marks2065

Isnt it great that some women want to actually serve their country since so many men FAIL at that patriotic duty??? yes it is great that they want to serve and I think they should if they want. but the sub does not allow for seperate quarters and unless they can live with that they should not serve on board a sub.

sorry but I have to dissagree with the last one, but even so the list is far shorter than ANY liberal list I have ever seen.

or the women can just forget about privacy, that seems to be the big hangup. They can learn to pee and shower with the men or not serve on board.

like there is with a national health service? Why not just pass 2 easy bills? one that gives minimums on health insurance coverage and let the insurance co's sell across state lines, and one for tort reform. then sit back and see what happens. Why throw out an entire system only to make one with its own set of problems?

and in about 9 months maybe a baby or 2

A 1099 is a federal form, not an Illinois form. 1099's are generally not required to be issued to Corporations or Partnerships. Seriously, I'm not just making this up. my business is required to 1099 anyone that is not on my payroll that I pay over $600.00 to

>Who requires the hours They are specified by the USPA and mfrs issuing the ratings. The dzo is limited to operating during those hours. The issue is control. This is not in the dz's control. >How many hours Entirely dependent on workload. No two ways about it. No students, no work. Rain, no work. Too windy, no work. The issue is control. This is not in the dz's control. >Who owns the equipment Could be the dz. Could be the instructor. Could be a third party. Regardless of who owns it, the instructor has to have the rating to use it. The issue is control. This is not in the dz's control. you really don't understand do you? if the dzo says you need to be at the dz for 5 days and or over 37.5 hours and you use his equipment you are an employee period. doctors nurses pilots and many other professions have many things like education and licenes that are required but that does not determine wether you are or are not an employee.

If you are an incorporated entity and have indicated that on the form W-9 on file, the customer is not required to issue you a 1099. As such, most people do not. The actual income of an independent contractor that is reported to the IRS is usually only a fraction of reality, unless they are in the category of people who are required to be issued a 1099. In illinois, any subcontractor recieving more than $600 needs to be given a 1099

this is not about me or you, the thread was about people being misclassified. The requirements to do the job are not the issue, who requires the hours, how many hours and who owns the equipment are a few of the main points that determine wether you are an employee or a subcontractor.

Which is why we need full-on soc emds w/o any cuts or other prohibiting provisions. But I guess tax cuts and spending > the rest of the world on teh military trumps that. SO no, I didn't miss that. This is just an article detailing the exponential mess we're in from so many angles. Don't worry tho, HC is dead and you can be delightled that the 30-45M will still not have it and now seniors will lose some benefit too; this is a good day for you, Mike. I bet 10-15 million of those would / could get insurance with a couple little changes to the system we have now. But then government wouldn't control the money and that just pisses the left off.

Doesn't matter? I guess Perris and Eloy will be going to night jumping only during the summer then. If it also doesn't matter that it takes a mfr rating to jump specific tandem gear, then I guess the ratings are worthless. The point I'm making is that the dz can argue (I'm betting this argument has been made successfully) that they do not have sufficient control over their instructors to necessitate that they be W-2 employees. Take it for what you want. You can always protest your 1099 and see where you get. the requirements to do the job do not determine if you are or are not an employee.

On the other side: I would argue that the hours are not set. You are limited to daylight hours by USPA, not the dz. You may choose not to take a student for whatever personal reason or possibly that you will not jump if the winds are too high or the temperature is too cold. The dz may supply tandem rigs, but I would argue that an instructor may or may not be able to use certain equipment based on manufacturer's approval. Also, instructors are free to use their own equipment, manufacturer permitting of course. it does not make a difference that you cannot jump at night or not take a student because of safety reasons, that the hours are set by management and that the dz supplies the equipment does. The equipment manufacturer's requirements do not make any difference, nor do the uspa requirements.

Skydiving instructors? I don't know of any that get a W-2. I certainly didn't when I was a full timer. Just because they did not get a w-2 doesn't mean they were not employess. Many should have been employees and got a w-2. This is the area in question and if looked into by the feds many DZO's would be found to not being correct on how they clasified the instructors and would be fined. DZO's 1099 instructors to save on unemployment, work comp and other fees associated with being an employer. On what grounds would you make the argument that tandem instructors should be W-2 employees instead of independent contractors? - I'll take the other side. -- This is hypothetical of course, but I would love it if a dzo or dz manager would get in here with real life experience. All mine is on the receiving end. If the DZO requires the hours you work, the employment is full time, and the DZO supplies the equipment, in most cases this would be considered an employee not a subcontractor. I am an employer and need to know these things.

Skydiving instructors? I don't know of any that get a W-2. I certainly didn't when I was a full timer. Just because they did not get a w-2 doesn't mean they were not employess. Many should have been employees and got a w-2. This is the area in question and if looked into by the feds many DZO's would be found to not being correct on how they clasified the instructors and would be fined. DZO's 1099 instructors to save on unemployment, work comp and other fees associated with being an employer. Most full time instructors, since they are payed by the jump, should be considered commisioned employees, and in most cases they need to be paid 1.5 times min wage or x-amount of dollars per jump, wich ever is greater.

Not true. Also not true. Read here: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html There is a mountain of case law on this. full time instructors that are required to be at the job during certain hours and do not use their own equipment (tandem rigs) are usually considered employees.

I was being facetious, sorry. The courts should assume he's innocent, not me. My personal opinion is that if he has assets, he should be allowed to use them to defend himself. My gut kinds of admires the tactic the trooper's lawyer is using... but again, no. I don't it's fair. There's a lot of stuff in the legal system that isn't fair. Take public defense for one. It should be just as good as an expensive private defense but we all know it isn't. I think it is very fair, he should have thought before he pulled the trigger. it is about time that a victim got something.

most full time instructors are classified wrong, but I think the DZO's get away with it because they are small companies and under the radar.

Why wouldn't they take the money? the stimulous bill was going to happen with or without rep support and if the people would be paying the bill through their taxes they should get part of it. If you had to pay for part of a house, you would at least want a room in it wouldn't you?

The proper way to change state law is in the state legislature. Not by simply enacting a city ordinance which is in violation of that state law. And then wasting the taxpayers money to defend a lawsuit which they will clearly lose. It kind of demonstrates how the anti-gun folks have no respect for law, and will stop at nothing to get their way. +1

Nice totalitarian view you have there. maybe it is not his totalitarian view but what is actually happening

Oh, what will history dig out of your hero's mess? The 5T debt? The oh so humane care for the people? Please enlighten us as to how GWB will be remembered as a god. And what has Obama done to earn a bad mark so far? I bet you said the same about Clinton early on, then he fixed your hero, Reagans, pile of shit. So much for your prognistications. Don't you mean the rep controled congress fixed the mess? since they did write the bills that clinton signed. or did you mean the dem controlled congress mess in the last 2 years of GWB term since they did write the bills that GWB signed that caused much of the debt that Obama found?

Who started this nonsense? It sure wasn't European Americans, or South African Americans. Now, if they could trace their linage to a country or a tribe, then, they'd have something to brag about. Most American black people would give their eye-teeth to know specifically where and from which tribes their African ancestors were kidnapped from. Maybe they should ask there own people that sold them into slavery.

just maybe the old guard has been around to long and lost touch with reality. maybe they should retire and spend some time enjoying life instead of fucking it up for the rest of us. I thank him for his service, but not for his doings in congress.

I don't understand the figures, how can unemployment drop with a net loss in jobs? or is it that unemployment dropped because people just ran out of benifits and have been dropped from the figures? Right and the GDP numbers are BS too . If the country fails, you're happy, you now feel justified and warm/fuzzy. If the country starts to succeed, you feel robbed and the data must be wrong. just like the left to criticize someone that asked a question.

I absolutely agree with Andy's post above - so, by law, she wasn't a citizen - but the issue is, due to the mistake not her fault, she lost (decades of) opportunity to become a citizen through legal/defined naturalization procedures. So I'd definitely think she should get special consideration to be granted citizenship under these circumstances. However, as to the blue text highlighted - isn't she exactly that already? (2010 is, actually, after 1986) - or does the rule specifically define grandfathering clauses to exclude her situation now? I think it is the laws in effect at the time not what they are now