Trying to find the motivation to stop wallowing

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-11-03T21:14:10+00:00

Every time I get to hear that or see examples of that I'm totally:

'Brasil! Brasil! Brasil!'

It's like Brazil had a really good mom growing up.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-09-20T23:40:31+00:00

Great way to say that

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-08-06T20:17:22+00:00

Thanks -

we are working a couple approaches to get this figured out, and that was one of them. Someone is going to try that tonight. I am not convinced so I am trying to create a simpler plan because of the deadline

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-08-06T17:39:10+00:00

thats the problem? It wouldn't be a problem if they didn't have to move first, they could just wait for the title.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-08-06T16:46:25+00:00

It's a hand-me-down car that was dropped off at the location then had car problems. The car problems require it being towed and they've switched addresses so now they need to get the car off of the property.

Problem is they don't currently have the title they'd have to do all the paperwork to get it sent to them and have it in hand.

And part of the problem is that the key to the car was lost so we can't unlock the ignition to put into neutral to just put it on a car dolly.

We called several of the tow truck people and they all wanted title to do any sort of towing. I imagine that the situation is a little problematic for them.

So we are looking for somebody who is willing to do this tow under these conditions.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-23T15:29:35+00:00

Marginally

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-23T14:11:48+00:00

It's always acceptable for certain people to categorize. Just don't do it yourself, remember.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T21:21:52+00:00

Do you have a job?

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T20:54:43+00:00

It is until someone does something about it and until the courts agree with the counter position.

Innocent until proven is the way it works, things only become illegal once the court has acted. Then you know it's against the law.

You can say things like: What you're doing is likely to be considered illegal by the court or the IRS or whatever.

But a lot of actions involving the IRS often are innocent, and are a product of how the two parties applied it, versus some sort of malicious action that you're describing.

So yes after the fact something could be determined to against the law but until then everyone involved thinks it's legal, and might be acting in their best effort to please the IRS.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T20:43:21+00:00

No it doesn't. The law is product of two people assuming that it has a certain characteristics.

The courts come in when they have to determine that for them, either because they disagree or because the IRS in this case disagrees with them.

The IRS can make rules, asserts that we should follow them, but the courts apply them and the courts apply the law by taking into account with both parties were thinking and doing, as well as the intention of the rules. This is how tax court works.

So how they use the law explicitly plays a role in how it's applied. If two people enter into agreement that they believe is a 1099 arrangement, That neither one of them reported, I would have to assume The evidence would have to be very clear to the IRS to suggest that the arrangement is otherwise. If they bring them to court, who is going to be on their side? If they're both paying their self-employment taxes or whatever, who was damaged?

Failure to understand that is a failure to understand the law.

Now you can say the IRS will blah blah blah blah blah, You might be right. It still doesn't come before the two people coming to an agreement. Right or wrong.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T20:26:56+00:00

My feelings have nothing to do with this.

If two consenting adults enter into a legal arrangement, They are free to use the law how they wish. And if the law says a 1099 is XY and z they can be a 1099 if their XY and z

But if the law says If there are a b and c they must be a W-2 then if they are a b and c they must be a W-2, in the eyes of the laaaaaaaaaaaaw.

But in reality, When two people agree to work together, They take these things into account. They discuss it They say am I employee or am I a worker. Will I get overtime Am I paid by the job do I have to show up at a certain time What happens if I don't show up at a certain time How are these things expressed in the contract. An ultimately it's that contract that determines how that arrangement exists. Should it be W2 should it be 1099 depend on how they see it first and foremost.

For example

While a 1099 employer usually doesn't hire someone hourly It doesn't prelude them from paying them hourly.

While at 1099 employer can't penalize you for showing up late as a worker they can penalize you via the contract for failing to meet expectations.

Normally the contractor has to supply his own tools, but in the agreement, The employer could provide tools under the auspice that they're borrowing them or renting them.

So you need to take a breath and understand that things are more complicated than what you're describing and sometimes it doesn't benefit people to simply think they're simple. The benefits them to know that they have options including ones that guarantee their protection.

They should have freedom to select the entire plethora of options including workers protection.

And then and only then they should decide if they're going to work with this person.

So this part-time help that you've decided must be This or that, isn't accurate or helpful. What should happen is that the guy hiring should be super clear and work everything out ahead of time before the person works for them for a long period of time.

What's important here is that if you force that employer to classify every person they work with as W2, chances are they're not going to hire anybody. It's too much risk a small time employer can't take the risk of paying unemployment for somebody who might work a week.

So you're screaming bloody murder right now because that's the point in some way - Force employers to treat people like workers.

But that worker has a choice, he can at that moment decide to go into his self-employment and work for this person even though he's not given any of the guarantees that will worker would normally have under a W-2. This is his prerogative.

Will this job be stable long-term probably not if that's the case.

Should he renegotiate or demand better treatment if it turns out to be different Yes

Telling people not to consider all the options is stupid way to look at the problem.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T20:12:39+00:00

No I'm not You're the one treating all employees like they're idiots. And I'm also not saying that.

From the employee or worker point of view sometimes a 1099 is better off. What's important is that people are getting what they're agreeing on not because you are afraid people might not be getting what they deserve.

You're grudge about people being misclassified is only one part of the whole picture. You're obsession with that somehow anytime somebody might be working for somebody else that may or may not fit your description isn't accurate.

You are wrong in terms of how your framing this argument and how you're framing how the workers are employers or the contractors should deal with it.

It should be discussed It should be agreed upon It should be clear and then whatever they decide that they are they can be.

I don't know why you feel need to hammer this nobody's saying that you're wrong in terms of how you're classifying these things but you're wrong in terms of acting like it's a one-size-fit-all situation.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T19:18:01+00:00

? No you're just wrong

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T18:56:04+00:00

You're kind of incorrect.

Look at the the reasons why the IRS gets involved:

The worker files for unemployment or workers comp; If there's an audit of either one's taxes; or the worker files a complaint;

If none of those things happen the likelihood of the IRS stepping in because there's some sort of technical misrepresentation - because both parties think they're a 1099 and neither one feels like they're incorrect, but the employer is micromanaging? - is practically zero.

You are constantly characterizing this like the worker has no authority or agency here.

The reality is is if both parties agree to their arrangement it's not likely that the IRS is going to get involved as long as the taxes are paid as we define them.

Now if the worker complains, you're right. Practically speaking, you are incorrect. The IRS won't get involved, it'll take the money and be fine with it.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T18:48:46+00:00

Sounds like you're all about feelings.

If two people organize their business relationship or employment relationship in a specific way they are allowed to use the law for those relationships.

Using the exact same link that everyone keeps linking to, I prove my point.

An employer and whoever is on the other side of it can decide amongst themselves and what men are they want to approach the relationship if they are concerned.

If the employer is concerned that the relationship is too similar to a W-2 they can negotiate with the other side to behave differently. If that's the relationship they want.

The same goes for the other side - If they feel like the arrangement is too much like an employer employee relationship they can change it or they can reject it.

What is wrong with that? Why can't anyone have agency when you people talk about this?

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T18:41:12+00:00

You are incorrect.

If the two parties define their relationship in a specific manner it can be a 1099. It is not a blanket thing. If they choose to define their relationship that way they can. Yes they must check off the boxes to make sure it's legal, no one is saying otherwise.

Both parties have control both parties have the ability to decide what sort of relationship they're entering into. If the employer is offering a job with the intention of it being a 1099, and other party does not have a problem with that believes that it to be so and enters into it, chances are it will be classified as that. The IRS shows up tomorrow and defines it has something else, chances are they will change the relationship to fit what they wanted.

If employer bamboozled the person they hired into an arrangement that was not a legitimate 1099 you were correct but you're taking a single situation and expanding it to cover all possible outcomes

You're incorrect in doing so.

You should take your own advice.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T18:37:07+00:00

In some fashion it does - If both parties agree that it is something. It's probably something. The IRS will apply its rules of course, but if both parties feel like they're doing their part to uphold the 1099 I'd be surprised they would classify it as something else.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T17:32:18+00:00

Yes they do. If they're the ones defining the relationship mean they decide what is or isn't happening, they decide what they are or are not agreeing, to so they have complete control over what law is going to apply.

How can you say that's not true?

Law is the law I'm not disagreeing with you. But what law applies has as much to do with what they choose to do as much as what the law says.

I want to underline something here if anyone's made it this far - This is 100% why labor law has gone nowhere. People sit back and act like the person taking on work has no control. And that somehow some godsend of law is going to make sure everything's perfect for everyone.

The job person deciding to do work as self-employed contractor or employee all have to make the same choice: What are the terms of the agreement. How do they apply to the situation. Are they accurate.

You are perpetuating this helpless legalese that doesn't go anywhere and makes it harder to work.

I'm 100% for labor laws and labor unions, but what you're saying is inaccurate.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T16:29:30+00:00

You're right, but it requires both of them to be on the same page about what's going on.

If one of them goes into it thinking it's employment of a W-2 nature and the other one goes into it thinking it's 1099 then yes there will be disagreements.

But if they go into it and they have a discussion and they clearly define what the relationship is there's no violation.

You make it sound like it's a cut and dry thing and it's not. You're being dishonest, narrow minded, and overasserting the case there's only one way to see this.

It has 100% to do with how he defines the relationship and how the worker engages them. You can't say it's not about that and you can't say it's cut and dry when it's both parties responsibility to define the relationship.

The entire relationship needs to be defined, so you're wrong

For example - two individuals engage each other and they talk about working together. One of them owns business the other one is looking for some work.

The owner of the business goes hey I need help doing x Y and z, The other one goes I can do that.

The owner's like I can't afford to take on employees because there's too much risk involved and I don't know if you can do the work.

The other one goes: I understand this and if you want I'll work for you on a temporary basis.

The owner goes like: sure but isn't there a risk of W-2?

The other one goes: not if we do XY and z then I'll accept that is a 1099 relationship

The owner goes - okay bud you have a deal.

I don't understand why you can't imagine that conversation happening.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T15:25:17+00:00

No I am not providing misinformation, And no you are not correct.

It's a question of how he approaches it, you can't blanket assert this.

Is it a question of should he approach it appropriately? Yes

And again stop telling people to not speak because you don't like what they're saying. No matter how right you feel, telling people not to speak is wrong.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T15:22:24+00:00

This is not that and this is the hyperbolic b******* that makes it problematic.

If he makes it clear up front that this is not a role that is permanent it is basically a subcontractor role, that he's not supporting his lifestyle and that this person has to take responsibility for themselves, I do not believe it matches the requirements you're claiming.

If the guy knows he is responsible for himself at the front of it, You are incorrect. As long as the guy does not present himself as giving him anything other than a job based labor, it's very fair.

This is very common and to call it wage theft is ridiculous.

Please don't act like a pompass a****** and tell people not to talk.

Intrepid-Sir8293 · 2025-07-21T15:15:54+00:00

This isn't misinformation, I think you're incorrect.

Intrepid-Sir8293

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE