Why does the saying "We're looking out for YOUR best" interest mean the opposite?

[Evil_T0NY {CLR}]

I could never understand this, why does the company or government for that matter use this phrase....when in actuality that means it will actually be the opposite for you

Like Lay offs or cut in pay.

Apparently, Obama is attempting to pass legislation to RE-classify Independent Contractors into regular employees.

This would mean we get less money and this could affect peoples income considerably

Apparently, the govt does NOT want us paying quarterly, but pay as you go like regular employees

Seems with this recession, more and more people are doing the Independent Contractor thing...and the govt is not l liking that, because that means less money for them

They don't your money every quarter, they want it NOW

Of course, they're doing this for OUR best interests and protection.

A lame old cop-out....but again

Why do governing authorities or "Big Wigs" say this, "We're doing this for YOUR protection" or "We're doing this for YOUR best interests!"

When it really means totally the opposite?

[Apache Warrior]

Employers pay more taxes to the government for employees than contractors pay on their own. That is why the rules for who qualifies as contract labor are very strict. All of us employers would rather pay contract labor rather than employees. The savings on payroll taxes is immense.
Employers pay 100% of unemployment taxes. We also have to match what is withheld from paychecks for Social Security and Medicare. So if the employee has $100.00 withheld from Medicare and $200.00 withheld fro Social Security, on the 15th of the next month the employer has to pay the government $600.00 total. That is the $300.00 withheld from the employees paycheck and the $300.00 that the employer has to match.
This is why payroll taxes can be the single biggest expense of any business. Now multiply that by the thousands of employees that large corporations have. if you are a real small company you are required to pay quarterly. Past certain dollar amounts you may have to pay monthly, weekly or even daily.
Apache

[Hammy]

if you can get businesses to pay more taxes, then the federal government can support their spending habits.

If you can get more people from the contract to the full employment category, you can legislate based on factual numbers, not estimates.

If you can get more people into the employment category, then you can boost the Social Security and Medicare funds.

And finally, the more people under full employment, the fewer that the US Government will have to provide for if the Democrats keep pushing the Universal Healthcare initiative, because employers will still need to shell out healthcare funding.


But ultimately, what will happen is that US companies and foreign companies will take additional units of employment offshore and beyond our borders, thus breaking down the US economy even further, and in my opinion- making it even more likely that they can justify taking a socialist point of view in terms of managing the lives of our citizens on behalf of "our best interest" and "looking out for us"

[mapes]

I've also seen the opposite where a company has hired over 50% of their workforce as contact workers. Which is clearly illegal. I think EA was one such company and they got sued.

[Evil_T0NY {CLR}]

I've also seen the opposite where a company has hired over 50% of their workforce as contact workers. Which is clearly illegal. I think EA was one such company and they got sued.

Friend of mine of me was telling me, that this could open up a Pandora's Box, like "Could you imagine if they actually pass this thing, and all IC's go to become an employee??"

[Apache Warrior]

I've also seen the opposite where a company has hired over 50% of their workforce as contact workers. Which is clearly illegal. I think EA was one such company and they got sued.

If the IRS determines that your contract laborers are actually employees, you will be responsible for paying all payroll and unemployment taxes from their beginning hire date. If you hire people as contract labor you had better make sure you meet the IRS's requirements.
Apache

[Evil_T0NY {CLR}]

If the IRS determines that your contract laborers are actually employees, you will be responsible for paying all payroll and unemployment taxes from their beginning hire date. If you hire people as contract labor you had better make sure you meet the IRS's requirements.
Apache

Actually, I'm the contract laborer. Apparently, my cohorts are cryin' the blues, and put them in the poor house. One woman and her husband work for this place as I.C.s' and claims her and her husband will end up "in the gutter" , loose their home, etc, if this passes.

Personally, I think this move will open up a Pandora's box. Anyone?

Though, there are some "employers" that abuse such things, perhaps this is to keep people "in check"?

[Apache Warrior]

If the IRS did not have these rules most employers would hire only contract labor. No payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, no benefits, and best of all no job security.
Apache