monkeybusinessmaui wrote:

 

8. The law does require everyone provide a W2 to any person you pay more than $600 to in any industry.

I think you mean a 1099.  You don't give contractors a W2, you give them, if they are not incorporated, a 1099, if you pay them more than $600.  A W2 employee is very different: you also pay employment taxes, healthcare, and other requirements.

Your other statements are true, and nobody denies the current setup that allows us to manage our own property without an agent or caretaker, but your facts skirt around the issue that all we needed before was an on-island contact, and this bill will require a W2 caretaker who can work for no other owners or a property manager. 

Lose-lose.

monkeybusinessmaui- nicely put.   Where do you see that you managing is "collecting rent"?  I have never beed able to find that anywhere.  If I could, I think that would close the case.  Given that HRS 467 spells out managing, leasing, and renting as different things I do not see where we could make the point it is dealing with the money since leasing and renting obviously are.

Monekybusiness,

The IRS only required a 1099 for vacation rental owners in 2011. The

requirement was withdrawn in 2012 (If you doubt that, check the front page

of the 2012 1099 instructions).

Your Homeaway profile says you just joined.  Were you using a different name

earlier? 

If you have been involved in this fight for a while,  I am very surprised by

some of your earlier statements which I previously attributed to not

understanding as to what has happened previously..

I agree that there have been people working diligently.

Property managers and a few legislators have been working diligently to take

away the rights of property owners.

And property owners have been working diligently to protect those rights.

Perhaps there has been some moaning.  But it was well warranted. 

It is a little curious that you have suddenly appeared on this site,

spouting a good deal of information (along with some mis-information) with

criticism for property owners who have been working diligently defending

themselves against an unprovoked attack by property managers aided by

certain legislators.

So, it is not surprising when members of this community questions your

agenda.  Or your identity.

Blackburied- I just meant that Baker went to the AG.  I am assuming that they discussed the bill other than just one small part of it.  I don't think Baker would have talked to him and then made changes that would not have been discussed during the conversation.

As I mentioned in a previous post, from what I see around my area when I am in Hawaii is that the on island contacts are doing a lot more than taking tsunami calls.  I think this is where it all stemed from.  In Hawaii they require you to have a real estate license to manage properties and I see no where that collecting money is managing.  If everyone opened up their mind, they would probably get that.  Seems to me to be really simple...property manager is someone responsible for overseeing a property.  Hotel Manager is one that oversees a hotel.  Burger King manager is one that oversees Burger King..etc.  I personally have never affiliated the term manager with someone that collects money.    Think about the property managers, they have to have a license that is primarily affiliated with selling real estate.  They are saying "If we have to have it, the housekeepers, etc do too."  Look at Wailea, Hualalai, Kauai, etc there are plenty of areas that have private homes that do not rent.  In all instances the companies that are managing them are licensed unless they have a "caretaker".    I guess my point of all of this is that right now paying attornies money, etc is wasted money.  Whoever is being authorized to spend the money needs to spend some time to sit back and think about the bigger issues at hand, take a better stance, and get a knowledgable attorney.

Agree with you 100% jwe.

Also, the attorney's memo accurately captures my understanding of the overreach of HB 2078, and provides the historical context for the original intent of some of the existing legislative passages.

Sadly, jwe, the story about the wolf is true. I saw the photos and signed a petition to encourage the man to be prosecuted.

Please do not listen to Baker.  That would be a huge error.  The wolf wears sheepskin clothing I promise you. 

Sent from my iPhone

Don't forget SB2947 reconciliation reconvenes today:

Here is the contact info for those in the meeting: