Karmic Accounting

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Are you not seeing the links to follow on the page I linked?

Here are a few more:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm
http://www.ftmn.com/Employee.html
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29681.html

Anyone can run off a bunch of links. I asked for a quote that supported your position:

Quote

As to your post; if you build your business using "independent contractors" for specific projects and rotated people there would be no issue whatsoever. However, if your "independent contractors" were expected to maintain regular business hours for months or years at a time, doing their jobs under your supervision, yeah, there probably IS an issue.

AS little as I ever agree with quade, in this case the links provided are relevant.
I am required every year by the company I work for to go through training where the rules regarding employee vs. contractor rules are reviewed. The links carry the heart of the rules that I train on.

But, one has to realize that the "rules" that the IRS tries to enforce are slanted toward forcing companies to have employees and not contractors. The reason for this fact is simple. The IRS gets more money from companies and employees than is does from contractor income

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you not seeing the links to follow on the page I linked?

Here are a few more:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm
http://www.ftmn.com/Employee.html
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29681.html

Anyone can run off a bunch of links. I asked for a quote that supported your position:

Quote

As to your post; if you build your business using "independent contractors" for specific projects and rotated people there would be no issue whatsoever. However, if your "independent contractors" were expected to maintain regular business hours for months or years at a time, doing their jobs under your supervision, yeah, there probably IS an issue.

AS little as I ever agree with quade, in this case the links provided are relevant.
I am required every year by the company I work for to go through training where the rules regarding employee vs. contractor rules are reviewed. The links carry the heart of the rules that I train on.

But, one has to realize that the "rules" that the IRS tries to enforce are slanted toward forcing companies to have employees and not contractors. The reason for this fact is simple. The IRS gets more money from companies and employees than is does from contractor income

I'm willing to believe that some businesses (including apparently yours) have such restrictions. What I don't believe is that those restrictions are across the board for all businesses.

I've gone through all the links he provided and have not seen anything to support that kind of wide ranging restriction.

All I'm asking for is a supporting quote. Is that so hard?

[rushmc 23]

It does not have anything to do with any individual business. It IS fed code that covers ALL businesses regardless of size.

As for the quote? I really am not sure what you are after but that may just be me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And maybe I am not clear. The training I go through is to make sure I understand the legal definition (as related to IRS code) of who is considered a contractor vs. who is considered an employee by the IRS. I go through that training because I do from time to time hire contractors

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

it allows those who want to be entrepreneurs and accumulate wealth for themselves to do so - within their lifetime. when they die rather than choosing who their wealth goes to (with the recipients getting the wealth unearned) it gets redistributed back to those who helped him create the wealth in the first place - in this case the workers he employed.

it's absolutely idiotic

if the owner wants to will his estate to his employees, he can choose to do that already - perhaps it would be a good way to attract top employees - that's the only way for this to work

I don't think you've thought this through at all, the employees risk nothing as they already get paid - the children of the owner had their own risks when the parent invested in the business, sometimes in lieu of the family's quality of life, the kids education, etc etc etc

the man that takes the risk gets to choose because it's his property

if you want to be all socialistic about it - here's that spin - splitting up a business will likely destroy the business and lose tons of jobs. Keeping the business in the family will ensure a better chance at uninterrupted operation and preservation of that job base. Letting the owner decide who gets what is a better choice for keeping the business alive

you idea is total crap

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

it sounds like a crappy system in any case - it sounds like it would discourage people from taking care of their families, from increasing a business and hiring more people...... etc etc

it would encourage people to sit on their hands and wait for the 'redistribution'. It would encourage others to celebrate the deaths of successful types or even proactively seek the deaths on successful people..... etc etc

really - what a concept - promote less than mediocrity, and discourage loyalty to family - right up the alley of certain political philosophies

according to your philosophy children would be killing their parents (for an unearned redistribution) left right and center

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

That merely specifies how you pay contractors as opposed to employees. Could you quote the section that says it is illegal for an employer to hire contractors, which was your original claim?

Hiring subcontractors is done all the time, especially in the construction business. Providing the proper tax laws are followed, how can you say it is illegal?

for karmic accounting purposes the crux is that it is tied to real workhours (socialism) and not some notional fiat amount that makes up the parallel 'wage' (capitalism).

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Inherited wealth is clearly earned income in a Karma based system.
The inheritor earned it in a previous life; that's what karma is.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

you idea is total crap

no, it's quite a neat idea that does just what says on the tin - melds together left and right libertarian strands

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Inherited wealth is clearly earned income in a Karma based system.
The inheritor earned it in a previous life; that's what karma is.

karmic accounting just borrows the name for a catchy title - but it does mean that the inheritor will have earned it in their own lifetime. what do you think of the idea in principle?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Inherited wealth is clearly earned income in a Karma based system.
The inheritor earned it in a previous life; that's what karma is.

karmic accounting just borrows the name for a catchy title - but it does mean that the inheritor will have earned it in their own lifetime. what do you think of the idea in principle?

I think it is another way for the socialists to expropriate wealth from those who have it. An inheritance tax justification if you will.
You say you should redistribute the wealth back to those who earned it. Well that happened when it was earned; the labourers got paid what they agreed to work for, the money lenders got paid what they agreed to lend for and the risk taker got the rest. Now he owns it and will distribute it as his will dictates. End of story.

Just how is this "theory," and I use the term lightly, any different than Marx's Labour theory of Value?
This has nothing for libertarians. If you think it does you need to re-read Locke.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Inherited wealth is clearly earned income in a Karma based system.
The inheritor earned it in a previous life; that's what karma is.

karmic accounting just borrows the name for a catchy title - but it does mean that the inheritor will have earned it in their own lifetime. what do you think of the idea in principle?

I think it is another way for the socialists to expropriate wealth from those who have it. An inheritance tax justification if you will.
You say you should redistribute the wealth back to those who earned it. Well that happened when it was earned; the labourers got paid what they agreed to work for, the money lenders got paid what they agreed to lend for and the risk taker got the rest. Now he owns it and will distribute it as his will dictates. End of story.

Just how is this "theory," and I use the term lightly, any different than Marx's Labour theory of Value?
This has nothing for libertarians. If you think it does you need to re-read Locke.

i fail to see where libertarianism supports unearned inherited wealth. surely the core of libertarianism is that every individual is free to contract as and where they will. karmic accounting allows this so that entrepreneurs can flourish - within their own lifetime. their estate is not then taxed but redistributed back to those who helped create the wealth in the first place - everyone is satisfied

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

It would encourage others to celebrate the deaths of successful types or even proactively seek the deaths on successful people..... etc etc

according to your philosophy children would be killing their parents (for an unearned redistribution) left right and center

oh, absolutely - but only if you feel exactly towards your parents just like you feel about your boss

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lurch 0]

So lemme get this straight:
Right now, way things work is, if I make a fortune, I pass it on to my kids when I'm done with it.

Whereas, the way you'd like it to be, I make a fortune, I die, and instead of passing it on to my kids, the state confiscates it and "redistributes" it as it sees fit to whomever it decides was the REAL producer of the wealth.

This one is easy.
The wealth was produced by the guy who made the wealth happen...THE OWNER. No owner, no wealth.

You ought to read a little Ayn Rand. Maybe read a bit of history, see what living under hardcore socialism does to the motivation of would-be "wealth earners." There is no point in working hard and building a fortune if you know it will be taken from you.
Personally if I lived under such a system I would

A: knowing it was just going to be confiscated anyway, decline to build a fortune for the thieves intending to "redistribute" it,

or B: towards the end, destroy it rather than permit it to be taken.

Your "karmic accounting" is a really, really bad idea.
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

A: knowing it was just going to be confiscated anyway, decline to build a fortune for the thieves intending to "redistribute" it,

or B: towards the end, destroy it rather than permit it to be taken.

Your "karmic accounting" is a really, really bad idea.
-B

you don't understand his viewpoint - they don't care if it ruins the economy or impoverishes families

they only care that they have little, and they don't want to work for it and this might, possibly, at terrible expense to society even, still result in them getting a little extra - maybe. But at the same time, definitely destroy the families of others they envy.


so it has two purposes - isn't that great?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lurch 0]

Yeah.
THIS

"karmic accounting allows this so that entrepreneurs can flourish - within their own lifetime. their estate is not then taxed but redistributed back to those who helped create the wealth in the first place - everyone is satisfied"

May be as wrong of a statement as any I've seen in this forum.
"Everyone" is NOT satisfied. The -only- motivation I'd have for building a fortune thats bigger than I can spend in this life would be so that I could take care of my kids, provide for them and ensure their future as best I can. Normally, I don't do emotions like "spite", I save that for any situations that require such vicious thinking... but in a system that intends to make sure I can't take care of my kids and redistributes MY wealth to those who have not earned it, I would coldly and deliberately destroy that wealth out of pure malice and spite to keep it out of the hands of the enemy.
Again, I urge the OP to read Ayn Rand, specifically Atlas Shrugged. The writing style is over the top, repetitive, and sometimes so grindingly brutal that wading through that novel is like eating a bowl of sand and gravel, but it is devastatingly accurate in its understanding of human motivations and results. Its the only old novel I've read that inadvertently became a pinpoint accurate book of prophecy, far more accurate than any biblical bullshit. In my adult life I've watched events in that book become real, one after the other complete with governments looting businesses with taxation, "equalization" and "redistribution" until they collapse, then propping their favorites up with loot taken from others until they collapse anyway. (Financial bailout? Detroit bailout?)
That book predicted the events of today, and the reasons for them, with such accuracy its SCARY. It is scary precisely because I can read the parts which have already come true, and then read the parts which haven't yet. Its the parts which have already happened, exactly the way Rand described, that make me fear the parts which haven't yet. Mystical prophecy doesn't scare me... its full of bullshit and flowery ambiguous language subject to interpretation. Rand's writing is not like that. It wasn't written as prophecy. It was written as an exercise in pure reason and rationality and turned out to BE accurate when society created the conditions it describes.
And unfortunately, society is still on course for the end of the book. The part where the economy finishes its collapse and we revert to a third world level, grubbing in the dirt to feed the kids when there are no producers left standing to leech off of, and enduring a return to the medieval. Some people never learn.
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

So lemme get this straight:
Right now, way things work is, if I make a fortune, I pass it on to my kids when I'm done with it.

Whereas, the way you'd like it to be, I make a fortune, I die, and instead of passing it on to my kids, the state confiscates it and "redistributes" it as it sees fit to whomever it decides was the REAL producer of the wealth.

This one is easy.
The wealth was produced by the guy who made the wealth happen...THE OWNER. No owner, no wealth.

You ought to read a little Ayn Rand. Maybe read a bit of history, see what living under hardcore socialism does to the motivation of would-be "wealth earners." There is no point in working hard and building a fortune if you know it will be taken from you.
Personally if I lived under such a system I would

A: knowing it was just going to be confiscated anyway, decline to build a fortune for the thieves intending to "redistribute" it,

or B: towards the end, destroy it rather than permit it to be taken.

Your "karmic accounting" is a really, really bad idea.
-B

the state doesn't confiscate or distribute anything - or tax anything. this is a perfectly voluntary libertarian redistribution

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

so it has two purposes - isn't that great?

yes, while allowing entrepreneurs to flourish it also values the efforts of workers
(and all voluntary)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

So lemme get this straight:
Right now, way things work is, if I make a fortune, I pass it on to my kids when I'm done with it.

Whereas, the way you'd like it to be, I make a fortune, I die, and instead of passing it on to my kids, the state confiscates it and "redistributes" it as it sees fit to whomever it decides was the REAL producer of the wealth.

This one is easy.
The wealth was produced by the guy who made the wealth happen...THE OWNER. No owner, no wealth.

You ought to read a little Ayn Rand. Maybe read a bit of history, see what living under hardcore socialism does to the motivation of would-be "wealth earners." There is no point in working hard and building a fortune if you know it will be taken from you.
Personally if I lived under such a system I would

A: knowing it was just going to be confiscated anyway, decline to build a fortune for the thieves intending to "redistribute" it,

or B: towards the end, destroy it rather than permit it to be taken.

Your "karmic accounting" is a really, really bad idea.
-B

the state doesn't confiscate or distribute anything - or tax anything. this is a perfectly voluntary libertarian redistribution

Voluntary on who's part? Who gets to decide whether the children inherit or the workers?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

the state doesn't confiscate or distribute anything - or tax anything. this is a perfectly voluntary libertarian redistribution

So, when you die, your maintenance guy gets your house instead of your wife/kids? It's the same logic, after all.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So lemme get this straight:
Right now, way things work is, if I make a fortune, I pass it on to my kids when I'm done with it.

Whereas, the way you'd like it to be, I make a fortune, I die, and instead of passing it on to my kids, the state confiscates it and "redistributes" it as it sees fit to whomever it decides was the REAL producer of the wealth.

This one is easy.
The wealth was produced by the guy who made the wealth happen...THE OWNER. No owner, no wealth.

You ought to read a little Ayn Rand. Maybe read a bit of history, see what living under hardcore socialism does to the motivation of would-be "wealth earners." There is no point in working hard and building a fortune if you know it will be taken from you.
Personally if I lived under such a system I would

A: knowing it was just going to be confiscated anyway, decline to build a fortune for the thieves intending to "redistribute" it,

or B: towards the end, destroy it rather than permit it to be taken.

Your "karmic accounting" is a really, really bad idea.
-B

the state doesn't confiscate or distribute anything - or tax anything. this is a perfectly voluntary libertarian redistribution

Voluntary on who's part? Who gets to decide whether the children inherit or the workers?

the entrepreneur offers karmic accounting, the workers decide whether they want to join or not. easypeasy.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

the state doesn't confiscate or distribute anything - or tax anything. this is a perfectly voluntary libertarian redistribution

So, when you die, your maintenance guy gets your house instead of your wife/kids? It's the same logic, after all.

So when a CEO fucks up a multinational company . . . why are the workers laid off rather than the CEOs?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the state doesn't confiscate or distribute anything - or tax anything. this is a perfectly voluntary libertarian redistribution

So, when you die, your maintenance guy gets your house instead of your wife/kids? It's the same logic, after all.

So when a CEO fucks up a multinational company . . . why are the workers laid off rather than the CEOs?

Ask dreamdancer - he's the one pushing this bullshit.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

the state doesn't confiscate or distribute anything - or tax anything. this is a perfectly voluntary libertarian redistribution

So, when you die, your maintenance guy gets your house instead of your wife/kids? It's the same logic, after all.

if the homeowner and the maintenance guy are both signed up to karmic accounting then a small percentage of the homeowner's estate will go to the maintenance guy (and other small percentages to any other workers the homeowner has employed).

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the state doesn't confiscate or distribute anything - or tax anything. this is a perfectly voluntary libertarian redistribution

So, when you die, your maintenance guy gets your house instead of your wife/kids? It's the same logic, after all.

So when a CEO fucks up a multinational company . . . why are the workers laid off rather than the CEOs?

with karmic accounting workers can still be laid off - but they will still have a 'karmic claim' on the ceos estate so that at least they don't lose everything. and the ceos children know they will have to make their own, libertarian, way in the world. pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and all that

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding