Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, California makes companies withhold on 1099s at least according to a tax accountant I asked... I wasn't even saying I was for or against it. Just that it is an option.
If that happens, get ready to with hold taxes for the people you employ.
We don't hire 1099s and never have. We've been withholding taxes for decades. Why you're such a freakin' know-it-all is beyond me.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 04-08-2016 at 01:39 PM..
Yes, California makes companies withhold on 1099s at least according to a tax accountant I asked...
I'm not going to look it up, but neither am I going to take the word of someone who heard from someone that this is the case, but very few "guest workers" in Alaska are working as 1099s, so it's sort of a moot point. I'm guessing this is about the agricultural workers Cal. gets, which would make sense because those workers move from place to place with the crops.
Quote:
Never said I was an expert on AK tourism
I must have gotten that impression from statements like this:
Quote:
Florida survives primarily by sales and tourist taxes... Alaska will too..
Of course there isn't one blanket solution. This thing didn't happen all at once despite how it looks, and the problems won't go away immediately either.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 04-08-2016 at 01:59 PM..
We don't hire 1099s and never have. We've been withholding taxes for decades. Why you're such a freakin' know-it-all is beyond me.
You previous statements made it sound like it's temp. employment.... and not w-2 employment.
I never said one thing was the answer... It's a combo... Florida has sales taxes, property taxes, and tourist taxes to survive.... AK could do the same and help it along... That's all I said. Something to look at.
The person I asked is a CPA in tax accounting... so you don't have to trust me, but that is who I asked... It is tax time so those discussions are easy to have...
BTW, good for you for paying federal taxes via w-2s on your seasonal temp workers. Not many people do. Assuming you do that, because like you said, all I can do is take your word for it on an anonymous blog.
You previous statements made it sound like it's temp. employment.... and not w-2 employment.
I never said one thing was the answer... It's a combo... Florida has sales taxes, property taxes, and tourist taxes to survive.... AK could do the same and help it along... That's all I said. Something to look at.
The person I asked is a CPA in tax accounting... so you don't have to trust me, but that is who I asked... It is tax time so those discussions are easy to have...
BTW, good for you for paying federal taxes via w-2s on your seasonal temp workers. Not many people do. Assuming you do that, because like you said, all I can do is take your word for it on an anonymous blog.
I don't think you have any clue about what you're talking about, as usual. Do you even know what a 1099 worker even is? It doesn't sound as if you have any idea.
Most seasonal temporary workers aren't 1099 workers in Alaska, California, or anywhere. I'm pretty sure you're talking about nonresident agriculture workers in California who are paid by the project instead of on an hourly basis, but most seasonal temp. workers aren't classified as 1099s in Alaska. I couldn't hire that way even if I wanted to.
Regulations are pretty strict about who can be classified as 1099 workers, and fines are steep. I don't doubt a CPA told you that; what I doubt is your interpretation and your ability to understand the complexities of the situation.
As far as your smarmy little comments about "taking my word for it," I don't owe you or anyone else any proof that our business operates in an above board manner. It's been there 35 years and will be there 35 more, long after you and your family have hit the highway. I'd say I'm sorry to be harsh, but when you start in on my family's business without even knowing what you're talking about, that's when I stop giving a damn about how I treat you.
You can educate yourself on 1099 workers starting here although it's probably too complex for you. I can only dumb it down so much, but hourly employees don't qualify.
You previous statements made it sound like it's temp. employment.... and not w-2 employment.
BS.
This is probably also above your head, but most of the comments I've made about seasonal employees in Alaska are specific to places like Princess and Trident who routinely hire from overseas labor markets; I've made that clear in plenty of posts. We're a small specialty processor who uses primarily local labor with a few imports from Washington State or Oregon.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 04-08-2016 at 07:53 PM..
For anyone who's actually interested in the truth instead of whatever Dakster is trying to claim, states with large agricultural industries such as California have provisions where agricultural workers can be paid on a piecework basis, therefore qualifying them for 1099 classification. It's pretty much a way to screw over Mexican migrant workers (I'd be embarrassed to do business that way, actually). This doesn't translate to all seasonal workers in all parts of the country and in different industries, and certainly not to Alaska's seasonal worker population, whether they're from overseas or not.
This claim that all seasonal temporary workers are 1099s has got to be one of the stupidest things I've seen on this forum yet. The people who work for me are no more 1099s than those who get holiday jobs at Costco or WalMart.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 04-08-2016 at 09:40 PM..
"This claim that all seasonal temporary workers are 1099s has got to be one of the stupidest things I've seen on this forum yet."
How about this one, I think it qualifies!
"I was hoping to find there some land in the bush cause the browns were able to find some land there and thats the only city I know in Alaska"
"This claim that all seasonal temporary workers are 1099s has got to be one of the stupidest things I've seen on this forum yet."
How about this one, I think it qualifies!
"I was hoping to find there some land in the bush cause the browns were able to find some land there and thats the only city I know in Alaska"
LOL -- that was probably a (pretty good) troll post, though. I have high hopes for the troll from Belgium.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 04-08-2016 at 10:09 PM..
I've done plenty of work and been paid via 1099 as has my wife for the past 20+ years as an accountant. At my last place of employment, we 1099'd dozens of people... One has been there for 16 years continuously worked at least 40 hours a week, and still gets a 1099. We 1099 a whole lot of people and last I checked were not tending fields. I guess they are all law breakers.
I'm sure as heck not sending you years of tax returns to prove we got paid via 1099 for work over the years and the wife currently does today. I don't get paid for work anymore, I just collect a retirement check. My only concern is if the state of AK wants to tax my pension income, they should fairly tax everyone working or living in the state. Even if it's only 4 people in the entire state of AK get a 1099, then why should they be exempt from income taxes? If this a loophole that would remain, I bet that hypothetical 4 would all of a sudden balloon and you see a lot of employers figuring out how to make as many employees as possible contract workers. And as you say, no one here gets a 1099, then why do you care if those get withholding?
--
Regarding the changes to the way the state brings in revenue.
It appears that the PFD reduction is gained traction in the senate now. I do feel bad for the folks that depend on it to survive. Although it doesn't look like it will be totally eliminated by the latest proposal, it sure looks like all sides of the legislature are going after it.
The question I have, is that apparently this has been tried many times before without success, so what makes it different this time in that it would succeed? Only because so far it appears that the overall population won't support it, the politicians need the PFD check as 'bribe' to get re-elected as has been stated here before. No one has been able to point o the fiscal emergency clause in the PFD language, so there has to been some popular support to do this from somewhere?
I've done plenty of work and been paid via 1099 as has my wife for the past 20+ years as an accountant. At my last place of employment, we 1099'd dozens of people... One has been there for 16 years continuously worked at least 40 hours a week, and still gets a 1099. We 1099 a whole lot of people and last I checked were not tending fields. I guess they are all law breakers.
This is pretty ridiculous since I never claimed that the only workers who are eligible for 1099 status are field workers. I merely explained to you that seasonal/temp. workers who punch a time clock aren't eligible for 1099 status. Tried to dumb it down as much as I could. Sorry you can't understand. I work 1099 myself on a lot of projects, so I'm pretty familiar with how it works (before you go off half cocked with yet even more typical BS, these projects have nothing to do with my business).
Let's see if you can follow this this time: the. situation. you. mentioned. in. California. is. because. of. legislation. specific. to. agricultural. workers. in. that. state. Other agricultural states have similar measures, but none of them are transferable to Alaska's seasonal employees or even to seasonal employees in other industries in California. California probably has more seasonal resort workers than Alaska, but they aren't 1099s.
I also never stated that 1099s should be exempt from income taxes -- or that they are. I would think that you would realize that 1099s are reported to both state and federal taxing agencies. This is probably another challenge for your comprehension abilities, but if Alaska were to institute a personal income tax, those who use the services of 1099 workers would be required by law to file the appropriate paperwork (before you go off half-cocked about how most companies don't file that paperwork, but they've got nothing to gain and a lot to lose by not doing so).
Quote:
I bet that hypothetical 4 would all of a sudden balloon and you see a lot of employers figuring out how to make as many employees as possible contract workers
I'm sure Alaska has a fair amount of people who work on a 1099 basis, and it's ridiculous for you to try to claim that I've stated otherwise. Again, I was merely explaining that temporary seasonal workers aren't eligible. It also isn't necessarily a cost-saving measure for companies to pay on a 1099 basis.
It'll be interesting to see how you try to twist what I've just typed.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 04-09-2016 at 03:08 AM..
Apparently I misunderstood your post that few jobs are 1099 possible. I thought you shot back that there are not a lot of 1099 jobs out there. And from knowledge of the people I know that own and run businesses, you can structure it to be a 1099. But you choose not to and if you recall I gave you a compliment for doing that.
You put a stricter definition of what California does with 1099's. I merely said that AK could do it and it wouldn't be the only state in the US that does it, because California already does. Even if California didn't do it at all, my OPINION is that AK SHOULD if they implement an income tax. Someone shot back in this or another thread that it was illegal... And well, if it is then someone needs to tell California. Not my fight or problem. I don't pick the fields in California, nor do I work or own property there and I don't care what California requires or does. My wife does, because she has clients that do.
Alaska, regardless of you, me, or California will make it's own rules anyways. Hopefully taking into account the wishes of the residents and business owners in the state. Again, my OPINION, is that 1099s shouldn't be exempt. Regardless of where the person lives, if they work in AK, and we decide that part of the solution is an income tax, they should be taxed. You can agree or disagree. That's my opinion today as no one has shown me why an income tax, if implemented shouldn't be distributed across the board in a fair manner. And since you don't do 1099's why do you care? It doesn't even affect you at all?
My opinion, is that it's not bad practice to research other states as a guide and apparently AK does. AK sends it's people all over the L48 to talk to state governments. A recent example being Colorado and their pot laws/regulations. AK is one of only a handful of states without a sales or income tax, which again, in my opinion, is why the state is looking at those as part of the solution.
- Furthering my opinion on why 1099s should be a part of this -- Please post reasons why they shouldn't? I'm all ears, maybe you'll convince me otherwise?
Depending on which source you read non-farm payroll 1099 jobs make up around 34% of all income filings in the U.S. at the low end. I'm looking for Alaska specific data, but the state by state breakdown is tougher to find. I understand that the way you operate your business isn't that way.
Here is just one study. There are others, but I am not going to post link after link... This one lands in the middle with 38% filing 1099's. " In 2014, there were about 235 million W-2s issued, and only about 91 million 1099-MISCs"
A lot of the article are forecasting that 1099's will overtake w-2s, but of course the data isn't there yet. But I still consider 34% on the low end to 40% on the high end leaving a lot of "income" tax on the table should AK go that way. I would have thought you would be happier for an income tax rather than we just double tax your business.
One of the worries is that Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb were going to gut the w-2 workforce numbers, but that trend started before those companies were online. Uber and Lyft are ding to get into the AK market too. They were here, but the legislature chased them out. I'm sure that the Taxi industry would want Uber and Lyft driver's taxed the same way they are. I know one of the large Taxi lobby's efforts to block Uber and Lyft from Anchorage was because of the unfair cost advantage they had. I have mixed feelings about this, on one hand I would like competition as it drives down costs, but on the other hand it isn't fair to the cab companies that pay hundreds of thousands for medallions, only to have another company come in, steal their business without having to pay for a medallion.
The other point I was trying to make if that if you put a burden on W-2 providers and not on 1099 providers, the number of people that get 1099s is going to increase. (again, my opinion)
I'm not trying to be combative, just post why I think what I think. It isn't like this forum is going to shape any public policy, rules, laws, or taxes. I would be stunned if the people that are going to craft some bill and legislation are taking this thread into account.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We've been withholding taxes for decades. Why you're such a freakin' know-it-all is beyond me.
