|
Kalman posted:Have you guys just not heard of a gross up? (Pretty commonly discussed in conjunction with benefits for gay couples when they're taxable while benefits for married couples aren't.)
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Kalman posted:... No, you won't have to pay the same taxes on 1000 pre-tax and 1000 post-tax. That's kind of what post-tax means. I work in IT and and I have to make a conscious effort to realize that people aren't aware of what I think is really basic normal stuff. I assume that slaughterhouse workers roll their eyes when people first hear about boltguns and stuff. Think about how many people completely misunderstand the concept of a tax bracket, do you really think it's normal to understand how gross and net pay are calculated when bonuses are discussed?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
If you receive bonuses, sure.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I work in IT and and I have to make a conscious effort to realize that people aren't aware of what I think is really basic normal stuff. I assume that slaughterhouse workers roll their eyes when people first hear about boltguns and stuff. I think that if they don't they should probably ask what the phrase "net of taxes" means before getting salty about their signing bonus being treated totally normally.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Don't see anyone claiming tax doesn't have to be paid on bonuses, the question in this case is who should pay them. My understanding of the phrase (backed up by this) "net of tax" is that the figure listed is the amount after appropriate tax has been withheld. I know if I'd gotten a bonus letter saying I was getting $5000 net of tax I'd assume I'd get a check for $5000 and a pay stub with it indicating a gross pay of a higher amount and appropriate taxes deducted from it to reduce it to $5000. Admittedly, I've never gotten a bonus letter like that and the closest I've come to seeing that behavior are things like $250 gift cards given out as recognition where the bonus amount reported on the pay stub is sufficiently higher to cover the taxes. I'd have to think letters like that would drive payroll crazy, especially if they don't have a W4 or a firm idea of what your tax rate will be.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
If someone pays your tax you have to pay tax on the amount they paid for your taxes hahaha. The irs always wins.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If someone pays your tax you have to pay tax on the amount they paid for your taxes hahaha. You just calculate the amount you need to pay the employee in order to have their after-tax amount come out where you want it to be. It's not actually that hard to do.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The irs always wins. I have somewhat less respect for the awesome and terrifying power of the IRS since I started working for a financial institution and saw just how much income tax fraud there is out there and just how completely unstoppable it really is. The perpetrators basically never get caught, and up until fairly recently, the general IRS response to people filling out bogus tax returns for dead people was to not even pretend to give any fucks. Now they are at least kind of pretending. Identity theft in general, it's basically impossible to catch the perpetrators which is one reason why I kind of want to keep all my money in a sock under my bed these days. I figure this will help me save on legal fees someday too, because no lawyer's gonna want to touch my smelly sock money.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
docbeard posted:I have somewhat less respect for the awesome and terrifying power of the IRS since I started working for a financial institution and saw just how much income tax fraud there is out there and just how completely unstoppable it really is. The perpetrators basically never get caught, and up until fairly recently, the general IRS response to people filling out bogus tax returns for dead people was to not even pretend to give any fucks. Now they are at least kind of pretending. There are plenty of us who get paid almost exclusively in smelly sock money.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
docbeard posted:I have somewhat less respect for the awesome and terrifying power of the IRS since I started working for a financial institution and saw just how much income tax fraud there is out there and just how completely unstoppable it really is. The perpetrators basically never get caught, and up until fairly recently, the general IRS response to people filling out bogus tax returns for dead people was to not even pretend to give any fucks. Now they are at least kind of pretending. Well, pretty much everything gets dropped on the IRS's plate eventually, and Congress seems to have a hard-on for cutting its funding. In addition to monitoring the scraps we call a social safety net, keeping an eye on what constitutes as "charity" and "political action", handling a lot of the funding of the ACA, they still also have to collect taxes. Much easier adminstratively to have everyone hand over their money as they earn it and then let the IRS decide how much to give back to them.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You just calculate the amount you need to pay the employee in order to have their after-tax amount come out where you want it to be. It's not actually that hard to do. edit: Missed the obvious category of charity. twodot fucked around with this message at 06:46 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I think that if they don't they should probably ask what the phrase "net of taxes" means before getting salty about their signing bonus being treated totally normally. I feel like this was supposed to be a simple question that got blown completely out of proportion. If the offer letter hadn't said anything about taxes, I would have assumed it would be taxed normally, but the wording threw me off. I don't have a legal background, so I asked people who have more experience than I do. For what it's worth, though, my googling beforehand yielded conflicting interpretations, including several references to grossing up. I thought I'd ask because I couldn't find a straight answer on my own. I figured maybe someone else would say "gee, that *is* an odd way to say that; I wonder why they didn't phrase it as [some other wording]". My question was answered; now I know it's not weird. I'm not "salty." The bonus wasn't a dealmaker, so I'm not upset about how it was taxed. Thanks to everyone who offered answers, even those who were asses about it. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Don't ask questions in the legal questions thread. This thread is for us to tell you to hire a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Don't ask questions in the legal questions thread. This thread is for us to tell you to hire a lawyer. Hey, hey. Don't even post without consulting a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Easier solution: have no employees. Make everyone independent contractors. Issue 1099s at end of year. Simple.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Easier solution: have no employees. Make everyone independent contractors. Issue 1099s at end of year. The private firm I was with for all of 6 months tried this.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Easier solution: have no employees. Make everyone independent contractors. Issue 1099s at end of year. Uber, for lawyers?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
I ran into many issues at my university and am looking towards discussing it with a lawyer. How do I find one? Besides having no idea what to do and being easily overwhelmed, I've run into a few issues. I've found a few websites that list clinics, but they all specifically state that they are to help people prepare for cases, and not actually provide legal representation at all. They also are limited to specific types of cases, such as family or divorce. My biggest obstacle is I'm broke and unemployed, so I already feel like I'm out of luck. I tried looking at http://www.statebarassociations.org/lrs.htm but there's absolutely nothing there for Utah.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
UserErr0r posted:I ran into many issues at my university and am looking towards discussing it with a lawyer. How do I find one? Utah State Bar Association.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Assuming I have any luck with that: As someone with no income or assets, what should I expect as far as paying for a lawyer goes? If my case goes anywhere, do I just expect the lawyer to take a decent chunk out of the settlement, assuming I win?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
UserErr0r posted:Assuming I have any luck with that: Yeah, but that's assuming you have a case with damages.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Yeah, but that's assuming you have a case with damages. Stop fishing for a new thread-fodder
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
This may be a stupid question, and I plan on consulting a lawyer, but I'm not sure what kind of lawyer I'm looking for. Short version: I'm in Florida. between 10/2014 and 11/2014, my car was repaired by a dealer, I paid $1250. The next week, the car had the same problem. Dealer told me the work they did didn't repair the car, I needed a new engine. They wouldn't help pay for the engine. It would cost $4000, or they would refund me $900 of the $1250 for work that didn't repair the car and I could get a new car. I chose not to get a car there. They never paid me the $900. I have a check request and several emails telling me that they sent the check, then it was a mistake, they didn't send it, then they had to talk to the GM. I filed complaint with BBB, they said they'd check into it. Of course they didn't and I rejected their response. I know I'm looking for a civil trial attorney, but what kind? I see 'breach of contract' and 'mediation' etc, but I want to at least know what kind of lawyer to ask for. Or is this something they wouldn't bother looking into and should I not even bother?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Just a civil attorney. Look for a young, solo attorney.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Location: Oregon The general bulletpoint gist of the issue: January, I had my yearly day of "let us enter and make sure things are cool". In February, I signed a new 12 month lease, so obviously, things were cool. In March, a new company took ownership of the Apartment Complex (it's a couple of hundred units). In mid-April, I received a notice on my door stating that I had 60 days to vacate as they were terminating my lease. The notice has the following: "Optional Reasons for termination: Landlord may include the reasons for this termination notice. Oregon Landlord Tenant laws do not require it. The notice is still given "without cause" Resident does not have a right to cure or fix the reasons for termination. The landlord does not need to prove the reasons for this termination. Reasons for termination: Smoke damage and improper Housekeeping" Now, they've never been in my apartment. Or at least, if they did come in, they did so without any notifications (By everything I've found, 24 hours notice is required, except in cases of emergency, or to fulfill repair requests. If the former, they must notify me of what the emergency was, and provide the names of the people who entered). As far as smoke damage goes, I smoked inside during my first year here, when it was permitted. I also have a woodstove that I use every winter. I was trying to understand http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/90.427 "Termination of periodic tenancies" 1) Does not apply. I've been here for approximately 5 years. 2) " If a tenancy is a week-to-week tenancy". Does not apply. I have a year lease 3) " If a tenancy is a month-to-month tenancy:" Does not apply. 4) " If the tenancy is for a fixed term of at least one year and by its terms becomes a month-to-month tenancy after the fixed term" - Applies. After my lease ends, it defaults to month to month should I not sign a new lease or notify them that I'm moving out. 4a) " At any time during the fixed term, notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, the landlord or the tenant may terminate the tenancy without cause by giving the other notice in writing not less than 30 days prior to the specified ending date for the fixed term or not less than 30 days prior to the date designated in the notice for the termination of the tenancy, whichever is later.". - Seems like this doesn't apply. As my new lease doesn't expire until Next February (March 1st, I suppose) 4b) " After the specified ending date for the fixed term, at any time during the month-to-month tenancy, the landlord may terminate the tenancy without cause only by giving the tenant notice in writing not less than 60 days prior to the date designated in the notice for the termination of the tenancy." - Does not apply as my lease hasn't rolled over to month-to-month. Interestingly, they just launched a new website, and I noticed that they've increased the cost of rent for other units with the same floorplan. An increase of a couple of hundred$/month. Which of course, lease me wondering whether this termination isn't so they can dump me out, and bring in a new tenant for the higher monthly rate. I've scanned other sites, trying to find information with regards to landlord lease termination, and all of them say essentially the same thing. Wording sometimes a bit different, but all pointing to the 30/60 day notifications and month to month. So, I suppose my question is, is the lease termination legal? Is it something I could fight? I do have plans to call the Oregon Law Center (OLC) legal aid Tenant Hotline as well as the Renter's Rights Hotline tomorrow during business hours, but thought I'd ask here.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
You have a wood fire stove that you use? That's a thing? Thank god for Texas.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
"Not less than" means "at least". I don't see why you think those sections don't apply.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Kalman posted:"Not less than" means "at least". I don't see why you think those sections don't apply. I'm pretty sure he's saying none of the holdover provisions apply because he has a shiny new 12-month lease just signed in February.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I'm pretty sure he's saying none of the holdover provisions apply because he has a shiny new 12-month lease just signed in February. "At any time during the fixed term, notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, the landlord or the tenant may terminate the tenancy without cause by giving the other notice in writing not less than 30 days prior to the specified ending date for the fixed term or not less than 30 days prior to the date designated in the notice for the termination of the tenancy, whichever is later." That doesn't look like a holdover provision.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
Have you tried calling and asking why they think there is smoke damage and whether they put the notice on the right apartment?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:"At any time during the fixed term, notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, the landlord or the tenant may terminate the tenancy without cause by giving the other notice in writing not less than 30 days prior to the specified ending date for the fixed term or not less than 30 days prior to the date designated in the notice for the termination of the tenancy, whichever is later." You're right. Sweet Jesus, that's an impressive termination for convenience clause by statute.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:You have a wood fire stove that you use? That's a thing? Thank god for Texas. That sounds awesome to have as a renter and a nightmare for a landlord unless the landlord has a side business of selling overpriced firewood in the lobby.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Yes, I have a woodstove. It's fantastic in the winter to keep the heating costs down. I typically save up a bunch of junkmail/cardboard stuff over the late summer/fall to use over the course of the winter. Then just get some cheap firewood. And the issue I'm having is it seems strange that you can sign a lease, and then a month later get a note from the landlord "haha j/k gtfo". I also found this: http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1246_RightsDutiesTenants.htm "If your tenancy began more than one year ago, your landlord must give you a 60-day notice. If you have a rental agreement for a specific time period, you may not be evicted before the end of that term without a good reason." So, the first part is true. My tenancy began more than a year ago. Which is why they gave the 60-day notice, I'm sure. Yet the second statement: "If you have a rental agreement for a specific time period," I do. It's for 12 months. "you may not be evicted before the end of that term without a good reason" While they gave the "smoke and improper housekeeping" reason, it specifically states "given without cause" as well. ie, without a good reason. And yes, it was posted on the correct door. It had my name and unit number on the letter. They also mailed a copy. And the only answer I could get from them was "we saw you smoking on the balcony".
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:That sounds awesome to have as a renter and a nightmare for a landlord unless the landlord has a side business of selling overpriced firewood in the lobby. "Hmm, how can I make this apartment as difficult to flip and as large a fire hazard as possible. Wait, I think I got it!"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
ulmont posted:You're right. Sweet Jesus, that's an impressive termination for convenience clause by statute. I'm having trouble parsing this to mean what you guys seem to agree that it reads as. Let's say we signed a 1-year lease that ends December 31, and the landlord has posted a letter saying "Tenancy Terminated on September 1", and posted it in May. quote:"At any time during the fixed term, the landlord or the tenant may terminate the tenancy without cause by giving the other notice in writing not less than 30 days prior to the So for our hypothetical, out of those two dates, "30 days prior to the specified ending date for the fixed term" is later, so that requirement would govern. If we were into December when the notice was posted, then the second requirement would govern instead.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Devor posted:I'm having trouble parsing this to mean what you guys seem to agree that it reads as. Let's say we signed a 1-year lease that ends December 31, and the landlord has posted a letter saying "Tenancy Terminated on September 1", and posted it in May. Under your hypothetical, a letter posted in May would be more than (that is to say, not less than) 30 days from either possible date, so it's a moot point.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
The process of being right is more important than whether or not you are right. The bottom line here is that the new owner is trying to kick you out. They are claiming they have the right to because, either: A) They can terminate the lease at any time for any reason (this is probably not true) B) They can terminate the lease for cause, and you gave them cause by creating "smoke damage." Here are your options: 1) Bend over and take it. 2) Hire a lawyer, pay the $1,500 retainer, and gently caress with them. 3) Find a tenant's advocacy group nearby that will help you. 4) Contact Legal Aid near you - this is generally the exact thing they help with. 5) Try to negotiation with them yourself > This won't work. Here are your potential outcomes: !)You get evicted @) You agree to a move-out arrangement that is more favorable to one party or the other. #) You defeat them in battle and get to stay in the apartment for the rest of your lease, at your current lease rate. If this is your net result, they will gently caress with you constantly until the end of your term.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The process of being right is more important than whether or not you are right. The bottom line here is that the new owner is trying to kick you out. With notice, in Oregon, that statute suggests that either party can terminate the lease more or less at any time. Which is actually a pretty amazing statute for tenants for the most part, since they're typically the ones who have a harder time getting out of a lease. But yes, practically speaking fighting this is probably not going to work out well for the dude even if he's right, because best case he spends some money and/or time to win and then he has a pissed off landlord.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
A problem I'm having with finding legal assistance is I have no idea what category of law my problems fall under. What broader category would defamation fall under? If it's necessary: I was slandered at my university, resulting in my suspension for at least 14 months. I'm talking about how these legal clinics see only certain kinds of topics. http://www.utahlegalservices.org/ limits their topics to health care, probate, estate, unemployment comp, migrant worker, Native American law, expungement, landlord/tenant, mortgage foreclosure, domestic violence, family law, consumer problems, and government benefits, so I assume I'm out of luck there, unless "consumer problems" covers me as I was a consumer to the university that violated my rights.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
You need a normal employment or litigation plaintiff lawyer. Good luck!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:05
|
|