, but
> I'm thinking ahead.

> I know there are lots of college students
> & landscaper-types who need work for the
> summer. I'd really prefer not to do the deck
> renewal myself if I can help it. What is the
> best way to find local help with a little
> experience in this area? Another newspaper
> ad?

> And what red tape is involved in hiring
> someone as an "independent
> contractor" rather than as an employee?

> Any advice is appreciated. I'll share all my
> results as well.

> Thanks.

> And thanks Dien and Gordon for this
> excellent forum!

> John

could you use this?
 

perhaps you could approach this website
to get information concerning your dilemna
and questions...

Also since your copy is so good and you are
getting customers, I wonder how much deck
renewal businesses would pay you for business..

I'm not an expert, but check out this website:

http://www.decksusa.com/clean_your_deck.htm

Anyone really interested read in doing decks, read this...
 

> I wonder how you could make sure you got
> your commission, when the deck restorer can
> make another $100 just by forgetting to pay
> you?

Well, $100 would be one cheap lead, Boyd. And if I had someone sending work to my imaginary (so far) deck renewal biz that cheap, I'd be trying to keep them as happy as possible, lest they slip away and start working with my arch nemesis, John Drake.

Gordon makes some good points about a lot of things (doesn't he always?), but I think if you want to say to hell with the bureaucracy, you can make a lot more working this on your own. Yes, there's equipment and things to learn, but you're all fast learners! It all depends on how much you want to put into it.

And all the 'libilties'? What about em? Good luck in any business if you can't step over, work with, or trample the effects of these.

I just reread that to make sure that's how I really feel, and it is. Just checking. It's good to do that sometimes. It's really weird some of the ways your point of view can come out in print. So much so that later when you read it, you just think 'Why?!?'

You aren't going to have problems with lawsuits if you're talking with a picking and choosing customers in person. Maybe I'm just from a different neck of the woods than y'all (and no, that word is not part of my vocab).

Success,

Erik Lukas

P.S. Yes, you might damage the surface of the wood some if you use too much pressure (and you'll have to fix that before staining with light sanding). You'll be fine as long as you can handle that AND stay away from Thompsons deck cleaner.

P.P.S. Hint: Start with a 40 degree tip 12 inches away and use wolman's deck brightener (cedar version if you need to get out darkness). Go easy on the pressure and heavy on the carefulness.

Deckseal.com Also Has a Training Package for Sale at Their Site
 

According to their website it includes a video,training manual and an ad manual for $99.00.

www.deckseal.com/package.htm

>However,
> the best people to ask about this are those
> who are DOING it already, if you can get
> hold of someone who's already doing it....
> You could try this forum (which
> "TR" mentioned further down)....
> http://www.deckseal.com/bbs/index.html

Wellllllllllll, yes and no.
 

"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

Elizabeth......You failed to Mention
 

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.

> "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

Apples to oranges.........
 

"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."

******That's an interesting statement, Gary. What does that have to do with whether or not the man in the story actively tried to comply with our existing laws and protect his company? After seeing your response, I went back and re-read the original story and nowhere does it mention what actions the man took in order to prevent the problem? Nowhere in the original story is it stated the government gave the man misinformation. The point of the story seemed to be the-government-is-out-to-screw-us and my response was the-government-doesn't-screw-us-as-much-as-we-screw-ourselves-so-exercise-your-legal-right-to-be-informed-and-do-your-homework-in-order-to-protect-yourself-and-your-business. (Geez, it's hard to type a hyphen between every word!!!)

Our principles of government and the actual government worker bees and law makers aren't perfect. You'll get no argument from me on that one! :) But they can hardly be deemed responsible for the choices WE make. Like I said before, the government can't compel someone to seek information. If the government were given that right, we'd be whining about how they've taken away our freedom to be stupid and uneducated. Also, the government shouldn't be held responsible when someone **insists** on making bad/stupid decisions especially when that someone could have done a little bit of research and made much better decisions.

It's really very simple; we have laws/rules/procedures we must follow to be in compliance with the Law/reap the benefits of the Law. When we aren't in compliance with the Law because we failed to find out what the Law is, (and let's face it, how many business owners AREN'T aware we have laws regarding taxing businesses???) WE failed, not the government. On a similar note, when we don't find out what the Law is and we miss out on taking advantage of the many benefits which could be available to us, which are granted to us by Law, WE failed, not the government.

Now, if it turns out the man in the story exercised due diligence and sought information from his favorite tax paid public servants and they gave him misinformation THEN the government should be held responsible for the man making a bad decision regarding taxation of workers.

But so far, I haven't seen anything in the story to suggest the government did anything wrong in that particular situation. Of course, I left my secret decoder ring at home so maybe I'm missing an invisible message...... ;)

:)
EM

My Point Was....
 

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

Gary

> "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."

> ******That's an interesting statement, Gary.
> What does that have to do with whether or
> not the man in the story actively tried to
> comply with our existing laws and protect
> his company? After seeing your response, I
> went back and re-read the original story and
> nowhere does it mention what actions the man
> took in order to prevent the problem?
> Nowhere in the original story is it stated
> the government gave the man misinformation.
> The point of the story seemed to be
> the-government-is-out-to-screw-us and my
> response was
> the-government-doesn't-screw-us-as-much-as-we-screw-ourselves-so-exercise-your-legal-right-to-be-informed-and-do-your-homework-in-order-to-protect-yourself-and-your-business.
> (Geez, it's hard to type a hyphen between
> every word!!!)

> Our principles of government and the actual
> government worker bees and law makers aren't
> perfect. You'll get no argument from me on
> that one! :) But they can hardly be deemed
> responsible for the choices WE make. Like I
> said before, the government can't compel
> someone to seek information. If the
> government were given that right, we'd be
> whining about how they've taken away our
> freedom to be stupid and uneducated. Also,
> the government shouldn't be held responsible
> when someone **insists** on making
> bad/stupid decisions especially when that
> someone could have done a little bit of
> research and made much better decisions.

> It's really very simple; we have
> laws/rules/procedures we must follow to be
> in compliance with the Law/reap the benefits
> of the Law. When we aren't in compliance
> with the Law because we failed to find out
> what the Law is, (and let's face it, how
> many business owners AREN'T aware we have
> laws regarding taxing businesses???) WE
> failed, not the government. On a similar
> note, when we don't find out what the Law is
> and we miss out on taking advantage of the
> many benefits which could be available to
> us, which are granted to us by Law, WE
> failed, not the government.

> Now, if it turns out the man in the story
> exercised due diligence and sought
> information from his favorite tax paid
> public servants and they gave him
> misinformation THEN the government should be
> held responsible for the man making a bad
> decision regarding taxation of workers.

> But so far, I haven't seen anything in the
> story to suggest the government did anything
> wrong in that particular situation. Of
> course, I left my secret decoder ring at
> home so maybe I'm missing an invisible
> message...... ;)

> :)
> EM

And my point is.........
 

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

******........the "Big Brother" you, and others like yourself, imagine is a fictional creation. Our government, like it or not, is comprised of the citizens of the United States of America. Who put those citizens in Washington? We the people did. We the people have rights. We the people have the right to decide who goes to Washington. We the people voted in the lawmakers. We the people have to learn to live with the laws we the people are ultimately responsible for (due to our voting decisions) OR learn how to get those laws changed. Technically speaking, we the people are "Big Brother".

Gary, you seem determined to make our government out to be an Evil Entity forced upon us when in reality, our government is made up of thousands of people just like you and me. Look around you; if your friends decided to run for public office, won the election and happily traipsed off to Washington, would you suddenly see them as the enemy? If your friends decided to seek employment with a government agency, would they become the scum of the earth? If yes, then bless your heart.

As I clearly stated in my last message, our government ISN'T a perfect system. And I wouldn't say I'm "in love" with our government. However, unlike many people, I see our government for what it is: a system for governing and protecting a society who chooses to live within its jurisdiction. I don't see the IRS as a monster out to bankrupt me; I see the IRS as the US government's method of collecting taxes. I don't see our tax laws as stifling and written to destroy businesses; I see our tax laws as a means to set out clearly (so to speak!) who pays what. You may agree with certain laws and hate others but that is simply a matter of personal perception. Go ask Joe Blow on the street about businesses being able to incorporate and get different taxation rates and he'll get on his soapbox and rant for hours about how "the rich are never taxed and the government is out to screw the little guy and businesses should have to pay MORE blah, blah, blah...". Go ask the businessperson who's incorporated about the same laws and they'll wax eloquent about how everyone should do it and how much money they've saved yadda, yadda, yadda.....

Same law, different perceptions.

Gary, it is soooooo fine with me if you choose to look at our government as the boogeyman-in-the-closet. This here's the U. S. of A. and you're entitled to your opinions and perceptions. I'm just sorry you seem to see only the flaws of our government and not the many ways we benefit from our government.

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

:)
EM

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!