On 8/29/11 6:19 PM, North Star wrote:
On Aug 29, 6:05 pm, wrote:
Two weeks ago, I got a registered letter for the state of CA saying
they would put a lien on my business assets in CA because I had failed
to pay unemployment comp there. I do not have any CA employees
although I do use a consultant there and maintain a bank account and
PO box there.
I immediately called him and told him to close the account and close
the PO box and that I would no longer pay him via any bank in CA but
would pay him via a NV bank. On further consideration, I realized
that even paying a consultant at all in the peoples Repub of CA is a
bad idea so I had to let him know that keeping him as a consultant was
simply too dangerous as long as he lived in CA.

You seem to have a real problem understanding and following the laws
of the land.

Don, the problem isn't that he doesn't understand or follow the laws of
the land. He is following the laws of the land. He had to fire the CA
consultant and do business with a consultant who lives in a state with
laws that are conducive to business. Since a consultant will never be
able to file unemployment comp, it does not make sense to pay for
unemployment comp. Bill is not depriving his employee of any benefits,
and is not breaking any laws by hiring a consultant who lives in a state
who does not require you to pay for insurance you can not or will not
use. I tried to type this slowly, does it make more sense now?

--
I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the
powerful.