Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
blahblahblah
ParticipantI’m an independent contractor. I just run everything through a corporation. Not looking for employees.
The thing is, if my customer ends the job (i.e. they stop paying my corporation), then I can’t fire myself and collect unemployment from my own corporation. It isn’t allowed – or so I’ve been told. So, why then, should I be paying in ?
The same situation exists for independent contractors working without their own corporation. They work on a “1099” where the client corporation pays them directly as an individual. They still have to pay in to unemployment (not the customer) and are not allowed to draw from it.
It’s called a “self employment” tax
Your corporation can most certainly lay you, the employee, off if there is a business need to do so (no contracts certainly satisfies this condition). And of course if your corporation’s bank account runs dry, the corporation can go out of business and you, the employee can most certainly collect unemployment benefits in that case. Your corporation and you personally are two completely separate entities.
I am not a lawyer although I play one on television 🙂
Self-employment tax is entirely different. It is a federal tax that corresponds to the employer’s contributions to SS and MDCR. Since you are an employee in California, your employer (your corporation) is paying state unemployment, state disability, and probably a few other things I can’t remember at the moment on your behalf. Independent contractors are probably not eligible for state unemployment, although I’m not 100% sure on that one…
I actually just re-read your post and it sounds like you are billing your corporation as an independent contractor rather than having payroll from your company with fed/state deductions, etc… so yeah it may be different in your case.
ParticipantMy corporation is paid by another corporation who hires me. They don’t pay unemployment because I’m not their employee.
I’m employed by a corporation I own. Therefore, I “pay in” out of my own pocket when my corporation pays me a salary.
So in the scenario you describe, you are not actually unemployed. Analogous situations would be a law firm with no clients, a dentist with no customers, etc… You would only become unemployed if the corporation you own lays you, the employee, off. Unlikely to happen, but not unheard of. Perhaps your company grows, you hire some employees to take over your tasks, and you no longer require your services. At that point, the corporation could lay you off, you could collect unemployment, and — wait for it — you would still get your distribution if the company is profitable.
ParticipantMy corporation is paid by another corporation who hires me. They don’t pay unemployment because I’m not their employee.
I’m employed by a corporation I own. Therefore, I “pay in” out of my own pocket when my corporation pays me a salary.
So in the scenario you describe, you are not actually unemployed. Analogous situations would be a law firm with no clients, a dentist with no customers, etc… You would only become unemployed if the corporation you own lays you, the employee, off. Unlikely to happen, but not unheard of. Perhaps your company grows, you hire some employees to take over your tasks, and you no longer require your services. At that point, the corporation could lay you off, you could collect unemployment, and — wait for it — you would still get your distribution if the company is profitable.
ParticipantMy corporation is paid by another corporation who hires me. They don’t pay unemployment because I’m not their employee.
I’m employed by a corporation I own. Therefore, I “pay in” out of my own pocket when my corporation pays me a salary.
So in the scenario you describe, you are not actually unemployed. Analogous situations would be a law firm with no clients, a dentist with no customers, etc… You would only become unemployed if the corporation you own lays you, the employee, off. Unlikely to happen, but not unheard of. Perhaps your company grows, you hire some employees to take over your tasks, and you no longer require your services. At that point, the corporation could lay you off, you could collect unemployment, and — wait for it — you would still get your distribution if the company is profitable.
ParticipantMy corporation is paid by another corporation who hires me. They don’t pay unemployment because I’m not their employee.
I’m employed by a corporation I own. Therefore, I “pay in” out of my own pocket when my corporation pays me a salary.
So in the scenario you describe, you are not actually unemployed. Analogous situations would be a law firm with no clients, a dentist with no customers, etc… You would only become unemployed if the corporation you own lays you, the employee, off. Unlikely to happen, but not unheard of. Perhaps your company grows, you hire some employees to take over your tasks, and you no longer require your services. At that point, the corporation could lay you off, you could collect unemployment, and — wait for it — you would still get your distribution if the company is profitable.
ParticipantMy corporation is paid by another corporation who hires me. They don’t pay unemployment because I’m not their employee.
I’m employed by a corporation I own. Therefore, I “pay in” out of my own pocket when my corporation pays me a salary.
So in the scenario you describe, you are not actually unemployed. Analogous situations would be a law firm with no clients, a dentist with no customers, etc… You would only become unemployed if the corporation you own lays you, the employee, off. Unlikely to happen, but not unheard of. Perhaps your company grows, you hire some employees to take over your tasks, and you no longer require your services. At that point, the corporation could lay you off, you could collect unemployment, and — wait for it — you would still get your distribution if the company is profitable.
ParticipantI don’t give a flying f*** about a few layabout lifeguards paying into unemployment for a few months and then withdrawing for a while. Hell I should have done that when I was younger, I probably would have had more fun. But criminal finance oligarchs that extort billions in bailouts for themselves and their buddies, that gets me angry.
ParticipantI don’t give a flying f*** about a few layabout lifeguards paying into unemployment for a few months and then withdrawing for a while. Hell I should have done that when I was younger, I probably would have had more fun. But criminal finance oligarchs that extort billions in bailouts for themselves and their buddies, that gets me angry.
ParticipantI don’t give a flying f*** about a few layabout lifeguards paying into unemployment for a few months and then withdrawing for a while. Hell I should have done that when I was younger, I probably would have had more fun. But criminal finance oligarchs that extort billions in bailouts for themselves and their buddies, that gets me angry.
ParticipantI don’t give a flying f*** about a few layabout lifeguards paying into unemployment for a few months and then withdrawing for a while. Hell I should have done that when I was younger, I probably would have had more fun. But criminal finance oligarchs that extort billions in bailouts for themselves and their buddies, that gets me angry.
ParticipantI don’t give a flying f*** about a few layabout lifeguards paying into unemployment for a few months and then withdrawing for a while. Hell I should have done that when I was younger, I probably would have had more fun. But criminal finance oligarchs that extort billions in bailouts for themselves and their buddies, that gets me angry.
ParticipantWhen this is appearing in the WSJ, we are about to move into phase 3 of this operation. In phase 3, the institutions holding MBSes are threatened with extinction when mortgage holders stop making payments. The well-connected of these institutions will soon receive bailouts, they’ll retain ownership of the properties, and either rent them back to the previous “owners” (who were really tenants all along) or sell them and pocket the cash. In effect, the US government will have paid to construct lots of housing, and then given it free of charge to financial institutions. Those same institutions will then collect rent in perpetuity or just sell the houses. It’s a win-win, just as long as you’re in the loop (which none of us are).
ParticipantWhen this is appearing in the WSJ, we are about to move into phase 3 of this operation. In phase 3, the institutions holding MBSes are threatened with extinction when mortgage holders stop making payments. The well-connected of these institutions will soon receive bailouts, they’ll retain ownership of the properties, and either rent them back to the previous “owners” (who were really tenants all along) or sell them and pocket the cash. In effect, the US government will have paid to construct lots of housing, and then given it free of charge to financial institutions. Those same institutions will then collect rent in perpetuity or just sell the houses. It’s a win-win, just as long as you’re in the loop (which none of us are).
ParticipantWhen this is appearing in the WSJ, we are about to move into phase 3 of this operation. In phase 3, the institutions holding MBSes are threatened with extinction when mortgage holders stop making payments. The well-connected of these institutions will soon receive bailouts, they’ll retain ownership of the properties, and either rent them back to the previous “owners” (who were really tenants all along) or sell them and pocket the cash. In effect, the US government will have paid to construct lots of housing, and then given it free of charge to financial institutions. Those same institutions will then collect rent in perpetuity or just sell the houses. It’s a win-win, just as long as you’re in the loop (which none of us are).
-
AuthorPosts
