With the current corporate drive to make their employees "contractors"
that is not an unreasonable approach.
I haven't seen a W2 in a decade.

*************


Ain't it the truth!

Saving about 7.5% of wage cost by transferring that expense to the
"contractor" would be incentive enough for most firms- but then throw
in the savings from offering no health benefits, no payment for
vacations or holidays, no company pension or 401K match, etc, and the
savings probably approach 20%.

But the good news? We contractors get paid for what we produce, not for
how long we spend producing it. :-)

If you haven't seen a W2 in a decade, it's been 10 years since you've
had to say, "Yes, boss". Besides, its a lot easier to get paid what
you're worth when the "employer" doesn't start weeping a river of tears
over the cost of fringe benefits, etc, when its time to negotiate a
raise. At least we contractors get to moan, for a change, about how SS
takes 15% off the top.

Certain workers get screwed by the contractor definition, however. They
still effectively punch a clock, get told where, when, and how to work,
and have to put up with the corporate bs. That's a misuse of the
"contractor" definition, and becoming more common every year.