Mark:
Yes, the below is IMHO correct, but the issue is much bigger than
that. For example, Workers Comp. The government was aware of the
fact that it was difficult to tell who was covering workers
comp, and they hated that. So, they made the end customer
(deepest pockets) responsible for ensuring somebody was.
Just one small administrative law example.
Government wants the masses to think that all forms or labor, all
structures of entities through which people can bill are tax
neutral. I.e., it doesn't matter how you structure it, the
same amount of tax is owed, regardless.
Trusts, corporations, LLCs, aka persons; individuals,
all have very specific meaning in law. Law is all about
specific meaning.
Tax neutrality is a fairy tale that insatiable government
hopes everyone believes.
Mechanically, more complex structures make the tax agencies
work harder to pin the tail on the donkey. Legally, less
conventional structures highlight (let's call them) Liability
holes in jurisdiction. I've been blessed to be a witness
to many of the legal battles in this and related areas.
This is a blog about *nix and computer contracting, so I
won't continue down the above train of logic (although I know
that many on this list know the real story), suffice it to
say that all these actions by the government are aimed at
maximizing tax revenue. It has nothing to do with fairness.
If computer workers wanted fairness, they would need to hire
people to lobby and play the same games (in representative
government) that the unions play.
I'm not a lawyer giving legal advice, or an accountant
giving tax advice. To do so would be technically illegal
(nice, huh?).
To give advice in these areas is regulated by government,
just as doctors are regulated in giving a medical prognosis.
What I would advise is NOT always to believe the so-called
experts, and conventional wisdom, and do the research
yourself regarding these very well researched areas.
It all begins in Philadelphia in 1776. It is quite a story.
You have to start at the beginning for it to make sense.
Some things have changed in 225 years, but many technically
remain the same, at least in theory. Unfortunately, the
courts have been assigned the role of umpire, and have not
been doing their check and balance thing very well.
Thanks,
Jim Gasek
--- m...@arlsoft.com wrote:
From: MBR m...@arlsoft.com
To: Edward Ned Harvey (blu) b...@nedharvey.com
Cc: Joseph Guarino jguar...@evolutionaryit.com, discuss@blu.org
discuss@blu.org
Subject: [Discuss] Mass. outlawed independent contractors in software and other
creative professions in 2004
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 23:46:56 -0400
The cracking down on companies using contractors instead of employees is
another case of state legislators discriminating against software
developers and other professions that create intellectual property.
People who create intellectual property often want to be independent
contractors. Among other things, if you're forced to be a W-2 employee
rather than an independent contractor, you lose any right to anything
you create. It's fairly common for a programmer to do similar projects
for clients, and over time to factor out the commonalities in the code
he creates for each one and assemble a collection of his code that he
can customize for subsequent clients.
A 2004 change to Mass. law that software temp agencies have only
recently discovered, makes it effectively impossible for programmers and
people in other professions who create intellectual property to operate
as independent contractors. And that means they can no longer own what
they create.
The 2004 law was passed because construction workers and other unionized
workers were finding that employers were forcing them to set up phony
independent contractor status so the employer could get out of providing
benefits. And since union leaders and politicians are often
buddy-buddy, the Mass. legislature passed an overbroad law to help out
their union cronies without giving a damn about the havoc they'd be
causing to software engineers, even though software is one of the
biggest parts of the state's economy. It took several years before the
law actually filtered down to clients, but now I'm hearing that nobody
in the country will hire an independent software contractor from
Massachusetts. Same goes for writers, artists, etc. See
http://www.wbur.org/2010/06/30/independent-contractor-law.
Mark Rosenthal
m...@arlsoft.com mailto:m...@arlsoft.com
On 7/30/2013 4:50 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Guarino
What were they thinking? As a political independent I'm not opposed to
taxation but I am opposed to them being unfairly levied against
industries we should be trying to encourage to stay in the state.
It's a use tax. Amazon and rackspace
