Some of the legal questions related to the individual mandate are, at least partially, policy questions. In particular, what does the individual mandate do? And can the law stand without it?
The argument conservatives are making right now is that the individual mandate regulates "economic inactivity." That's not a description anyone had heard of it back when conservatives were co-sponsoring bills with the individual mandate, and it's not what the policy's creator had in mind when he developed it. But that doesn't make it untrue.
To believe it, however, you need to adopt a very narrow definition of what's being affected here: Namely, the decision to purchase or not purchase health-care insurance. The more traditional view is that the individual mandate is one of a slew of rules and regulations bringing order to something much broader: The American health-care system, which all of us participate in. That's the view of the 38 health economists and academics who signed this brief (pdf). "There is no such thing as 'inactivity' or non-participation in the health care market," they wrote. "As the District Court" -- which ruled for the Affordable Care Act -- "recognized, virtually all Americans will, at some time during their life, require health care, either because of illness, accident, or the wear and tear of age."
Because health services are so expensive, the costs are defrayed over many years. That's what insurance does. And because we are a humane society, we have rules and regulations in place to ensure that people can get treated even if they don't have insurance. In that way, you may not be interested in the health-care system, but if you get hit by a bus, the health-care system is interested in you -- and that's true even though you weren't making an economic choice to become "active" in the health-care system when you stepped into the street. You were, by virtue of our laws and regulations and taxes, already an active participant. The authors of the brief make this point -- and its connection to the individual mandate -- well:
The requirement to obtain a minimal level of health insurance is predicated on the unique characteristics of the health care market -- the unavoidable need for medical care; the unpredictability of such need; the high cost of care; the inability of providers to refuse to provide care in emergency situations; and the very significant cost-shifting that underlies the way medical care is paid for in this country. Those characteristics do not obtain in other markets and, without them, the predicate for the kind of regulation adopted in Section 1501 does not exist. Hence, affirming Congress’ power to adopt Section 1501 will not open the door to unfettered expansion of federal power over individual liberty, as Appellants fear.
To make this more concrete, when an uninsured person breaks a leg and needs hospital care, that care is paid for by the rest of us. It'd be a bit odd for your economic inactivity to cost me money. But your decision to remain without insurance does cost me money, because you're an active consumer of health-care risk and an active participant on a health-care market that affords you certain benefits. When you don't purchase insurance, you've not decided against participating in the American health-care system. You're just not participating responsibly. To quote Mitt Romney:
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on the government is not libertarian.
Then there's the question of severability -- can the law work without the mandate? The legislation does not specifically say that it can. And the Obama administration, in a calculated gamble to persuade the Court that the mandate passes constitutional muster through the "necessary and proper" clause, is currently arguing that it can't. This, at least in part, led Judge Vinson to void the entire bill. "In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch,and that seems to fit," he wrote. "It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed."
The irony of all this is that one of the central arguments in the Democratic campaign for the presidency was between the Obama campaign, which didn't think health-care reform required an individual mandate, and the Clinton campaign, which thought it did. I was on Clinton's side in that debate, but the case is more nuanced than the Obama team allowed then or is admitting now. The legislation will work much better with an individual mandate. But many people will be covered, and many goals achieved, in the absence of the mandate.
(Editor’s note: Curtis Smolar is a partner at Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley. He submitted this column to VentureBeat.)
A reader asks: My business is in an industry where sales people and software engineers are often recruited by competitors. How can I protect my company from being raided?
Answer: Employers use what are called restrictive covenants to protect trade secrets and prevent employees from unfairly stealing clients and/or information. Courts heavily scrutinize these covenants so it is imperative to have a seasoned attorney assist you with writing one that will be enforceable under the laws of the state where your company is located. (Just missing a few words can create tremendous grief for an employer.)
There are a variety of these available, but let’s look at the most common:
Non-disclosure agreeements: Non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) are one of the most effective and commonly used solutions to this problem. An NDA protects information that is a trade secret – data that has economic value (actual or potential) due to its exclusivity and is something you’re making efforts to keep secret.
Taking trade secrets without the owner’s consent is called misappropriation and if an employee misappropriates a trade secret, a company has the right to recover:
- Actual damages it suffers from the theft
- Repayment of the money made by the employee (or his new employer) as a result of the trade secret theft
- Injunctions requiring the return of the stolen property
- Attorney’s fees
To ensure the full protection of an NDA, you’ll need to require the employee to sign a confidentiality agreement when they come on board that defines the scope of information your company is trying to protect. This can be anything from a company’s secret sauce to pricing, lists and business processes.
Additionally, the NDA should contain a proprietary inventions assignment agreement (PIAA), which ensures that all work products created by the employee belong to the company and not to the employee – and the employee has no right to take them when he or she leaves the company. This can include everything from software programs to customer lists to website designs to pricing.
Covenants not to compete – Better known as non-compete agreements, the enforceability of these varies dramatically from state to state. In the states in which they are enforceable, like New York or Massachusetts, they can be very powerful tools. In other states, like California, they are generally prohibited.
California specifically has a statute stating that restrictive covenants not to compete are presumed invalid unless specific circumstances apply. For example, if the owner of a company sells their business, a non-compete may be enforceable against him or her in California.
For the states where these are enforceable, there are still some restrictions based on the duration of the agreement, geographical location and the breadth of activity prohibited.
Additionally, in many cases it doesn’t matter where the agreement was entered into or what the laws are there. If the employee moves to another state, either during or after employment, things can become muddled. So, it’s best to use non-competes with great caution. They may not be as effective as you initially think.
Non-solicitation – There are basically two kinds of non-solicitation agreements – non solicitation of employees and non-solicitation of clients.
Non-solicitation of employees is generally enforceable in most states, but a non-solicitation of clients may be considered an unfair restraint on trade. The exception in those situations is if the non-solicitation agreement is necessary to protect trade secrets.
Non-solicitation agreements are generally less onerous then covenants not to compete and typically more enforceable.
Startup owners: Got a legal question about your business? Submit it in the comments below or email Curtis directly. It could end up in an upcoming “Ask the Attorney” column.
Disclaimer: This “Ask the Attorney” post discusses general legal issues, but it does not constitute legal advice in any respect. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information presented herein without seeking the advice of counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. VentureBeat, the author and the author’s firm expressly disclaim all liability in respect of any actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post.
Next Story: Sony Ericsson’s Xperia Playstation Phone to launch on Feb. 13 Previous Story: How HP designed its new angled touchscreen desktops (video)
bench craft company
CBS announced a number of changes today among the top management team for CBS News, with Jeff Fager taking over as chairman of the division, a newly created position. The company is also bringing in a new face, David Rhodes, ...
Fox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
Sigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
bench craft company Some of the legal questions related to the individual mandate are, at least partially, policy questions. In particular, what does the individual mandate do? And can the law stand without it?
The argument conservatives are making right now is that the individual mandate regulates "economic inactivity." That's not a description anyone had heard of it back when conservatives were co-sponsoring bills with the individual mandate, and it's not what the policy's creator had in mind when he developed it. But that doesn't make it untrue.
To believe it, however, you need to adopt a very narrow definition of what's being affected here: Namely, the decision to purchase or not purchase health-care insurance. The more traditional view is that the individual mandate is one of a slew of rules and regulations bringing order to something much broader: The American health-care system, which all of us participate in. That's the view of the 38 health economists and academics who signed this brief (pdf). "There is no such thing as 'inactivity' or non-participation in the health care market," they wrote. "As the District Court" -- which ruled for the Affordable Care Act -- "recognized, virtually all Americans will, at some time during their life, require health care, either because of illness, accident, or the wear and tear of age."
Because health services are so expensive, the costs are defrayed over many years. That's what insurance does. And because we are a humane society, we have rules and regulations in place to ensure that people can get treated even if they don't have insurance. In that way, you may not be interested in the health-care system, but if you get hit by a bus, the health-care system is interested in you -- and that's true even though you weren't making an economic choice to become "active" in the health-care system when you stepped into the street. You were, by virtue of our laws and regulations and taxes, already an active participant. The authors of the brief make this point -- and its connection to the individual mandate -- well:
The requirement to obtain a minimal level of health insurance is predicated on the unique characteristics of the health care market -- the unavoidable need for medical care; the unpredictability of such need; the high cost of care; the inability of providers to refuse to provide care in emergency situations; and the very significant cost-shifting that underlies the way medical care is paid for in this country. Those characteristics do not obtain in other markets and, without them, the predicate for the kind of regulation adopted in Section 1501 does not exist. Hence, affirming Congress’ power to adopt Section 1501 will not open the door to unfettered expansion of federal power over individual liberty, as Appellants fear.
To make this more concrete, when an uninsured person breaks a leg and needs hospital care, that care is paid for by the rest of us. It'd be a bit odd for your economic inactivity to cost me money. But your decision to remain without insurance does cost me money, because you're an active consumer of health-care risk and an active participant on a health-care market that affords you certain benefits. When you don't purchase insurance, you've not decided against participating in the American health-care system. You're just not participating responsibly. To quote Mitt Romney:
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on the government is not libertarian.
Then there's the question of severability -- can the law work without the mandate? The legislation does not specifically say that it can. And the Obama administration, in a calculated gamble to persuade the Court that the mandate passes constitutional muster through the "necessary and proper" clause, is currently arguing that it can't. This, at least in part, led Judge Vinson to void the entire bill. "In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch,and that seems to fit," he wrote. "It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed."
The irony of all this is that one of the central arguments in the Democratic campaign for the presidency was between the Obama campaign, which didn't think health-care reform required an individual mandate, and the Clinton campaign, which thought it did. I was on Clinton's side in that debate, but the case is more nuanced than the Obama team allowed then or is admitting now. The legislation will work much better with an individual mandate. But many people will be covered, and many goals achieved, in the absence of the mandate.
(Editor’s note: Curtis Smolar is a partner at Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley. He submitted this column to VentureBeat.)
A reader asks: My business is in an industry where sales people and software engineers are often recruited by competitors. How can I protect my company from being raided?
Answer: Employers use what are called restrictive covenants to protect trade secrets and prevent employees from unfairly stealing clients and/or information. Courts heavily scrutinize these covenants so it is imperative to have a seasoned attorney assist you with writing one that will be enforceable under the laws of the state where your company is located. (Just missing a few words can create tremendous grief for an employer.)
There are a variety of these available, but let’s look at the most common:
Non-disclosure agreeements: Non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) are one of the most effective and commonly used solutions to this problem. An NDA protects information that is a trade secret – data that has economic value (actual or potential) due to its exclusivity and is something you’re making efforts to keep secret.
Taking trade secrets without the owner’s consent is called misappropriation and if an employee misappropriates a trade secret, a company has the right to recover:
- Actual damages it suffers from the theft
- Repayment of the money made by the employee (or his new employer) as a result of the trade secret theft
- Injunctions requiring the return of the stolen property
- Attorney’s fees
To ensure the full protection of an NDA, you’ll need to require the employee to sign a confidentiality agreement when they come on board that defines the scope of information your company is trying to protect. This can be anything from a company’s secret sauce to pricing, lists and business processes.
Additionally, the NDA should contain a proprietary inventions assignment agreement (PIAA), which ensures that all work products created by the employee belong to the company and not to the employee – and the employee has no right to take them when he or she leaves the company. This can include everything from software programs to customer lists to website designs to pricing.
Covenants not to compete – Better known as non-compete agreements, the enforceability of these varies dramatically from state to state. In the states in which they are enforceable, like New York or Massachusetts, they can be very powerful tools. In other states, like California, they are generally prohibited.
California specifically has a statute stating that restrictive covenants not to compete are presumed invalid unless specific circumstances apply. For example, if the owner of a company sells their business, a non-compete may be enforceable against him or her in California.
For the states where these are enforceable, there are still some restrictions based on the duration of the agreement, geographical location and the breadth of activity prohibited.
Additionally, in many cases it doesn’t matter where the agreement was entered into or what the laws are there. If the employee moves to another state, either during or after employment, things can become muddled. So, it’s best to use non-competes with great caution. They may not be as effective as you initially think.
Non-solicitation – There are basically two kinds of non-solicitation agreements – non solicitation of employees and non-solicitation of clients.
Non-solicitation of employees is generally enforceable in most states, but a non-solicitation of clients may be considered an unfair restraint on trade. The exception in those situations is if the non-solicitation agreement is necessary to protect trade secrets.
Non-solicitation agreements are generally less onerous then covenants not to compete and typically more enforceable.
Startup owners: Got a legal question about your business? Submit it in the comments below or email Curtis directly. It could end up in an upcoming “Ask the Attorney” column.
Disclaimer: This “Ask the Attorney” post discusses general legal issues, but it does not constitute legal advice in any respect. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information presented herein without seeking the advice of counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. VentureBeat, the author and the author’s firm expressly disclaim all liability in respect of any actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post.
Next Story: Sony Ericsson’s Xperia Playstation Phone to launch on Feb. 13 Previous Story: How HP designed its new angled touchscreen desktops (video)
bench craft company>
CBS announced a number of changes today among the top management team for CBS News, with Jeff Fager taking over as chairman of the division, a newly created position. The company is also bringing in a new face, David Rhodes, ...
Fox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
Sigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
bench craft company[reefeed]
bench craft company
bench craft companyCBS announced a number of changes today among the top management team for CBS News, with Jeff Fager taking over as chairman of the division, a newly created position. The company is also bringing in a new face, David Rhodes, ...
Fox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
Sigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
bench craft company Some of the legal questions related to the individual mandate are, at least partially, policy questions. In particular, what does the individual mandate do? And can the law stand without it?
The argument conservatives are making right now is that the individual mandate regulates "economic inactivity." That's not a description anyone had heard of it back when conservatives were co-sponsoring bills with the individual mandate, and it's not what the policy's creator had in mind when he developed it. But that doesn't make it untrue.
To believe it, however, you need to adopt a very narrow definition of what's being affected here: Namely, the decision to purchase or not purchase health-care insurance. The more traditional view is that the individual mandate is one of a slew of rules and regulations bringing order to something much broader: The American health-care system, which all of us participate in. That's the view of the 38 health economists and academics who signed this brief (pdf). "There is no such thing as 'inactivity' or non-participation in the health care market," they wrote. "As the District Court" -- which ruled for the Affordable Care Act -- "recognized, virtually all Americans will, at some time during their life, require health care, either because of illness, accident, or the wear and tear of age."
Because health services are so expensive, the costs are defrayed over many years. That's what insurance does. And because we are a humane society, we have rules and regulations in place to ensure that people can get treated even if they don't have insurance. In that way, you may not be interested in the health-care system, but if you get hit by a bus, the health-care system is interested in you -- and that's true even though you weren't making an economic choice to become "active" in the health-care system when you stepped into the street. You were, by virtue of our laws and regulations and taxes, already an active participant. The authors of the brief make this point -- and its connection to the individual mandate -- well:
The requirement to obtain a minimal level of health insurance is predicated on the unique characteristics of the health care market -- the unavoidable need for medical care; the unpredictability of such need; the high cost of care; the inability of providers to refuse to provide care in emergency situations; and the very significant cost-shifting that underlies the way medical care is paid for in this country. Those characteristics do not obtain in other markets and, without them, the predicate for the kind of regulation adopted in Section 1501 does not exist. Hence, affirming Congress’ power to adopt Section 1501 will not open the door to unfettered expansion of federal power over individual liberty, as Appellants fear.
To make this more concrete, when an uninsured person breaks a leg and needs hospital care, that care is paid for by the rest of us. It'd be a bit odd for your economic inactivity to cost me money. But your decision to remain without insurance does cost me money, because you're an active consumer of health-care risk and an active participant on a health-care market that affords you certain benefits. When you don't purchase insurance, you've not decided against participating in the American health-care system. You're just not participating responsibly. To quote Mitt Romney:
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on the government is not libertarian.
Then there's the question of severability -- can the law work without the mandate? The legislation does not specifically say that it can. And the Obama administration, in a calculated gamble to persuade the Court that the mandate passes constitutional muster through the "necessary and proper" clause, is currently arguing that it can't. This, at least in part, led Judge Vinson to void the entire bill. "In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch,and that seems to fit," he wrote. "It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed."
The irony of all this is that one of the central arguments in the Democratic campaign for the presidency was between the Obama campaign, which didn't think health-care reform required an individual mandate, and the Clinton campaign, which thought it did. I was on Clinton's side in that debate, but the case is more nuanced than the Obama team allowed then or is admitting now. The legislation will work much better with an individual mandate. But many people will be covered, and many goals achieved, in the absence of the mandate.
(Editor’s note: Curtis Smolar is a partner at Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley. He submitted this column to VentureBeat.)
A reader asks: My business is in an industry where sales people and software engineers are often recruited by competitors. How can I protect my company from being raided?
Answer: Employers use what are called restrictive covenants to protect trade secrets and prevent employees from unfairly stealing clients and/or information. Courts heavily scrutinize these covenants so it is imperative to have a seasoned attorney assist you with writing one that will be enforceable under the laws of the state where your company is located. (Just missing a few words can create tremendous grief for an employer.)
There are a variety of these available, but let’s look at the most common:
Non-disclosure agreeements: Non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) are one of the most effective and commonly used solutions to this problem. An NDA protects information that is a trade secret – data that has economic value (actual or potential) due to its exclusivity and is something you’re making efforts to keep secret.
Taking trade secrets without the owner’s consent is called misappropriation and if an employee misappropriates a trade secret, a company has the right to recover:
- Actual damages it suffers from the theft
- Repayment of the money made by the employee (or his new employer) as a result of the trade secret theft
- Injunctions requiring the return of the stolen property
- Attorney’s fees
To ensure the full protection of an NDA, you’ll need to require the employee to sign a confidentiality agreement when they come on board that defines the scope of information your company is trying to protect. This can be anything from a company’s secret sauce to pricing, lists and business processes.
Additionally, the NDA should contain a proprietary inventions assignment agreement (PIAA), which ensures that all work products created by the employee belong to the company and not to the employee – and the employee has no right to take them when he or she leaves the company. This can include everything from software programs to customer lists to website designs to pricing.
Covenants not to compete – Better known as non-compete agreements, the enforceability of these varies dramatically from state to state. In the states in which they are enforceable, like New York or Massachusetts, they can be very powerful tools. In other states, like California, they are generally prohibited.
California specifically has a statute stating that restrictive covenants not to compete are presumed invalid unless specific circumstances apply. For example, if the owner of a company sells their business, a non-compete may be enforceable against him or her in California.
For the states where these are enforceable, there are still some restrictions based on the duration of the agreement, geographical location and the breadth of activity prohibited.
Additionally, in many cases it doesn’t matter where the agreement was entered into or what the laws are there. If the employee moves to another state, either during or after employment, things can become muddled. So, it’s best to use non-competes with great caution. They may not be as effective as you initially think.
Non-solicitation – There are basically two kinds of non-solicitation agreements – non solicitation of employees and non-solicitation of clients.
Non-solicitation of employees is generally enforceable in most states, but a non-solicitation of clients may be considered an unfair restraint on trade. The exception in those situations is if the non-solicitation agreement is necessary to protect trade secrets.
Non-solicitation agreements are generally less onerous then covenants not to compete and typically more enforceable.
Startup owners: Got a legal question about your business? Submit it in the comments below or email Curtis directly. It could end up in an upcoming “Ask the Attorney” column.
Disclaimer: This “Ask the Attorney” post discusses general legal issues, but it does not constitute legal advice in any respect. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information presented herein without seeking the advice of counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. VentureBeat, the author and the author’s firm expressly disclaim all liability in respect of any actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post.
Next Story: Sony Ericsson’s Xperia Playstation Phone to launch on Feb. 13 Previous Story: How HP designed its new angled touchscreen desktops (video)
bench craft company
bench craft companyCBS announced a number of changes today among the top management team for CBS News, with Jeff Fager taking over as chairman of the division, a newly created position. The company is also bringing in a new face, David Rhodes, ...
Fox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
Sigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
bench craft company
bench craft companyCBS announced a number of changes today among the top management team for CBS News, with Jeff Fager taking over as chairman of the division, a newly created position. The company is also bringing in a new face, David Rhodes, ...
Fox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
Sigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
bench craft companyCBS announced a number of changes today among the top management team for CBS News, with Jeff Fager taking over as chairman of the division, a newly created position. The company is also bringing in a new face, David Rhodes, ...
Fox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
Sigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
bench craft companyCBS announced a number of changes today among the top management team for CBS News, with Jeff Fager taking over as chairman of the division, a newly created position. The company is also bringing in a new face, David Rhodes, ...
Fox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
Sigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
bench craft company bench craft company bench craft company
bench craft company bench craft companyCBS announced a number of changes today among the top management team for CBS News, with Jeff Fager taking over as chairman of the division, a newly created position. The company is also bringing in a new face, David Rhodes, ...
Fox News pundit claims that "increase in rapes" is due largely to videogames.
Sigma announcements include 120-300mm F2.8 and 150mm F2.8 Macro pricing: CP+ 2011: In addition to its latest lens announcements, Sigma has announced the price and availability of its 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM and Macro 150mm F2.8 EX ...
bench craft company The idea of making money on line is always welcomed by most people. Who wouldn't want to earn on-line and to be getting an income from this source hence, improving financial freedom? There are just lots of methods that one can come out with when it comes to on-line money making. First of all, it's important to research the sites that you are going to join or participate. Are they legit sites, need a minimum sum or stuff like that.
In any situation for on-line money making, organizing one's interests would be very helpful to shortlist the different methods available. There are lots of methods like getting paid to blog, writing articles and gaining from ad revenue, being paid a revenue share for writing, writing sites for clients to outsource, writing letters to submit to a bank of other letters for customers to choose from, paid to review sites, affiliate programs and many more. The list is just endless and there are just enormous ways of on-line money making. In my own personal observation, I notice that there are lots of people liking the idea of paid to blog. That is one of the best methods of earning money.
A lot of people are saying that it's best to not invest in any money at all for your on-line quest. To shed your dollar means something is not right. That's the general rule. There are perhaps lots of people out there making it in their best interest to only participate in free to join websites. However, I think there are legit sites out there with a low minimal fee like for instance, to purchase referrals and gain a bigger ads view per day. This is evident in PTC or what they call Paid to Click programs. There are just aplenty; some are still running while others are either already closed down or total scams. Therefore, be vigilant when choosing your programs. Next off will be the payment options. Choose the right kind of option. There are lots of people using Pay-Pal as well as Alert-Pay. Read the FAQs of each site and get to know their policy and what kind of payment options they are offering. Some only pay in checks so do take note in this kind of situation, you cannot use your Pay-Pal account to receive earnings.
In a way, this on-line money making method and/or various free to join websites can be your ideal work from home idea and some people are so successful that they have been making it their full-time job. However, if you are starting out, it's best to not resign your job for different people success vary definitely. Normally for a site that you are going to work for, say in writing sites, forums or anything at all, there will most probably be a community talk there. It can either be through their Help section, special forum panel and there are even some sites where members can leave testimonials. You can roughly estimate from there; whether the site is worth working for or not. Most sites cite in their terms and conditions that the registered member is an independent contractor. Read the clause and make yourself understand all the terms and words being used. In other words, do your research well.
Some money making sites are even providing a chart on article statistics or traffic coming to which article of yours. This instance is very familiar with Associated Content website and I totally dig this feature. It is a great analyzer for me, really. Summarily, with a little or lots of efforts, honest sites are there and they do pay members whom work hard. Do your research and never give up. Good luck for your quest..
