 |
| The time to turn my words into actions has arrived |
At the beginnings of Capitalism most people worked on a piecework basis. For example in coal mines, miners were paid on the basis of how much coal they produced and not how many hours they worked. Fishermen I believe still work on the old basis and take a share of the catch.
This changed because the owners of the mines noticed that people were limiting production based on how much money they needed for themselves. The 'self-employed' miner working someone's mineshaft changed to become an employed miner who worked set hours. Production increased but the quality of life of the miners declined.
This was the shift from Capitalism to Corporatism.
What does this change from employee to self-employed mean?
Firstly, I shall not be acting as a tax collector for the government any more - I will deduct no social security or income tax from the payments made to them. I shall not be acting as informer for the government either I shall not be providing all manner of personal information as is currently required of me.
Secondly, they will be free to determine when they work, what they do whilst they are at work, the amount of money they earn will be of their own choosing. As free individuals they will not be bound to give periods of notice.
What they lose is - an enforced savings scheme (social security) which offers investors an atrocious return on their money. They will just have to take some responsibility for themselves and set aside some of their money for their own future. I am told that there is a 'sense of security' that employed people apparently feel about not having to worry about their next pay check. It seems to me that not only are employees worried about their next pay check, but that also there can be no real 'sense of security' other than blind faith.
From my perspective this is a 'leap of faith' a belief in my employees as intelligent, capable individuals who having tasted this greater freedom who choose to stick with it, rather than seek to return to the 'security' of being a mere employee. I want to empower these individuals to achieve what they wish to, not seek to exploit them, limit them or control their actions. I believe that by working as partners in a mutually beneficial venture we can achieve more than we do as master and slaves.
Are you sure? I presume that you have spoken to the SS and Income Tax Departments about this proposal.There was a clamping down some years ago against pseudo self employed people who actually worked for a primary employer, Then the policy was to treat them as employeees with all the rights that follow from that relationship. Not least of course is the "right" of government to be able to collect taxes and keep people in tidy, predictable boxes. Did your staff ask for this new "freedom"? Slaves traditionally did not instigate any reforms that affected them...
ReplyDeleteTom Gruchy wonders
As a free man why would I need to speak to anyone before entering into a common law contract with another free man?
ReplyDeleteThe concerns were regarding sickness and pensions. I therefore demonstrated: a) that private health cover was less than a quarter of the cost of social security and that b) they would achieve a better return on their investment if they simply took the money that would have gone to the government and invested it privately and that c) in any case even by the time I am 57 in 2029 there would be no money left in the social security fund so there would be no pension.
They will be much better off financially.
Finally the clue is in your question, "It was the policy", What is policy? How does it affect me? The answer is it does not. Policy is not law, the executive cannot write laws only the legislature can.
Interesting. How do your staff feel about this?
ReplyDeleteHi Darius,
ReplyDeleteBold move, good on you.
a few things to consider
1)If your business is registered,deregister it
2)any contracts between you and the people working with you should be contract for hire,
contracts for service are always subject to commercial law
unfortunately we have many hidden silent adhesion contracts with SOJ inc. (they can be undone though) registration is one type of contract for service used widely by SOJ
in response to yesterdays posting here, courts are multi jurisdictional, common law, commercial law, admiralty law etc.
the common law form is shunned by the judiciary in favour of the latter two
the PTB will attack you with administrative law devices for taking a stand, I get the feeling you will not wilt!!
cyril
"As the softest clay in time becomes the hardest brick...a fragile leaf, the diamond. As a stream of fiery ice freezes into unbending iron. As fleeting moments mount to millennia, too, may a man ascend to himself."
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there's any difference between what your staff say about it to your face, painting a smile grudgingly, and the amount of stress and uncertainty they must surely now feel? Way to go, adding a load of worry.
ReplyDeleteDarius,
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that " by law " social security has to be paid whether employed or self employed.
If people took out the option of private social health insurance that you say is cheaper and better then it would undermine the Government scheme.
I understand where you are coming from, but remember the States need tea chests full of our hard earned money to pay for civil servants, their gold plated pensions and mind numbing golden handshakes when they leave early or are running because they are failures.
'By statute' maybe, but not 'by law' remember there are only two laws - AND IT HARM NONE DO AS YOU WILL and DO WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE GOING TO DO.
ReplyDeleteAll the rest is just 'make work' for politicians, lawyers and civil servants.
I recently had the opportunity to speak to a former president of the Jersey Law Society and ask him about the 'FREEMEN ON THE LAND' and the Interpretation (Jersey) Law. He did not say it was nonsense merely 'if that is what the law says, then that is what you must do'.