Can Your Parents Make You Work in the Family Business

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

Violate them, no. However, the rules give a pretty broad exemption for working for your parents:

103.67(2)(g) Unless prohibited under s. 103.65, minors 12 years of age or older may be employed under the direct supervision of the minor's parent or guardian in connection with the parent's or guardian's business, trade or profession.

103.67(3) Sections 103.64 to 103.82 do not apply to the employment of a minor engaged in domestic or farm work performed outside school hours in connection with the minor's own home and directly for the minor's parent or guardian.

---

Still though, making a child go without sleep would likely be considered to be abusive, without the child labor laws even being relevant. Making a child live at a store 24 hours a day might also be considered to be neglect as well. I really hope that this young person is seriously exaggerating.

I'm seriously starting to wonder if we're being trolled.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I'm seriously starting to wonder if we're being trolled.

---

I thought about that as well, but trolls don't usually come back and update their threads.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

Violate them, no. However, the rules give a pretty broad exemption for working for your parents:

103.67(2)(g) Unless prohibited under s. 103.65, minors 12 years of age or older may be employed under the direct supervision of the minor's parent or guardian in connection with the parent's or guardian's business, trade or profession..

---

Did you read Section 103.65?

Quote:

---

2) No minor under 16 years of age may be employed or permitted to work at any employment for such hours of the day or week, for such days of the week, or at such periods of the day as may be dangerous or prejudicial to the life, health, safety, or welfare of the minor.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

Did you read Section 103.65?

---

He may have turned 16 by now. In his original post it seemed as though age 16 was imminent.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

Violate them, no. However, the rules give a pretty broad exemption for working for your parents:

103.67(2)(g) Unless prohibited under s. 103.65, minors 12 years of age or older may be employed under the direct supervision of the minor's parent or guardian in connection with the parent's or guardian's business, trade or profession.

103.67(3) Sections 103.64 to 103.82 do not apply to the employment of a minor engaged in domestic or farm work performed outside school hours in connection with the minor's own home and directly for the minor's parent or guardian.

---

And these are precisely why parents are not - and, for the most part, should not - be penalized for making their kids actually work inside/for the home or for the parent's business

Moreover, the original post specifically asks about not working for the parent ... at all. Not how to reduce hours, but to stop completely. That, in my opinion, speaks more to basic teenage unwillingness and less to potential abuse.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

And these are precisely why parents are not - and, for the most part, should not - be penalized for making their kids actually work inside/for the home or for the parent's business

Moreover, the original post specifically asks about not working for the parent ... at all. Not how to reduce hours, but to stop completely. That, in my opinion, speaks more to basic teenage unwillingness and less to potential abuse.

---

That is why I qualified my advice with "If you are really telling the truth and if you are not exaggerating".

Quote:

---

Quoting 123soccerbal

---

Posted from the phone of a classmate (with permission) who walked in to buy gummy bears:

I would have responded to everything, but I couldn't post from the school computer labs (where I posted from originally) due to needing all the lunch time to study for final exams.

My dad decided he liked having me work at the store this summer, so I haven't gone home since school got out. I haven't left the store at all, even. He brings in new clothes so I don't smell weird and disgust customers. I only work 22 hours a day because he does give me my 30 minute break every six hours, so that's nice and thank you for that. That break has been the extent of my sleeping for the past 2 weeks.

I suppose he can take the phone that must be sitting in my room somewhere, but given that I haven't had a computer, TV, or video games or anything similar for years, there isn't really anything else for him to revoke. And even if there was, I couldn't use it anyway, because I've been at the store, so revoking it would mean nothing. I don't think he has any method left to punish me with other than spanking.

I'm getting SUPER desperate. Sleep-deprived, cranky, combative, feeling like shit. I already tried pleading several times with Dad over hours. I have no leverage and he has an incentive (tax purposes that I don't understand), so he won't ever budge and has told me so. Please tell me there's something I can do.

---

A couple questions. They really are not based in discrimination or are racist based. It's an attempt to understand some of the things you are saying.

Is your family originally from a middle eastern country?

if so, while not excusing what is happening, it does explain why some of it may be happening. In some middle eastern countries it is it unusual to use corporal punishment. Dad whopping an disrespectful child upside the head or spanking them is not uncommon. Working many hours at a business (he mentions store. I wonder if not a 7-11 type store or gas station which is a typical type of business owned by immigrants from the Middle East) and even sleeping at the store is not uncommon in such groups of peoples. I would suspect the father demands nothing more from the son than he expects from other family members or even himself. As well, in such societies a father is considered the lord of his home. His word is expected to be followed lest the non-compliant person subject to punishment, often physical.


To the tax incentive of paying the child but simply depositing it back into his own account; not understanding the claim. When he pays the kid he is obligated to pay the employers share of taxes and such just as any other employer is. In addition he is paying (out of the earnings) the employee share of taxes and such. It would be a lot cheaper if he simply did not pay his child or paid him as an IC. Given the father is likely treating the child unlawfully, why would one think he would care about complying with any law regarding the situation.

As to sleeping only two hours a day;

i have no qualms stating it is unlawful to treat the kid that way but honestly, I suspect the statement is an exaggeration. While some people can function with such little sleep, for a limited period of time, most cannot. Even more serious is enjoying such little sleep is dangerous. It is unhealthy and could lead to much more serious issues. Given the style of writing displayed here by the op, I simply refuse to accept he is getting only 2 hours of sleep daily.

So, if you are being honest, contact child protective services in your area and report the situation

if you aren't being honest there is no help for you.

I will try to explain the tax issue in a clearer way.

I agree that social security and medicare taxes are paid on the money no matter what. That is not the issue.

If dad's marginal tax rate is 25% then he is going to pay 25% federal income tax on the money.

If he pays his son 9.00 an hour but actually pockets the net pay rather than giving it to his son, then he does not pay any tax at all on the first 6100.00 of the amount he paid his son (because the son would not pay tax on that) and only 10% on the next approx. 10k. He is reducing his taxable profit at his marginal rate and lowering the tax bite on the money by reducing it to his son's tax rate.

He cannot pay his son as a contractor because the job the son performs is definitely not a contractor job. He could make his son work for free, but that would not reduce his taxable income. I fired one client because he was doing the same thing (except his children didn't actually have to work in the business). He was issuing w2s to all 4 of his children...He issued the W2s for just below the standard deduction so the children had to pay no tax on the money at all, and he got to pocket the tax savings...AND it made dad eligible for EIC.

Well, ignoring the overtime requirements that would increase the amount drastically, dad is paying son $72,000 per year. I think that defeats most of your arguments all by itself.

in addition you have no idea of dads tax rate or how the business is structured which could radically change the situation.

as to not paying his son as a contractor; dad is violating some laws. I'm quite confident in that. Why would he care whether it legal to treat his son as an IC?