The IRS could be watching this thread!

I wonder if the IRS still pays a bounty for tax cheats?
Could be a source for additional income and it would get rid of those pesky low price/cash only wannabes that pop up every spring.

I don't know about the IRS but I sure wish someone would listen and give some thought to the damage done by our ridiculous tax code.

fairtax.org

I read George's ad as the the intern was to pay HIM for the education, and also pay George for housing if needed, not the other way around. It seems to me that as long as the "tuition" is reported to the IRS as income, there should not be any problem with that agency.
So the problems associated with this would fall into the realm of dealing with your liability insurance.
I know that Markel for example differentiates between an apprentice, helper and subcontractor. You have to pay more insurance for having someone with you, and the amount depends on how the "intern" is classified" for the insurance companies purposes.

Bill Adams wrote:
I read through the site except for the PDF's. Last time I tried to install adobe my comuter crashed and it took me a few days to get it back. We aren't doing that again. LOL

Anyway, I don't agree with tieing taxes to consumption any more than I do income or property value.

The only fair tax is one where every eligeable tax payer pays an EQUAL share of the debt. If you know how much money you're going to spend and how many tax payers you have, it's a simple devision. It's none of the governments business how much you make, what your home is worth or what you spend.

If you want to live here and have the same benefits as everyone else, you pay your share. Simple as that, yet folks who are successful aren't penalized for it by being forced to pay someone elses way. At the same time, dead beats don't get a free ride.

That individual tax bill, of course, needs to be an amount that people can afford. That means that the government MUST get by on what they can afford like the rest of us do.

As it is, they just keep spending. After they spend, they go looking for a group wealthy enough and/or politically weak enough to get the money from without much of a fight.

In the mean time, where is all the money going? There's no meaningful accounting and there certainly is no accountability.

calshoer wrote:

That's his second add...no problem with that one....it is his first ad looking for an apprentice that I don't think you could make work the way he proposed it without legal problems.....

You are right though about the insurance side being complicated by this as well.

Dave

Dave Whitaker wrote:

Why not let them carry their own insurance?

Mike Ferrara wrote:

That's fine..... no harm in that at all.....but I don't think it will matter much on your own rates.

I know that the rates for my commercial liability insurance on MYSELF are affected by whether or not I have someone working with me, in my "care, custody, or control" . I think that's what Patty was referring to.

If they show up in your truck, use your tools, work on your horses, under your direction, I'm afraid you own 'em. Call them whatever you want, they are employees.

Dave

Dave Whitaker wrote:
Got it.

I hadn't really thought of that when I posted.

So in addition to our tax code we can add tort law/insurance to the list of deterrents.

When I first started out I hired more experienced farriers as subcontractors to work for me. I scheduled the work, paid for all the expenses, and paid the subcontractor a flat $600/day fee.

Bradley-1stChoice wrote:
They generally carry semi-automatics under their coat and have the SWAT teams do the real dirty work. This is true.

Interesting stuff, and a well informed compilation.

Lets say two farriers (both skilled tradesmen working to help one another) work out all the details for one to be a subcontractor. How would you work out the pay.


I am looking at a couple of big barns out of state, most of the tools are on site, I will be purchasing and managing the supplies needed to do the work.

One barn I would need to drive my rig out, supply the inventory and my buddy would meet me there.

Any thoughts on how to split the spoils?

I have a one rate for the day .. All costs covered ,he bills me for the day over his books as farrier work .
I stand for everything that could happen ,he just does a days work .

This will slowly stop as he gets more work ,so take care that you don't have more work on your books than you can cover at a push alone ,and having the guy with you is a bonus with the reward for your work and a little extra from what he does .

It sure is a matter of trust to.

Jason RoTramel wrote:
A friend of mine and I work together quite a bit. In some cases, it's at barns where we both have clients. We work together, I bill for mine and he bills for his. He's had some injuries and time off in the last few years so, at one time or another, I've billed many of his clients. At the same time, much of my work was his at one time. The only thing I'm getting at here is that we can just split the billing how we see fit and most clients wouldn't think anything of getting the bill from "the other guy".

I also work with him on one large account that he took back after his last lay-off. I drive to his place, throw my box and a few things in his truck and he drives from there. Since it's his account, his materials and he does the driving, we split accordingly. He bills the client and files, and copies me with, a 1099.

As far as I can tell, it meets the IRS requirements of a subcontractor, though, maybe I should be invoicing him for the work I do?

In any case, the taxes are paid. He doesn't pay WC on me but nobody pays it for me the rest of the week either.

In case none of you has noticed, our government is sucking up all the productivity. They profit more from our labvor than we do just as they make more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies.

Just take comfort in the fact that Obama's wife and kids really enjoy the European tours on AF2 that we finance for them.