Would you inform on a benefits cheat?

[Ravi]

Ravi,

For any job that requires a permit, such as a new roof, your argument is moot. If you do not get the permit, you are breaking the law. If you lie about who is doing the work on the permit application, you are breaking the law. You cannot hire illegals without doing one of the above, so you cannot hire illegals without breaking the law.

That's true. But you don't need a permit, at least in my neighborhood, to replace your driveway, get your trees trimmed, grass cut, fence repaired, or any number of other things.

 

[manifold]

That's true. But you don't need a permit, at least in my neighborhood, to replace your driveway, get your trees trimmed, grass cut, fence repaired, or any number of other things.

See my previous post.

 

[Ravi]

and, so to are YOU knowing that you will be looking fort ILLEGALS to avoid the price of a legal contractor.


Hey, wal mart didn't have any responsibility in verification either, eh?


I mean, they were TOLD that the labor was legal, right??

Shog, just because I'm discussing this with you don't take it to mean I'm a law breaker like you are.

And, no, it looks like Walmart KNEW that illegals were being employed and were not told they were legal by the subcontractor.

 

[Ravi]

You are wrong. again. You are confusing your role as their employer with the assumption that any band of mexicans with their own tools are legal contractors. Insert WAL MART.

and no, it's not merely a matter of 1099, Ravi. Any more than it is when some rich asshole gets busted for having an illegal nanny when, in fact, he paid someone a flat fee for her services and assumes that amounts to an agency.


I know you hate it when Im right but you might wanna take this thread into consideration the next time you want to save money by enabling illegals.

No I'm not, you are. The tools are basically meaningless. You really should take a look at the IRS website. It's so confusing to most people that they even provide a form you can fill out to let the IRS decide if you are hiring an employee or a subcontractor.

Actually, if someone paid an agency a flat fee to provide a nanny, the nanny is the employee of the agency, not the person whose house she is working in.

 

[Ravi]

Then we agree, you cannot hire day laborers at Home Depot for any reason, and pay them "under the table," without breaking the law.

Absolutely, but that wasn't the law Shog and I were discussing.

 

[Ravi]

See my previous post.

Did you ever cut the grass for your neighbors for pay or babysit when you were a kid?

Guess what? You were probably working illegally.

 

[manifold]

Absolutely, but that wasn't the law Shog and I were discussing.

Yup. Thus reinforcing my original point that you are exploiting a technicality to win the literal argument...not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[manifold]

Did you ever cut the grass for your neighbors for pay or babysit when you were a kid?

Guess what? You were probably working illegally.

No probably about it.

 

[Ravi]

Yup. Thus reinforcing my original point that you are exploiting a technicality to win the literal argument...not that there's anything wrong with that.

Of course not, I learned it from you.

But it's even more complicated. If I don't pay them under the table, i.e., have them fill out a W-9 and then I 1099 them at the end of the year, I've done nothing illegal. They might have, but I haven't.

As far as I can tell it's the last loophole the Feds haven't closed up on this hiring illegals question.

 

[Shogun]

The grass cutters would also qualify if they arrive with their own equipment and supervise themselves. They wouldn't be your employees either.

You're being silly. You certainly couldn't have an unlicensed company build your house with out running afoul of your city, county, and state government...but for totally different reasons.

Look on the IRS website about what is and is not considered domestic and or the differences between employee/employer relationships and the self-employed contractor. Seriously, we can't get any further on this conversation until you at least understand what is and is not an employee.

Indeed, if you hire a truckload of illegals to brush hog your field you are breaking the law. LEGALLY, they would be your employees since a truckfull of mexicans with tools doesn't equate a LEGAL CONTRACTING OPERATION.

it's still true today as yesterday, Ravi.

NOt necessarily for totally different reasons. YOU want to deflect from the point that a domestic job is NOT going to cover your driveway even if it is just a "one time gig".

And, I have looked at the website. Just because you would toss roofing under the label "domestic" doesn't mean that your opinion is legally viable.


enjoy yur year off, Ravi.

 

[Shogun]

Shog, just because I'm discussing this with you don't take it to mean I'm a law breaker like you are.

And, no, it looks like Walmart KNEW that illegals were being employed and were not told they were legal by the subcontractor.

HA!

yea, purposfully trying to undermine legal labor requirement for the sake of your wallet sure the hell ISNT criminal behaviour.. JUST ASK WAL MART!

and, again, YOU KNOW these people are illegal by evidence of the tenacious excuses you make left and right to rationalize your opinion despite legal standards. Indeed, feel free to make the same mistake they did about shady employment... I mean, who the fuck is the US to tell you not to use illegals, right?

 

[Shogun]

No I'm not, you are. The tools are basically meaningless. You really should take a look at the IRS website. It's so confusing to most people that they even provide a form you can fill out to let the IRS decide if you are hiring an employee or a subcontractor.

Actually, if someone paid an agency a flat fee to provide a nanny, the nanny is the employee of the agency, not the person whose house she is working in.

RAVI, IVE QUOTED THE FUCKING IRS WEBSITE. IVE SEEN IT. and, apparently, I am the one of us that can comprehend it.


and no, if someone pays a flat fee to someone assuming that they paid an agency, they will still get busted for hiring illegals when it turns out that they had not paid an agency at all. Without an AGENCY, or in your case legal contractor, THEY have become the employer just like the role you will fill.

 

[Shogun]

Did you ever cut the grass for your neighbors for pay or babysit when you were a kid?

Guess what? You were probably working illegally.

well, given that Mani was born in the US.... I guess thats one more thing you are wrong about. I hope you are not the one doing HR work for your business.

 

[manifold]

You guys crack me up.

 

[Shogun]

Of course not, I learned it from you.

But it's even more complicated. If I don't pay them under the table, i.e., have them fill out a W-9 and then I 1099 them at the end of the year, I've done nothing illegal. They might have, but I haven't.

As far as I can tell it's the last loophole the Feds haven't closed up on this hiring illegals question.

MEEEEEEP.

wrong.

Don't tell me it's complicated because it isn't as long as one is not trying to fuck over the system and whitewash their own criminal behaviour. You know damn well what you are doing when paying illegals to work for you. The I9 is clear about that. Again, pretending to be ignrant won't save your ass from legal ramifications..

 

[Ravi]

well, given that Mani was born in the US.... I guess thats one more thing you are wrong about. I hope you are not the one doing HR work for your business.

hahahahahaha!

Please tell me that you're pulling my leg about being in HR.



You are KING DOOFUS!!!!

If you ever figure out the difference between an employee and a subcontractor and a business and a private citizen and on what one must pay income tax, please get back to me.

Otherwise, for the sake of keeping you from crying, I will hereby pretend that you are correct.

 

[Shogun]

Hey, I work in this field every day, Ravi.. I've posted my evidence and exposed the illogical bullshit that you think will spitshine the turd of your own criminal behaviour. Believe what you want...

 

[Ravi]

well, given that Mani was born in the US.... I guess thats one more thing you are wrong about. I hope you are not the one doing HR work for your business.

Now that I've stopped laughing, the reason I told Manuel he was working illegally is because I'm willing to bet he wasn't claiming taxable income and filing a return. Even minor children have to pay taxes if they make over a certain amount.

And how are you sure he was born in the US, anyway?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

 

[Shogun]

Now that I've stopped laughing, the reason I told Manuel he was working illegally is because I'm willing to bet he wasn't claiming taxable income and filing a return. Even minor children have to pay taxes if they make over a certain amount.

And how are you sure he was born in the US, anyway?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

id say my first indication is that he would be a kid pushing a lawn mower down the street. Say, how many illegals do you see in the 12-15 age range again? As opposed to, say, a bunch of mexicans hoping that some cheap bastard will HIRE them for day labor, eh?

indeed, we generally see the lowest taxable income bracket breached by kids mowing grass, dont we?

 

[roomy]

I initially wrote a lengthy response. But it all boiled down to this:

If you are willing to make an exception for a particular individual merely because his personal circumstances tugged at your heart -then what's the FUCKING POINT of the system itself? I'm pretty sure I can make an equally poignant case for just about anyone -rich or poor. If you find a legitimate reason for a PARTICULAR person to not abide by the rules -that is a pretty good indictment of the entire system itself. And an acknowledgement that you actually believe the individual has primary responsibility for himself and NOT government. And that the individual will consistently act in his own best interests in spite of whatever government system he lives under or the laws thereof. Which means there is something inherently wrong with ANY system that claims it can EVER know what is in the individual's best interests over his own personal judgment. You can't be a socialist/communist and say you believe this is just a matter of "good luck if he can get away with it" because the system the far left loves actually requires EVERYONE to abide by the identical rules at all times. If you believe in exceptions to those rules, you are only admitting that it isn't a question of "if" your preferred system collapses -just when. And not oddly enough -history has proven that to be exactly true.

Thanks for your considered reply, in essence I agree with you, but you still haven't answered the question.