Insurance -- the big discussion thread

[Law Tyler]

Legislator looking out for the interest of the insurance companies more than the people who voted him in? Gee, now that is news.

EDITED FOR CONTENT

[Dylan Couper]

Law, did you see a sign in our yard that says "political forum"?
No.
Do you know why you didn't see a sign that says "political forum?"
Because discussing politics ain't our business!


Discussing the business ramifications of the law is fine, but if you are looking to make this into a political debate, you are going to find yourself on the business end of my DELETE key faster than you can say "Micheal Moore". This thread is being klenzed and returned to its previous topic.

Thank you

[Chris Hurd]

Thanks, Dylan. Much appreciated.

Folks, please use this board to discuss business all you want.

Political issues, however, serve no purpose here except to turn community members against each other. Please do not sabotage this board with poltical topics. Thanks all,

[Law Tyler]

Well Dylan, thank you for letting me know where the cut line is.

[David Mesloh]

Hi Mike,

Since I am an incorporated business in California, you would not have to pay insurance costs for me. You also don't have to provide me with a 10-99 (Misc. income) form at the end of the year either.

In fact if you hire any legitimate business you would not have to provide their insurance.

This law was set-up to discourage employers from hiring "Independent Contractors" in an attempt to avoid paying taxes to the state and Federal government. Very few people are true Independent Contractors. Many times they are employees.

That being said, yes California is not an easy state to do business in. Unless of course you are a lawyer, politician, or burgler.....you know, all those guys in the trade. <grin>

David Mesloh
Independent in all ways

[Robert Mann Z.]

david thanks for the feedback on this law...

it would concern me if this happened in ny, as an owner of a production company i often hire editors, designers, shooters, and writers...some months its great some its tight i could not imagine paying insurance, i propabaly would just not hire my regulars if it became an issue and i would try and find lower cost labor where i can add the insurance without going over budget

as for this particular thread going political...well lets just say if you swim with sharks long enough your going to get bitten... if the topic is california legislation, well best bet would be to delete the entire post and be done with it...

lets not kid ourselves here business and politics are very mixed together, i for one would love to here about doing business in california as i dream of moving to lake tahoe, and with that the politics of owing a video production company in california

[Patrick King]

The topic on another thread got me to wondering what type of small business insurance most 'independent' video service operators have (or should have even though they don't right now).

I imagine some sort of equipment insurance policy and then some sort of liability coverage is a minimum. Is there a small business insurance group that videographers prefer?

[Dylan Couper]

As long as it doesn't take over the conversation and as long as it pertains to the topic of the thread, some discussion of politics is understandable due to the nature of this thread.
If it gets out of hand, I'll say something as I did earlier on in the thread.

[Mike Rehmus]

<<<-- Originally posted by David Mesloh : Hi Mike,

Since I am an incorporated business in California, you would not have to pay insurance costs for me. You also don't have to provide me with a 10-99 (Misc. income) form at the end of the year either.

In fact if you hire any legitimate business you would not have to provide their insurance.

This law was set-up to discourage employers from hiring "Independent Contractors" in an attempt to avoid paying taxes to the state and Federal government. Very few people are true Independent Contractors. Many times they are employees.

That being said, yes California is not an easy state to do business in. Unless of course you are a lawyer, politician, or burgler.....you know, all those guys in the trade. <grin>

David Mesloh
Independent in all ways -->>>

While part of what you say may be true, the people who are really getting hammered are the Real Estate Brokers who hire Real Estate Agents as ICs (it's legal) and now have to buy insurance on them, whether they produce or not. Same thing I do (did) with Directors and Talent.

I have the same issue if I hire a Director or Talent. They rarely are a 'business' in the classic model. And, in fact, they really couldn't be a classic model because of the permits and license requirements for operating busineses in many different cities. For those people, I have to have insurance.

[Derrick Ellis]

I'm a newbie who is curious about the same thing. Feedback anyone?

[Keith Loh]

I don't know about videographers but photographers are in the same boat and have been established far longer. I know when I went to insure my camera as a rider to my rental insurance that I was told my other option was to join the professional photography association in my region and find coverage through them.

[Derrick Ellis]

Keith,

Did the rider to your personal insurance provide good coverage or did you get the insurance through a photographer's group?

[Keith Loh]

I got the rider on my rental insurance. I didn't bother looking up the photographer's insurance because it would mean I would have to register my business and for tax purposes I prefer to just appear as a proprietor and not have to charge GST / PST (Canadian sales tax) to my clients. That in itself would have made getting the insurance more expensive than an extra hundred bucks on my insurance.

[Mike Rehmus]

I insure my gear and the business through WEVA's insurance arrangement.

$500 a year for $50K gear coverage, $25K in the field. $1M/$3M accident insurance, covers rental gear too.

Required when I work for government agencies.

[Derrick Ellis]

Thanks Mike and Keith. Your input was greatly appreciated.