3 ms·

This just wouldn’t work in the US. The regulations vary greatly from state to state and even city to city. Choosing to employ a person in a state for the first

This just wouldn’t work in the US. The regulations vary greatly from state to state and even city to city. Choosing to employ a person in a state for the first time can be a very costly decision (in both time and $$$) for a small business. The second, third, fourth, etc. employees are marginally less expensive but “breaking the seal” and hiring that first employee in a new state isn’t something that every business takes lightly.

scotty79 4y ago
The question is, should it be like that? Shouldn't government handle the legal differences between states so that employers don't have to deal with that?
- ghaff 4y ago
  No. Because the system of government in the US is such that states have the responsibility for lots of things rather than the federal government. However, that has the side effect of making the state you live in actually matter. I can't (or am at least not supposed to) just establish an address of convenience somewhere that has the lowest taxes.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  If you're going to have a republic of states, those states are going to be able to have different laws. The minimum wage in New Hampshire is $7.25/hr, while it's $15/hr in neighboring Massachusetts. If I'm an employer in New Hampshire hiring remote workers for $12/hr, that's legal if they work in NH, but not legal if they work in MA. NH has sovereignty to set their minimum wage (subject to the limit of the federal minimum wage). They might do that to attract business there. Massachusetts has the same sovereignty to set their minimum wage. Which state should give up their sovereignty so that an employer [possibly out of state] could practically hire people without knowing where they live?
  - scotty79 4y ago
    None. But the state or even preferably the country should take responsibility for establishing where employee lives and taxing the salary accordingly.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      So if I'm in NH and scotty80 and scotty81 agree to work for me for $12/hr and I am structurally precluded from finding out where they live or work, what happens if it turns out that scotty80 is in NH (above minimum wage) and scotty81 is in MA (below minimum wage)? Is it legal?
      - scotty79 4y ago
        My idea is that you report to the government that you want to hire me. And I contact the government with the information where I live. You suggest how much you are willing to pay me to the government. And I get information how much I'll be earning after taxes and required social security fees. If I don't agree or the amount you proposed is illegally low then I can't work for you until you decide to bump up the salary. If I agree I start working. You pay to the government the full amount. Government taxes it and transfers the rest to me as a salary. If you pay too little or too late you are on the hook with the government. But you don't need to know where I live or what the taxes are. With electronic system the whole procedure of hiring could probably take an afternoon or less and zero knowledge.
        paulcole 4y ago
        I’m with you here. When I want a process to be completed in less than an afternoon, I often add several interactions with a governmental agency to the mix in order to speed things along.
        scotty79 4y ago
        You might not have much of it in the US but once those interactions are moved online they can be very quick and effective. Tax forms for example. It's common in other countries for the tax to be calculated for you, then you can just log in, chcek it out and confirm or adjust, which can be done for free in about 10 minutes while eating a burger.
- paulcole 4y ago
  You're kind of asking what's the point of having states and that's a fair question, but one that's been long decided. As long as you've got states with the power to make their own rules, people who want to live in and do business in those states will have to follow those rules (this is theoretically one of the biggest benefits of states existing).
  - scotty79 4y ago
    Having states and different rules is fine however if you have that, single point of contact which knows all the rules for you might be immensely useful.

scotty79 4y ago

The question is, should it be like that? Shouldn't government handle the legal differences between states so that employers don't have to deal with that?

ghaff 4y ago
No. Because the system of government in the US is such that states have the responsibility for lots of things rather than the federal government. However, that has the side effect of making the state you live in actually matter. I can't (or am at least not supposed to) just establish an address of convenience somewhere that has the lowest taxes.
sokoloff 4y ago
If you're going to have a republic of states, those states are going to be able to have different laws. The minimum wage in New Hampshire is $7.25/hr, while it's $15/hr in neighboring Massachusetts. If I'm an employer in New Hampshire hiring remote workers for $12/hr, that's legal if they work in NH, but not legal if they work in MA. NH has sovereignty to set their minimum wage (subject to the limit of the federal minimum wage). They might do that to attract business there. Massachusetts has the same sovereignty to set their minimum wage. Which state should give up their sovereignty so that an employer [possibly out of state] could practically hire people without knowing where they live?
- scotty79 4y ago
  None. But the state or even preferably the country should take responsibility for establishing where employee lives and taxing the salary accordingly.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    So if I'm in NH and scotty80 and scotty81 agree to work for me for $12/hr and I am structurally precluded from finding out where they live or work, what happens if it turns out that scotty80 is in NH (above minimum wage) and scotty81 is in MA (below minimum wage)? Is it legal?
    - scotty79 4y ago
      My idea is that you report to the government that you want to hire me. And I contact the government with the information where I live. You suggest how much you are willing to pay me to the government. And I get information how much I'll be earning after taxes and required social security fees. If I don't agree or the amount you proposed is illegally low then I can't work for you until you decide to bump up the salary. If I agree I start working. You pay to the government the full amount. Government taxes it and transfers the rest to me as a salary. If you pay too little or too late you are on the hook with the government. But you don't need to know where I live or what the taxes are. With electronic system the whole procedure of hiring could probably take an afternoon or less and zero knowledge.
      - paulcole 4y ago
        I’m with you here. When I want a process to be completed in less than an afternoon, I often add several interactions with a governmental agency to the mix in order to speed things along.
        scotty79 4y ago
        You might not have much of it in the US but once those interactions are moved online they can be very quick and effective. Tax forms for example. It's common in other countries for the tax to be calculated for you, then you can just log in, chcek it out and confirm or adjust, which can be done for free in about 10 minutes while eating a burger.
paulcole 4y ago
You're kind of asking what's the point of having states and that's a fair question, but one that's been long decided. As long as you've got states with the power to make their own rules, people who want to live in and do business in those states will have to follow those rules (this is theoretically one of the biggest benefits of states existing).
- scotty79 4y ago
  Having states and different rules is fine however if you have that, single point of contact which knows all the rules for you might be immensely useful.