sorry to hear that
there alot of business change there way of doing , its only hurt the country as a wholeWHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS BILL
- Thread starter RAYMOND
- Start date
there alot of business change there way of doing , its only hurt the country as a whole
Elwood
I don't believe that will apply to you because they are contract workers. As long as you are sending your 1099's out at the end of the year you should be fine.
If they are employee's - and you are withholding their fica, ss, med, suta & futa taxes then it will apply to you.
it will be interesting to see if there is an impact on entrepeneurs and other start ups
I don't believe that will apply to you because they are contract workers. As long as you are sending your 1099's out at the end of the year you should be fine.
If they are employee's - and you are withholding their fica, ss, med, suta & futa taxes then it will apply to you.
it will be interesting to see if there is an impact on entrepeneurs and other start ups
Josh, it will apply to me. A few years ago the IRS really tightened what they considered 1099 employees. After a very LARGE fine I starting treating them as employees.
The majority of my friends are small business owners and almost every one of us is in this same position. I'm not happy at all, I understand the need to change things so people can afford health insurance but I don't see how it's fair that I and people like me fit the bill for it.
The majority of my friends are small business owners and almost every one of us is in this same position. I'm not happy at all, I understand the need to change things so people can afford health insurance but I don't see how it's fair that I and people like me fit the bill for it.
sorry to hear you had a run in with the IRS
it sounds like quite a few companies may face the same issue -
i think we will see some expected as well as creative ways to circumvent
reducing pay
increasing bids
restructured contract labor contracts
sister companies being formed
softball night so i've got to run but if I come across any other ideas, I'll throw them your way
if you ever look to going back to contract workers this seemed like a pretty good article that set the border between contract and employee - hopefully would keep the internal revenue service away
http://www.ehow.com/about_5076808_definition-contract-worker.html
A contract worker is not an employee of a company. He is a self-employed person who operates his own business, usually as a sole proprietor. He is hired for a specific task or project, sets his own rates and pays his own income taxes. A contract worker must find his own clients and complete a specific task for them. He is not bound by the control of the company.
Types
The Internal Revenue Service has strict requirements for a contract worker. In general, if a company has strict control over the person's work schedule, work location and closely examines the work process, the worker might be considered an employee, not a contract worker, regardless of how she is paid.
Benefits
By hiring a contract worker, a corporation will be able to save money because the worker, not the corporation, is responsible for his own payroll taxes, training, transportation, health insurance, and other benefits and costs. A company does not pay a contractor for holidays, sick time or other employee benefits.
Significance
A contractor controls her own hours and chooses her own clients. A contractor is not necessarily committed to only one company at any given time. As her schedule allows, she may concurrently work for as many companies as she chooses. A contractor has the right to refuse additional work from any company if she so chooses.
Function
A contractor is generally hired for one project or task. A client company may provide specifics on the project, but may not provide detailed steps on how to accomplish the task, nor require the contractor to work set hours. However, the worker and designated people from a company may need to meet regularly to provide updates or gather more information for proper completion of the project.
Timeframe
A contractor is usually paid on a per-job basis and generally cannot be fired as long as he is meeting the contractual requirements as set down at the beginning of the project. A contractor should have a signed contract before beginning a project. He then provides an invoice to the company to be paid on an agreed-upon schedule. A contractor may hire another person to complete all or part of the project, solely at his own discretion and on his, not the client's payroll.
Identification
Generally, a contractor will perform all or most of the work from her own location, be it her house or her own office. A company usually does not provide a contract worker with tools, technology or an office to complete the work specified in the contract. However, a contract worker may need to access company data in order to complete the requirements of the project. There are, however, occasions when a company will require the contract work to be done in their office. In such cases the contractor will be provided, for example, office space and a computer.
Considerations
A contractor is responsible for his own federal, state and local income taxes. He also must pay his own Social Security and Medicare taxes. A contractor should receive a form 1099 from the company. He will generally file a Schedule C as part of his yearly income tax return. He may be able to offset his income through deductions such as computers, office supplies and some insurance coverage payments.
it sounds like quite a few companies may face the same issue -
i think we will see some expected as well as creative ways to circumvent
reducing pay
increasing bids
restructured contract labor contracts
sister companies being formed
softball night so i've got to run but if I come across any other ideas, I'll throw them your way
if you ever look to going back to contract workers this seemed like a pretty good article that set the border between contract and employee - hopefully would keep the internal revenue service away
http://www.ehow.com/about_5076808_definition-contract-worker.html
A contract worker is not an employee of a company. He is a self-employed person who operates his own business, usually as a sole proprietor. He is hired for a specific task or project, sets his own rates and pays his own income taxes. A contract worker must find his own clients and complete a specific task for them. He is not bound by the control of the company.
Types
The Internal Revenue Service has strict requirements for a contract worker. In general, if a company has strict control over the person's work schedule, work location and closely examines the work process, the worker might be considered an employee, not a contract worker, regardless of how she is paid.
Benefits
By hiring a contract worker, a corporation will be able to save money because the worker, not the corporation, is responsible for his own payroll taxes, training, transportation, health insurance, and other benefits and costs. A company does not pay a contractor for holidays, sick time or other employee benefits.
Significance
A contractor controls her own hours and chooses her own clients. A contractor is not necessarily committed to only one company at any given time. As her schedule allows, she may concurrently work for as many companies as she chooses. A contractor has the right to refuse additional work from any company if she so chooses.
Function
A contractor is generally hired for one project or task. A client company may provide specifics on the project, but may not provide detailed steps on how to accomplish the task, nor require the contractor to work set hours. However, the worker and designated people from a company may need to meet regularly to provide updates or gather more information for proper completion of the project.
Timeframe
A contractor is usually paid on a per-job basis and generally cannot be fired as long as he is meeting the contractual requirements as set down at the beginning of the project. A contractor should have a signed contract before beginning a project. He then provides an invoice to the company to be paid on an agreed-upon schedule. A contractor may hire another person to complete all or part of the project, solely at his own discretion and on his, not the client's payroll.
Identification
Generally, a contractor will perform all or most of the work from her own location, be it her house or her own office. A company usually does not provide a contract worker with tools, technology or an office to complete the work specified in the contract. However, a contract worker may need to access company data in order to complete the requirements of the project. There are, however, occasions when a company will require the contract work to be done in their office. In such cases the contractor will be provided, for example, office space and a computer.
Considerations
A contractor is responsible for his own federal, state and local income taxes. He also must pay his own Social Security and Medicare taxes. A contractor should receive a form 1099 from the company. He will generally file a Schedule C as part of his yearly income tax return. He may be able to offset his income through deductions such as computers, office supplies and some insurance coverage payments.
Everything would be a lot simpler if there were no insurance companies and we had socialized healthcare. Employers wouldn't even have to worry about providing ANY health care costs ...ever. How simple would that be? How much money would you make then, Layinwood?
Take these worthless middlemen out of the equation and we could develop a great system.
Unfortunately, even Obama the socialist won't be able to do this.
Take these worthless middlemen out of the equation and we could develop a great system.
Unfortunately, even Obama the socialist won't be able to do this.
Smurph, that's easy to say but neither you nor I can answer that because we don't know how they'd pay for it. All I know is that for O's new plan he wants me to pay 8% of my payroll and that really hurts me. What would it cost me if we had socialized medicine? Who knows, it could be more than 8% and then I have no clue what I'd do.
And the main problem with what you said is that employers wouldn't even have to worry about providing the benefits and then how much would it make me. Well, I'm paying for what he's trying to do now so I'm pretty sure I would pay for that to. Do you think I'm wrong in thinking that. The small business is what's being hurt here and if I'm wrong please let me know. A lot of times when I get upset by something I don't think clearly so maybe I'm wrong.
I WAS TRYING TO SAY BEFORE THE ELECTION THAT SMALL BUSINESS WOULD GET HURT!
IF THE GREAT ONE WON
Don't you think that employers will immediately drop their health care and turn it over to the government? I imagine that will happen.
My employer contributes $10,000 year for my health plan. They can save that by no longer providing it. If they would hand some of that savings per year over to me, I could live with it.
On another topic, isn't it funny that one poster who simply critiques others and doesn't supply any original commentary does it again. Only this time he tried to supply something orginal and it was a lie. I'll stop - this is the last of the petty wrangling on my part.
My employer contributes $10,000 year for my health plan. They can save that by no longer providing it. If they would hand some of that savings per year over to me, I could live with it.
On another topic, isn't it funny that one poster who simply critiques others and doesn't supply any original commentary does it again. Only this time he tried to supply something orginal and it was a lie. I'll stop - this is the last of the petty wrangling on my part.
Last edited:
exactly. ....why not. medical same as fire and police. Why are we asking for employers to provide same thing that our taxes already SHOULD cover ???? Doctors same as good cop or fireman.
NOT STICK UP FOR BUSH ! THE SECOND TERM HE WAS THE WORST PRESIDENT SINCE JIMMY CARTER! BUT BUSINESS WAS VERY GOOD 6 OF HIS 8 YEARS! after 911 was bad and last year ! and this year forget about it! there is no business!
you can say bring the troop home and save money , but is there going to be jobs waiting for these people! DON;T think so
we need to get small bussiness going again , with taxes break so they can grow and add more workers to the work force! and grow as a company!
THE BOTTOM LINE BUSINESS ARE AFRAID OF THIS OBAMA AND THE DEMS . TALK OF HIGHER TAXES AND SHARING THE WEALTH SCARE PEOPLE WHO WORK VERY HARD FOR THIER MONEY!
WOULD YOU AND ERIC LIKE TO GIVE 15 % MORE
TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT TO WORK
HELL NO! YOU GUYS WORK VERY HARD FOR YOUR MONEY, JUST USING THIS AS A EXAMPLE
THE GOVERMENT NEED TO GET BACK BUSINESS WHO LEFT THE COUNTRY AND COULD THEM SOME TAX BREAK AND TO TAX THE SHIT OF THEM BEFORE BECAUSE BIG GOVERMENT NEED MORE MONEY, THAN IS ONE OF THE BIG PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY!
THERE ALOT OF OF MONEY TRUELY WASTED, STOP GIVING ANOTHER COUNTRY OUR MONEY !
YES THE TAX PAIDER MONEY!
WE NEED TO GET GOVERMENT OUT OF BED WITH THE BIG CORP BANKS INSUR COMPANY ECT! THEY ALL MAKE BACKDOOR DEALS $$$
LOOK AT THE OBAMA PEOPLE , THERE ALL TAX CHEATS, AND THEY GET AWAY WITH IT!
IF THAT WAS YOU ALL ME WE WILL BE IN JAIL OR THEY TAKE OUR HOMES!
OBAMA STORY IS A GREAT STORY THAT ANYONE CAN MAKE IT IN A AMERICA
BUT ITS ALL A LIE THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT KEPT TOO MANY PROMISE AT ALL ! AND THE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL! THE COUNTRY
DOES NOT HAVE ANYMONEY!! SO HOW CAN YOU KEPT SPENDING!
ONE OF GW BUSH MISTAKE WAS LETTING
ALL THE MEXIAN IN THE COUNTRY , BOTTOM LINE TAKING ALOT OF OUR JOBS AWAY !:mj1:
THE REP AND THE DEM HAVE LET US DOWN BOTTOM LINE AND THE PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER TO STOP IT! YES WE CAN . LET OUR VOICE BE HERE AND VOTE THE BUMS OUT DE AND REP WE NEED PEOPLE TO WORK FOR THE PEOPLE! THE PEOPLE OF WASHINGTON DC ARE IN THERE OWN LITTLE WORLDGOD BLESS AMERICAN THE LAND THAT I LOVE:00x21 :00x21
THEY ARE GIVING OUR COUNTRY AWAY ! ITS BEEN STOLEN FROM KIDS AND GRANDKIDS
IF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COME TO THIS COUNTRY NEED TO WAIT IN LINE! AND NEED TO RESPECT OUR CULTURE! MAYBE LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH NUMBER ONE! LIKE OR NOT THE USA WAS BUILT ON RELGION VALUE
I KNOW TIME ARE CHANGING MAYBE I NEED TO CHANGE WITH THE TIMES , BUT ITS HARD FOR ME! DON'T LIKE WANT I SEE ANYMORE IN THIS COUNTRY! BUT AT 47 YEARS OLD IT IS ALMOST OVER , JUST HOPE OUR KIDS HAVE WANT WE HAD
I KNOW SOMETIME I CAN GET OUT OF HANDS
BUT I DON;T MEAN ANY HARM:0corn
you can say bring the troop home and save money , but is there going to be jobs waiting for these people! DON;T think so
we need to get small bussiness going again , with taxes break so they can grow and add more workers to the work force! and grow as a company!
THE BOTTOM LINE BUSINESS ARE AFRAID OF THIS OBAMA AND THE DEMS . TALK OF HIGHER TAXES AND SHARING THE WEALTH SCARE PEOPLE WHO WORK VERY HARD FOR THIER MONEY!
WOULD YOU AND ERIC LIKE TO GIVE 15 % MORE
TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT TO WORK
HELL NO! YOU GUYS WORK VERY HARD FOR YOUR MONEY, JUST USING THIS AS A EXAMPLE
THE GOVERMENT NEED TO GET BACK BUSINESS WHO LEFT THE COUNTRY AND COULD THEM SOME TAX BREAK AND TO TAX THE SHIT OF THEM BEFORE BECAUSE BIG GOVERMENT NEED MORE MONEY, THAN IS ONE OF THE BIG PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY!
THERE ALOT OF OF MONEY TRUELY WASTED, STOP GIVING ANOTHER COUNTRY OUR MONEY !
YES THE TAX PAIDER MONEY!
WE NEED TO GET GOVERMENT OUT OF BED WITH THE BIG CORP BANKS INSUR COMPANY ECT! THEY ALL MAKE BACKDOOR DEALS $$$
LOOK AT THE OBAMA PEOPLE , THERE ALL TAX CHEATS, AND THEY GET AWAY WITH IT!
IF THAT WAS YOU ALL ME WE WILL BE IN JAIL OR THEY TAKE OUR HOMES!
OBAMA STORY IS A GREAT STORY THAT ANYONE CAN MAKE IT IN A AMERICA
BUT ITS ALL A LIE THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT KEPT TOO MANY PROMISE AT ALL ! AND THE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL! THE COUNTRY
DOES NOT HAVE ANYMONEY!! SO HOW CAN YOU KEPT SPENDING!
ONE OF GW BUSH MISTAKE WAS LETTING
ALL THE MEXIAN IN THE COUNTRY , BOTTOM LINE TAKING ALOT OF OUR JOBS AWAY !:mj1:
THE REP AND THE DEM HAVE LET US DOWN BOTTOM LINE AND THE PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER TO STOP IT! YES WE CAN . LET OUR VOICE BE HERE AND VOTE THE BUMS OUT DE AND REP WE NEED PEOPLE TO WORK FOR THE PEOPLE! THE PEOPLE OF WASHINGTON DC ARE IN THERE OWN LITTLE WORLDGOD BLESS AMERICAN THE LAND THAT I LOVE:00x21 :00x21
THEY ARE GIVING OUR COUNTRY AWAY ! ITS BEEN STOLEN FROM KIDS AND GRANDKIDS
IF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COME TO THIS COUNTRY NEED TO WAIT IN LINE! AND NEED TO RESPECT OUR CULTURE! MAYBE LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH NUMBER ONE! LIKE OR NOT THE USA WAS BUILT ON RELGION VALUE
I KNOW TIME ARE CHANGING MAYBE I NEED TO CHANGE WITH THE TIMES , BUT ITS HARD FOR ME! DON'T LIKE WANT I SEE ANYMORE IN THIS COUNTRY! BUT AT 47 YEARS OLD IT IS ALMOST OVER , JUST HOPE OUR KIDS HAVE WANT WE HAD
I KNOW SOMETIME I CAN GET OUT OF HANDS
BUT I DON;T MEAN ANY HARM:0corn
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2oD0WobKE5k&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2oD0WobKE5k&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
WASHINGTON - In 1986, Ronald Reagan and Bill Bradley created a legislative miracle. They fashioned a tax reform that stripped loopholes, political favors, payoffs, patron-
age and other corruptions out of the tax system. With the resulting savings, they lowered tax rates across the board. Those reductions, combined with the elimination of the enormous inefficiencies and perverse incentives that go into tax sheltering, helped propel a 20-year economic boom.
In overhauling any segment of our economy, the 1986 tax reform should be the model. Yet today's ruling Democrats propose to fix our extremely high quality (but inefficient and therefore expensive) health care system with 1,000 pages of additional curlicued complexity -- employer mandates, individual mandates, insurance company mandates, allocation formulas, political payoffs and myriad other conjured regulations and interventions -- with the promise that this massive concoction will lower costs.
This is all quite mad. It creates a Rube Goldberg system that simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care. That's why the administration can't sell Obamacare.
The administration's defense is to accuse critics of being for the status quo. Nonsense. Candidate John McCain and a host of other Republicans since have offered alternatives. Let me offer mine: Strip away current inefficiencies before remaking one-sixth of the U.S. economy. The plan is so simple it doesn't even have the requisite three parts. Just two: radical tort reform and radically severing the link between health insurance and employment.
(1) Tort reform: As I wrote recently, our crazy system of casino malpractice suits results in massive and random settlements that raise everyone's insurance premiums and creates an epidemic of defensive medicine that does no medical good, yet costs a fortune.
An authoritative Massachusetts Medical Society study found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals -- amounting to about 25 percent of the total -- solely as protection from lawsuits. Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant -- $20,000 for a family of four -- to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance).
What to do? Abolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries giving away lottery prizes at the behest of the liquid-tongued John Edwardses who pocket a third of the proceeds.
The pool would be funded by a relatively small tax on all health-insurance premiums. Socialize the risk; cut out the trial lawyers. Would that immunize doctors from careless-
ness or negligence? No. The penalty would be losing your medical license. There is no more serious deterrent than forfeiting a decade of intensive medical training and the livelihood that comes with it.
(2) Real health-insurance reform: Tax employer-provided health care benefits and return the money to the employee with a government check to buy his own medical insurance, just as he buys his own car or home insurance.
There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically sense-
less. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness.
The health care benefit exemption is the largest tax break in the entire U.S. budget, costing the government a quarter-
trillion dollars annually. It hinders health-insurance security and portability as well as personal independence. If we additionally eliminated the prohibition on buying personal health insurance across state lines, that would inject new and powerful competition that would lower costs for everyone.
Repealing the exemption has one fatal flaw, however. It was advocated by candidate John McCain. Obama so demagogu-
ed it last year that he cannot bring it up now without being accused of the most extreme hypocrisy and without being mercilessly attacked with his own 2008 ads.
But that's a political problem of Obama's own making. As is the Democratic Party's indebtedness to the trial lawyers, which has taken malpractice reform totally off the table. But that doesn't change the logic of my proposal. Go the Reagan-Bradley route. Offer sensible, simple, yet radical reform that strips away inefficiencies from the existing system before adding Obamacare's new ones -- arbitrary, politically driven, structural inventions whose consequence is certain financial ruin.
age and other corruptions out of the tax system. With the resulting savings, they lowered tax rates across the board. Those reductions, combined with the elimination of the enormous inefficiencies and perverse incentives that go into tax sheltering, helped propel a 20-year economic boom.
In overhauling any segment of our economy, the 1986 tax reform should be the model. Yet today's ruling Democrats propose to fix our extremely high quality (but inefficient and therefore expensive) health care system with 1,000 pages of additional curlicued complexity -- employer mandates, individual mandates, insurance company mandates, allocation formulas, political payoffs and myriad other conjured regulations and interventions -- with the promise that this massive concoction will lower costs.
This is all quite mad. It creates a Rube Goldberg system that simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care. That's why the administration can't sell Obamacare.
The administration's defense is to accuse critics of being for the status quo. Nonsense. Candidate John McCain and a host of other Republicans since have offered alternatives. Let me offer mine: Strip away current inefficiencies before remaking one-sixth of the U.S. economy. The plan is so simple it doesn't even have the requisite three parts. Just two: radical tort reform and radically severing the link between health insurance and employment.
(1) Tort reform: As I wrote recently, our crazy system of casino malpractice suits results in massive and random settlements that raise everyone's insurance premiums and creates an epidemic of defensive medicine that does no medical good, yet costs a fortune.
An authoritative Massachusetts Medical Society study found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals -- amounting to about 25 percent of the total -- solely as protection from lawsuits. Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant -- $20,000 for a family of four -- to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance).
What to do? Abolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries giving away lottery prizes at the behest of the liquid-tongued John Edwardses who pocket a third of the proceeds.
The pool would be funded by a relatively small tax on all health-insurance premiums. Socialize the risk; cut out the trial lawyers. Would that immunize doctors from careless-
ness or negligence? No. The penalty would be losing your medical license. There is no more serious deterrent than forfeiting a decade of intensive medical training and the livelihood that comes with it.
(2) Real health-insurance reform: Tax employer-provided health care benefits and return the money to the employee with a government check to buy his own medical insurance, just as he buys his own car or home insurance.
There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically sense-
less. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness.
The health care benefit exemption is the largest tax break in the entire U.S. budget, costing the government a quarter-
trillion dollars annually. It hinders health-insurance security and portability as well as personal independence. If we additionally eliminated the prohibition on buying personal health insurance across state lines, that would inject new and powerful competition that would lower costs for everyone.
Repealing the exemption has one fatal flaw, however. It was advocated by candidate John McCain. Obama so demagogu-
ed it last year that he cannot bring it up now without being accused of the most extreme hypocrisy and without being mercilessly attacked with his own 2008 ads.
But that's a political problem of Obama's own making. As is the Democratic Party's indebtedness to the trial lawyers, which has taken malpractice reform totally off the table. But that doesn't change the logic of my proposal. Go the Reagan-Bradley route. Offer sensible, simple, yet radical reform that strips away inefficiencies from the existing system before adding Obamacare's new ones -- arbitrary, politically driven, structural inventions whose consequence is certain financial ruin.
Smurph and Ferdville, let me ask this then. Where do you draw the line then? You could say the same thing about gas prices if they get too high, let the government take over the oil business(cue Stevie or someone saying they have for the last 8 years)
If they're so good at keeping prices affordable for us then why are colleges getting so out of touch with their cost?
FYI, this is just debating. I know something has to be done but in my opinion this is a step in the wrong direction. Over time the government will control more and more and I don't think that's what this country is about.
