| | Michael:
I was not an employee, but a contractor.
And now, you've been forced by the tribe to do something else.
In the eyes of those considering hiring you, the IRS assumed you were an employee, even if you were a contractor.
As more and more businesses became aware of this potential entanglement with the IRS, it became harder and harder for contractors like you(and I)to find work.
Because of a specific act of legislation, aimed not at lawyers, not at accountants, not at artists, not at painters, and not at mural painters, but aimed explicitly at contractors just like you(and just like me.)
I've been doing this for 25 years plus, and have found no correlation between university degree and capability. But I have noticed that 25 years ago(when I knew much less, and had less experience), the market for this kind of work was much more vibrant and free, and over the years, it has been shepherded into increasingly narrow niches(except for the web stuff, which is a total low cost commodity.)
Companies still hire contractors, when they must, but more and more companies are aware of the special IRS hurdle, a potential entanglement. Even if you can jump the hurdles, companies are gun-shy, because of the need to have to jump those hurdles. Even when you win with the IRS, you lose. So, why take the risk?
What we need is another speech by a fucking politician in this corrupt piece of shit rotted out shell of a once free nation, about small businesses and technology and so on.
The Joe Stack suicide note illustrated the law,
SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
"(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work."
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.
Note:
* "another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.
* "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.
* "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19tax.html
Imagine. Why wouldn't same apply to 'lawyers' or 'accountants' acting as 'contractors?' That is, the very people who put the 'contract' into 'contractors?'
The law was sponsored by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, as a favor to I.B.M., which wanted a $60 million tax break on its overseas business.
Under budget rules in effect at the time, any tax breaks had to be paid for with new revenues. By requiring software engineers to be employees, a Congressional report estimated, income and payroll taxes would rise by $60 million a year because employees had few opportunities to cheat on their taxes.
Let me read that one more time: "By requiring software engineers to be employees..."
By requiring what? What kind of fucking country is this?
I've been a self-employed "S" Corp contractor for +25 years. The folks who have purchased my services as n 'contractor' have included the USAF, USNavy, USArmy, USCG, USMC, and several national labs. If they now want to claim I've been acting primarily as 'an employee', then they got some 'splainin to do, and need to recalculate a shitload -- millions -- in 'employee payroll.'
And, if they want to aim that gun at just my commercial customers, then the nature of 'government' has once again exposed the ugly truth of what it is, and there is only one problem with the Joe Stack story. After quietly going to the courts for years with his hat in his hand, and being told 'go fuck yourself' by the tribe, he failed to find a big enough airplane, and he flew it into the wrong building in the wrong city.
regards,
Fred
|
|
