Article: State Orders 2 Subcontractors On UConn Basketball Facility Off Job

[tcf15]

Started off first with this from the Daily Campus: http://www.dailycampus.com/news/bas...y-construction-stopped-1.3144812#.UwzF2YW2y-V

Image of Stop-Work Order

The came these clarifying tweets:

Patrick Eaton-Robb ‏@peatonrobb 47s
#UConn says work on basketball facility has NOT been halted. There is a minor problem with a subcontractor who was taping sheet rock.

Patrick Eaton-Robb ‏@peatonrobb 5m
...that is the only work affected by "stop work" order at #UConn. The major work continues.

And here's the article from the Courant: http://www.courant.com/news/connect...ll-facility-shutdown-20140225,0,6008623.story

 

[Lefty2one]

Err...wtf?

 

[HuskyBandDad]

Oh no - what a surprise - a construction project with a wage dispute. It is probably a sub-contractor not paying the prevailing wage or not providing proper documentation.

 

[huskymedic]

Have to wonder just what role J + V Construction's plays... they can just be a subcontractor hired to do a specific function. Wonder if the whole work site is idled or just what J &V is involved in (assuming it's not the whole project). That piece was missing from the DC blurb.

 

[tcf15]

Have to wonder just what role J + V Construction's plays... they can just be a subcontractor hired to do a specific function. Wonder if the whole work site is idled or just what J &V is involved in (assuming it's not the whole project). That piece was missing from the DC blurb.

Time to monitor the webcam for movement haha. Looks like there are people inside: http://www.uconnhuskies.com/facilities/live-cam.html

 

[Strummer]

Regarding the contractor, records show it was established in 2007 and incorporated in Connecticut, current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $1 to 2.5 million and employs a staff of approximately 1 to 4.

Based on the two check boxes on the sign, it looks like a contractor is being accused of:

1. Designating workers as "independent contractors" without them actually meeting the criteria for such designation.
2. Paying under the table or paying cash.

1 is for sure. 2 is potentially.


Both would be done, for the most part, to save on workers' compensation insurance.

Who would have thought that, in a country where the tax code is a convoluted, twisted, moronic mess of obtuse statutes and regulations and guidelines, citizens would actually not abide by the letter of the law? Shocked!

 

[huskymedic]

Updated Daily Campus Story... Auntie Em, Auntie Em.

http://www.dailycampus.com/news/upd...ssued-stop-work-orders-1.3144812#.UwzQtfldXUi

>>According to the university, the stop-work orders apply specifically to those subcontractors – Intex of Glastonbury and one of its subcontractors, J&V Construction – which were performing “specific, limited work” at the site. Those two companies had been brought in to help work on the taping of sheet rock. The stop-work order does not pertain to UConn’s general contractor for the project, Daniel O’Connell’s Sons, and the construction site as a whole has not been shut down.<<

 

[Husky25]

Sub-sub-contractors are a dime a dozen. Remove, replace, and move on. UConn is three steps removed. This should not reflect on the institution in any major way.

 

[freescooter]

Sub-sub-contractors are a dime a dozen. Remove, replace, and move on. UConn is three steps removed. This should not reflect on the institution in any major way.

I guess you don't read the Connecticut newspapers...the Courant will probably have an investigative team on this looking into this, and publish a special section on it, even if nothing happened.

 

[Husky25]

I guess you don't read the Connecticut newspapers...the Courant will probably have an investigative team on this looking into this, and publish a special section on it, even if nothing happened.

No, not too frequently.

 

[CAHUSKY]

Change the heading on the original post. No need for such a provocative, false post this early in the day. I was ready to open it an hear we were out of money and they were going to be delayed for years.

 

[Dove]

I chuckled picturing some workers running off the job site. And others jumping off the roof.

Ridiculous construction practice by these contractors. In the end we the public pay. The people who really should be working on the site might be collecting unemployment.

Anywho...I am happy the project rolls on without delay!!

 

[tcf15]

Change the heading on the original post. No need for such a provocative, false post this early in the day. I was ready to open it an hear we were out of money and they were going to be delayed for years.

Done.

 

[Danzz]

On a positive note, if they are at the point where they are taping sheet rock completion is near.

 

[metsfan2323]

Who would have thought that, in a country where the tax code is a convoluted, twisted, moronic mess of obtuse statutes and regulations and guidelines, citizens would actually not abide by the letter of the law? Shocked!

So you are saying if it was less convoluted people would be more willing to pay taxes? People cheat on taxes because they are greedy, it has nothing to do with the convoluted mess (I agree it is a mess). Most of the moronic mess are statutes that reduce tax burden.

 

[Strummer]

So you are saying if it was less convoluted people would be more willing to pay taxes?

I'm saying that the complexity inherent in the system lends itself quite well to cheating. Further, the complexity creates gray area, which affords the opportunity to cheat. Finally, the impenetrability of the system, in combination with the endless tax incentives and disincentives offered, creates the feeling in many taxpayers that they are getting ripped off, thereby providing the moral basis from which to cheat.

X% tax on all goods sold in the country retail, no exceptions, and 10 years in jail minimum sentence for anybody who black markets. Set X where the people vote it. Divy X among locals, states, and feds. Eliminate 90% of IRS. Eliminate all property tax, of any kind. Eliminate income tax. Estate tax. All of it.

Do that and make it a law that the Govt. must pass a balanced budget each year and can't run a deficit and you'd have a chance . . . .

 

[Bryan Lord]

My gut tells me john Roland somehow has a hand in this. Call me crazy.

 

[metsfan2323]

X% tax on all goods sold in the country retail, no exceptions, and 10 years in jail minimum sentence for anybody who black markets. Set X where the people vote it. Divy X among locals, states, and feds. Eliminate 90% of IRS. Eliminate all property tax, of any kind. Eliminate income tax. Estate tax. All of it.

It all sounds good, but people would still invent ways to cheat, that would never stop.

BTW under your system you would still need an extensive IRS to enforce the laws, otherwise you would be begging people to cheat. The IRS is nothing more than law enforcement.

 

[babysheep]

Must be SU grads. DAMN YOU, ESPN!

 

[alexd]

....I'll take a drive up to Storrs and tape sheetrock.

 

[upstater]

I'm saying that the complexity inherent in the system lends itself quite well to cheating. Further, the complexity creates gray area, which affords the opportunity to cheat. Finally, the impenetrability of the system, in combination with the endless tax incentives and disincentives offered, creates the feeling in many taxpayers that they are getting ripped off, thereby providing the moral basis from which to cheat.

X% tax on all goods sold in the country retail, no exceptions, and 10 years in jail minimum sentence for anybody who black markets. Set X where the people vote it. Divy X among locals, states, and feds. Eliminate 90% of IRS. Eliminate all property tax, of any kind. Eliminate income tax. Estate tax. All of it.

Do that and make it a law that the Govt. must pass a balanced budget each year and can't run a deficit and you'd have a chance . . . .

This is totally off topic but Europe with its VAT tax has had a heckuva lot more trouble than the USA has, and Europe collects 45% of GDP in taxes, whereas the USA is at 20%. If we want to know how it works, look at the VAT. It's a killer for a lot of countries. Granted, VAT is only for imports but what the heck isn't imported these days?

 

[CL82]

I'm saying that the complexity inherent in the system lends itself quite well to cheating. Further, the complexity creates gray area, which affords the opportunity to cheat. Finally, the impenetrability of the system, in combination with the endless tax incentives and disincentives offered, creates the feeling in many taxpayers that they are getting ripped off, thereby providing the moral basis from which to cheat.

X% tax on all goods sold in the country retail, no exceptions, and 10 years in jail minimum sentence for anybody who black markets. Set X where the people vote it. Divy X among locals, states, and feds. Eliminate 90% of IRS. Eliminate all property tax, of any kind. Eliminate income tax. Estate tax. All of it.

Do that and make it a law that the Govt. must pass a balanced budget each year and can't run a deficit and you'd have a chance . . . .

I like your posts on this issue generally. A couple of points. A National Sales Tax, which I think you are purposing, would still require auditing. In addition, since the IRS is audit/enforcement agency of choice for Obamacare, don't look for those IRS layoffs just yet. Going to a pure sales tax system would be just as prone to cheating as the current system, if not more so, and is potentially disproportionately burdensome on the poor, unless you modify your "all goods sold" position. Eliminating property tax, which is inherently regressive, sounds good until you realize that it is the funds for home rule and local government. A big centralized government making all the decisions isn't likely to be received well in this country. Just some food for thought. Personally, I like the concept of a complete rethinking of the revenue system in this country. It is immensely complicated with the interaction between different forms of taxation and the interplay between federal, state and local taxing authorities. Keep in mind as well that eliminating deductions, at least without a very gradual phase, in would be enormously destabilizing to things like property values, charities and R and D expenditures.

 

[Strummer]

A National Sales Tax, which I think you are purposing, would still require auditing.
Sure, but only a fraction of the amount. Don't forget, Walmart is 40% of all retail sales in the United States. You throw in Target, Costco, KMart, Sears, Amazon and Ebay and all of the gasoline and nat gas distributors, and you're probably over 95% of all retail in the country. There will be zero cheating from those vested interests, so you're really talking about a very small portion left to worry over, and most of it would be small shops whose owners would be very afraid of 10 year minimum sentences for black market sales.

Going to a pure sales tax system would be just as prone to cheating as the current system, if not more so.
Disagree completely. As I noted above, most retail shops are already collecting tax. It would be trivial to have them collect 40% tax rather than 6%, and they'd have no incentive to cheat.


, and is potentially disproportionately burdensome on the poor, unless you modify your "all goods sold" position.
This gets down to fundamental tax theory.
Fundamentally, the fairest system is that everybody pays the same share, as we are all citizens with equal rights. 10 of us go on a camping trip, we all throw in 20 bucks for canoe. We don't charge Chuck more because he's the richest.
But if you want a system where "fair" means that people who have more pay more, then this system is perfect. People who make 20k a year only spend about 5-10 a year on retail. People making 100k a year spend a lot more. The 20k guy eats at McDonalds and pays X% of a 6 dollar meal. The 100k guy eats at SnobbyJoe's Grill and pays X% of a 30 dollar meal. If that's still not enough socialism for you, reduce or eliminate the tax on fundamentals - Milk, basic foods, basic cloth - and increase it on the more expensive items. 1$-100$ it's X%, 100 to 1000 it's 1.3X%, 1000 to 5000 it's 1.5X%, and so on. That's the beauty of it - very simple to target whatever you want using a single collection system.


Eliminating property tax, which is inherently regressive, sounds good until you realize that it is the funds for home rule and local government.
No problem here. Home rule and local governments get their checks the same as the Feds.


A big centralized government making all the decisions isn't likely to be received well in this country.
Not sure what this means. The system I proposed eliminates a tremendous amount of Federal largess and involvement in our lives. No longer would the Feds be able to give tax breaks to special interests and the like. This is the main reason that this sort of thing would never get through - the fed govt. has gotten bigger every year for 230 years - there is no way they'd agree to shrink.

Keep in mind as well that eliminating deductions, at least without a very gradual phase, in would be enormously destabilizing to things like property values, charities and R and D expenditures.
Time to get rid of artificial govt incentives that are scattered throughout the tax code. If the country felt that it simply could not get by without having the govt meddling in mortgage loan interest, than the govt could simply give out grants, outside of the tax code.

BTW - this is nothing like a VAT tax, which tacks a tax on services and goods at virtually every stage of production and distribution. This is simply a retail sales tax. That's it. Of course, it goes without saying, that the attitude of anybody supporting this would have to be that the point is to eliminate the 100 different tax systems and sources that exist. If a retail sales tax were implemented, it would be only if no other tax existed - otherwise it's just one more silly way to squeeze the same money out of people.
[/quote]

 

[Husky25]

People who make 20k a year only spend about 5-10 a year on retail. People making 100k a year spend a lot more. The 20k guy eats at McDonalds and pays X% of a 6 dollar meal. The 100k guy eats at SnobbyJoe's Grill and pays X% of a 30 dollar meal.

Why?

Your theory is fundamentally flawed, which is the exact same flaw with trickle down economics. It is also why there cannot be a straight national flat tax.

In general, people try to keep their earnings, unless they are forced to pay it out. Even then they always try to minimize taxes. The person making $100k is just as likely to spend the bare minimum as the person who is forced to spend the bare minimum because that is all their cash flow in can support. There is no inert force that makes people spend money just because they have it. More goes into it...much more.

Your example says that the 20k guy spends $5k on retail. that is 25% of his yearly take home. Even if the rich guy in your example has double the poor person's expenses, that only comes out to 10% of his yearly take home ($10k/$100K).

Oh, one more thing: If you reduce the IRS by 90%, who pursues and catches those dealing on the black market, to whom you wish to give 10 year prison sentences? With a 40% sales tax the black market explodes and there's no one left to prosecute the crime. You end up with prohibition, where the law enforcement are not paid well enough to take down the cartels spawned by the black markets and end up getting paid off...You do understand that Al Capone was not convicted of bootlegging, moonshining, or murder right? He was convicted of income tax evasion. Only this time, there is no Elliot Ness.

 

[Strummer]

The person making $100k is just as likely to spend the bare minimum as the person who is forced to spend the bare minimum because that is all their cash flow in can support.

Wow. Never seen that sentiment expressed before by anybody anywhere. It's completely opposite to what I've experienced in life, both personally, through friends and family, and through many, many clients. I am assuming you are American. If you are Chinese, then your point would seem less alien. But in America, as a general rule, the more money people make, the more money they spend. The personal savings rate in the U.S. is currently about 4%, which means that people, on average, spend 96% of their disposable income.
On average, people making 100,000 a year, of course, spend more than people making 25,000, and by a lot. They buy more expensive homes, more expensive cars, more expensive vacations, braces for their kids, sweaters for their dogs, yoga balls, and so on. This is so plainly obvious, I can't even imagine that anybody who was born and raised in the U.S. would dispute it as a fact.

Oh, one more thing: If you reduce the IRS by 90%, who pursues and catches those dealing on the black market, to whom you wish to give 10 year prison sentences? . . . You end up with prohibition . . .

Release all the people who are in jail for minor drug crimes and give them jobs tracking down the black market folks.

In any event, the notion that somebody should pay more in taxes because they make more money is one of the silliest, envy-driven notions I have ever come across.

I had two neighbors at one point, same neighborhood, same school. One guy chose to work part time, live very simply, and play lots of video games. His wife worked part time as well. The other guy worked 60 hours a week, as did his wife. I never understood why most people in America thought that the "progressive" or "fair" method of taxing these two families was to charge the latter couple four times as much as the first for the same privilege of being citizens. Ah well. It's been a good ride for us, for sure.

"Democracy is the concept that the common man knows what he wants, and deserves to get it good and hard." H.L.M.