Quote:I think the confusion is stemming from someone changing the circumstances with every post.
We've gone from a person with a crew of guys, to a couple hiring a few guys to unload a truck,
to small businesses, to sub contractors with full time employees. Seems like someone is trying to fit an example around his argument to me.
Anyway, just to be clear I don't have employees. I hire independent contractors periodically.
the highlighted red would be an example of "Casual Labor"
Just to be clear, My original point was the fact that the cost to the employer to pay someone a wage of x is usually 25-50% higher depending upon the Insurance WC and benefits associated with your company.
Others started making assertions about scenarios in which you might be able to 1099 someone as an independent contractor.
I was never talking about the relationship between contractors i am talking about the relationship between the owner and the w-2 employee.
Quote:By "senator" you mean, Senior Fantastico, right?
I think there were basically 2 different conversations going on at the same time. I'm not sure that because I was discussing 2 different topics means anything was contradictory...
I'd suggest going back and re-reading the thread... The discussion of sub contractors in the construction industry in New Mexico and the discussion of employees and the high cost of calculating and accounting for income tax withholding (or specifically the ease and relative low cost of such administrative costs) are 2 separate and non-contradictory discussions.
As for the IRS and the function of that institution, it's pretty much protected by the Constitution. I believe its within Article 1, which states that the government has the right and duty to impose taxes to provide for the defense and general welfare of the country...
So this concept of abolishing the IRS is just ridiculous.
Also, the IRS was NOT established in the Articles of the constitution. The concept of general taxation vs. the income tax and internal revenue code are not contiguous. In Fact early attempts to establish an income tax were ruled unconstitutional in the late 19th century. In order for the federal government to have effective jurisdiction to tax individual income they would have to pass an amendment to the constitution.
The IRS as we know it today was established by the 16th amendment to the constitution.
If gives the State the right to collect the tax not a mandate. A single act of congress could abolish the income tax and shutter the IRS. Future congresses would only need to pass an act to reopen the matter but its not as set in stone as a foundational mandate of our framers. If John Adams and Thomas Jefferson saw a 1040 they'd start gearing up for a second revolution.
The better question is, why are you talking about abolition of the tax code? I wasn't. I was just stating the basic ways that it restrains growth for businesses. When it was first passed it only affected the wealthiest in the country at a rate lower than double digits. Amazing how things change over time isn't it?
Quote:By "senator" you mean, Senior Fantastico, right?
I think there were basically 2 different conversations going on at the same time. I'm not sure that because I was discussing 2 different topics means anything was contradictory...
I'd suggest going back and re-reading the thread... The discussion of sub contractors in the construction industry in New Mexico and the discussion of employees and the high cost of calculating and accounting for income tax withholding (or specifically the ease and relative low cost of such administrative costs) are 2 separate and non-contradictory discussions.
As for the IRS and the function of that institution, it's pretty much protected by the Constitution. I believe its within Article 1, which states that the government has the right and duty to impose taxes to provide for the defense and general welfare of the country...
So this concept of abolishing the IRS is just ridiculous.
That's where the argument of so many things lies. Liberals typically want to reduce government spending towards the military, yet the job of the military is to provide for the defense of the country. Is there waste, fraud and abuse within the military? Absolutely. I've seen/experienced it first hand and still see it. The "general welfare" part of that is what gets exploited so much.
Does "general welfare" mean "free healthcare" or "free education"? Not really. It means that people are able to pursue whatever it is that they want freely. Want a higher education? Then you are free to work for it, and there are many avenues for doing so. It used to be that people actually worked towards a goal. Now people want it given to them.
Quote:...
Hahahahaha yeah man, totally the same thing. I guess I shouldn't have said "employee" taxes even though 99.9% of the board knows what I'm saying.
You keep holding on to that one though.
Quote:Just to be clear, My original point was the fact that the cost to the employer to pay someone a wage of x is usually 25-50% higher depending upon the Insurance WC and benefits associated with your company.
Others started making assertions about scenarios in which you might be able to 1099 someone as an independent contractor.
I was never talking about the relationship between contractors i am talking about the relationship between the owner and the w-2 employee.
Here you go again.
You did not say 25%-50% higher. You were closer to double and someone asked you to explain that. Instead of simply admitting it may not be THAT high, you put on your tap shoes and haven't stopped.
Quote:Hahahahaha yeah man, totally the same thing. I guess I shouldn't have said "employee" taxes even though 99.9% of the board knows what I'm saying.
You keep holding on to that one though.
In not holding onto anything. I just pointed out where the confusion came from.
Quote:Here you go again.
You did not say 25%-50% higher. You were closer to double and someone asked you to explain that. Instead of simply admitting it may not be THAT high, you put on your tap shoes and haven't stopped.
Tap shoes... Like the late great Gregory Hines?
And it can be close to doubling if you talk about benefit packages. My wife was an hourly employee before her promotion. She was getting health INS supplements and esop that were very close to what she was making.
Your typos make it all worth reading.
Quote:Tap shoes... Like the late great Gregory Hines?
And it can be close to doubling if you talk about benefit packages. My wife was an hourly employee before her promotion. She was getting health INS supplements and esop that were very close to what she was making.
So which is it? Close to double? 25%-50%? Are we talking day labor to unload a moving truck or a sub contractors employees? Are we talking benefits packages or the cost for an employer to do payroll?
You change your stance every time you post and you're accusing everyone else in the thread of muddying the waters.
I never changed my stance. My original quote I mentioned the state mandated costs associated with fulltime employment that now, in some cases will include providing health insurance. I didn't say for everyone I gave a range.
If you want to say that the cost of labor is the same as the employee is quoted as an hourly rate that's just false. If you want to say the difference is negligible then that's your opinion and we can discuss it, but that doesn't change the fact that the increased cost exists and it prevents the employer or the employee from reinvesting in the means of production.
If you're lucky enough to 1099 everyone that works for you that's great. I didn't put the word employee in your post u did, and that's different.
In not holding anything over anyone's head in not trying to play gotcha in simply trying to have an open conversation.
Quote:I never changed my stance. My original quote I mentioned the state mandated costs associated with fulltime employment that now, in some cases will include providing health insurance. I didn't say for everyone I gave a range.
If you want to say that the cost of labor is the same as the employee is quoted as an hourly rate that's just false. If you want to say the difference is negligible then that's your opinion and we can discuss it, but that doesn't change the fact that the increased cost exists and it prevents the employer or the employee from reinvesting in the means of production.
If you're lucky enough to 1099 everyone that works for you that's great. I didn't put the word employee in your post u did, and that's different.
In not holding anything over anyone's head in not trying to play gotcha in simply trying to have an open conversation.
Yes, you gave a range and a poster asked you to explain how you arrived at that range 3 pages ago. You gave some vague and ambiguous answers about overhead for accounting, implying that covered the gap between his numbers and yours. And seemingly every time someone counters you, you subtlety shift the argument a bit or give another vague answer or tweak a previous answer.
So... why don't you just answer the question? You said trust you because you're a self-employed son of a business owner. Seems like it should be easy to give an actual response to the actual question. Then we can all be clear on exactly what you're referring to.
How much does it cost to defend a wage and hour claim or a tax audit?