Do you invoice for sales tax?

[TheBoss]

Actually I'm not but all your "under the table" you just pulled out and plunked down in public! And you wondering how they would ever find out?????

I file taxes on everything even folks who pay "under the table". If your filing as a business you have a WHOLE lot more you can expense and deduct than as an individual.

Yes, I just plunked it all down in public...on a message board. With my full name, address, ss#, dob, and list of known allergies.

I don't file as a business because what little side work I get isn't worth the trouble of trying to claim my expenses...because every year that I've done it, I wind up spending more out on the gear, travel, etc. than what's paid in as income. When I consulted with the accountant, I was suggested to file individually rather than establish LLC (or similar). Anything subbed out to me is miniscule and is 1099'd. My primary occupation is with a TV station where I'm simply working for them with their gear and W-2'd. That's 95% of my income, get it? Weekend work is occasionally sub-contracted and rarely through my own booking.

Probably should've started my own thread, huh?

 

[Zak Forsman]

After doing my taxes this year, I received a notice from the Los Angeles Business Tax board notifying me that I should be paying business taxes on all income. This can be somewhat complicated due to the fact that rental costs are included in my invoices, inflating my stated income on my 1099s. I spoke to a rep from the tax board, who said to me that I should be including sales tax on my service invoices, which in LA will be 9.75% come July. Is this standard practice for many of you out there?

david, i feel your pain. my girlfriend is a freelance editor and just went thru this. the LA business tax board has been coming down on a lot of people lately. we just went to an accountant recommended by a friend and let them sort it out.

 

[basspig]

Yes, I just plunked it all down in public...on a message board. With my full name, address, ss#, dob, and list of known allergies.

I don't file as a business because what little side work I get isn't worth the trouble of trying to claim my expenses...because every year that I've done it, I wind up spending more out on the gear, travel, etc. than what's paid in as income. When I consulted with the accountant, I was suggested to file individually rather than establish LLC (or similar). Anything subbed out to me is miniscule and is 1099'd. My primary occupation is with a TV station where I'm simply working for them with their gear and W-2'd. That's 95% of my income, get it? Weekend work is occasionally sub-contracted and rarely through my own booking.

Probably should've started my own thread, huh?

I hear you loud & clear, and, as an Objectivist, I have a real hard time with property theft (taxes) on a moral basis. But until citizens are allowed to have nukes, we'll just all have to concede to the government that has all the nukes, smart bombs and guns.

Solo businessmen often don't have the time to do taxes, and often not the money to hire an accountant to do them for them. It's especially challenging for a one man band, because you have to spend 16 hours a day marketing, 30 minutes actually DOING what your profession does, and 2 hours doing the bookkeeping. And if you're like me, you spend 20 times as much on gear as you earn in gross income from that venture, so in a nutshell, the problem is having TOO MANY deductions.

As for how the states catch out of state purchases, back in the late 1980s, my state had a Democrat governor elected. It was the most Draconian governorship in recent memory: they'd set up speed traps of a dozen cop cars and nab anyone doing 60 in a 55 zone. I would drive home from work and see fifty or more cars pulled over at a time, all getting ticketed, because the governor got pissed one day because a BMW passed his limo on the interstate doing 15 over. Well that governor set up sting operations with neighboring states. They audited retailers that do mail order and snagged thousands of residents for unpaid taxes. And if you ignore the letters, they execute a Tax Warrant and go clean out your bank accounts.

These are dark times my friend. The dictator in charge needs more trillions than ever, and he'll squeeze the money out any way possible. As government tax rates go up, so do the amount of evasions, so the IRS will step up enforcement. They are already talking about taxing eBay and every other online transaction provider. A national online sales tax is in the works, which will present an unbelievable burden to any online retailers who will have to collect and pay sales taxes to all 50 states. The country is committing economic suicide, and as the carcass falls dead, a lot of us are going to get crushed in the process.

 

[Steve House]

I hear you loud & clear, and, as an Objectivist, I have a real hard time with property theft (taxes) on a moral basis. But until citizens are allowed to have nukes, we'll just all have to concede to the government that has all the nukes, smart bombs and guns.

....

I agree with you on an emotional basis but riddle me this. Some things that are absolutely necessary for a society to function, such as roads, policing and fire protection, public education, and IMHO health care are functions whose costs are legitmately born by society as a whole rather than individual consumers and are too important to be left left to either enterprenurial initiative, consumer merchantlism and market forces, or volunteerism. How then would you suggest they be provided if there was no taxation?

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

I agree with you on an emotional basis but riddle me this. Some things that are absolutely necessary for a society to function, such as roads, policing and fire protection, public education, and IMHO health care are functions whose costs are legitmately born by society as a whole rather than individual consumers and are too important to be left left to either enterprenurial initiative, consumer merchantlism and market forces, or volunteerism. How then would you suggest they be provided if there was no taxation?

The Fair Tax

 

[basspig]

First, many of these 'services' are not morally the responsibility or duty of government. Why would you want someone with an agenda opposite yours to be educating your children against your better judgement?
Roads and transportation would be better off in the private sector. The only area where government is realistically needed is in the area where force is necessary to protect individual rights.
If you want to find out how a society can operate without the force & fraud of taxation, I invite you to read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand. There are other sources as well, but I lack the time to give a clear and complete dissertation on the subject and this is not the place for it.

 

[Noiz2]

These are dark times my friend. The dictator in charge needs more trillions than ever, and he'll squeeze the money out any way possible. As government tax rates go up, so do the amount of evasions, so the IRS will step up enforcement. They are already talking about taxing eBay and every other online transaction provider. A national online sales tax is in the works, which will present an unbelievable burden to any online retailers who will have to collect and pay sales taxes to all 50 states. The country is committing economic suicide, and as the carcass falls dead, a lot of us are going to get crushed in the process.

True they are dark times. But the good news is the Dictator is no longer in charge, he got elected out. You see dictators aren't elected by the people. When they are elected it's with rigged elections where they "own" the voting machines etc. Since the departing guy's folks owned the voting machines and were more than happy to rig elections that fact that they couldn't get one of there own in speaks very well for Americas continuing power of the vote. If you had posted this a year ago I could have agreed but the policies you seem to be promoting caused a world wide depression that we will be lucky to turn around in the next decade. This isn't a R VS D thing they were both there happily getting us into this mess but don't blame the first person to actually address the issue in 10 years. And BTW the trial ballon on internet taxation is last regime. It keeps popping up but the big push was during GW. Very unlikely to happen for the reasons you state and because the vultures can't agree on how to divide the spoils.

That said two tax points. One, it is often pointed out that we have the lowest tax rate of any major nation. But that is not really the case. If you add all the taxes in were right up there or above all the other major nations. They get roads etc AND national health for their $ we get washington adventures.
Second We need some federal tax but it should be a lot more straight forward than it is and it does need to be a lot fairer than it is.

Let's get back to film.

 

[Noiz2]

First, many of these 'services' are not morally the responsibility or duty of government. Why would you want someone with an agenda opposite yours to be educating your children against your better judgement?
Roads and transportation would be better off in the private sector. The only area where government is realistically needed is in the area where force is necessary to protect individual rights.

Well living in the east you should know better than most what what a disaster leaving roads to local authority is. There is no "morality" to roads. And having a fair amount of experience with "private sector" road building I can tell you that it's an even bigger boondoggle than when the government does it. At least with the government you have some power. And yes education should not be limited by the ignorance and/or prejudice of the parents. Everyone who starts spouting off about people being able to raise their kids by their own standards and morals never wants that right for those who don't agree with that particular world view. The home school christians are not out marching for gay parents rights or mormon polygamy rights etc. or visa versa. I would put national security as a better use of fed money, I doubt highly that what you define as "individual rights" jells with how most people or at least I would define the term.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

How bout we just keep the religion bashing off of this board?

 

[Noiz2]

How bout we just keep the religion bashing off of this board?

Sorry if it came out that way, wasn't intended. My point was that every group that has been a big advocate of individualized education whether it's for religious/ political/ cultural/ you name it, has not been about extending that right to those who don't share that particular view. I though I had generalized my reply to not "bash" any particular group but guess not. I have no issue with anyones beliefs as long as they respect others.

So apologies if I implied otherwise.

 

[JonathanLB]

lol, religious people are way too sensitive, it's very inappropriate. I have to tolerate -- in 2009 -- morons who still believe in completely unprovable fairy tales, and they can't manage to have a thick skin about believing in this garbage? Puh-lease, wake me up!

As for sales tax, I need to move back to Oregon with our friendly 0% sales tax.

And anything done by the government is a disaster. Healthcare is not a right, it's a privilege. Just like anything else. You don't have a RIGHT to get the best medical care possible, you have that right only so long as you have the money to make it happen. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

 

[basspig]

lol, religious people are way too sensitive, it's very inappropriate. I have to tolerate -- in 2009 -- morons who still believe in completely unprovable fairy tales, and they can't manage to have a thick skin about believing in this garbage? Puh-lease, wake me up!

As for sales tax, I need to move back to Oregon with our friendly 0% sales tax.

And anything done by the government is a disaster. Healthcare is not a right, it's a privilege. Just like anything else. You don't have a RIGHT to get the best medical care possible, you have that right only so long as you have the money to make it happen. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

Finally, a viewpoint that I agree with 100%! Well stated, JonathanLB!

One final note: as long as there are people who are willing to use physical force to impose their views on others, there will be war.

 

[Steve House]

..
And anything done by the government is a disaster. Healthcare is not a right, it's a privilege. Just like anything else. You don't have a RIGHT to get the best medical care possible, you have that right only so long as you have the money to make it happen. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

Only the wealthy have proven themselves worthy of receiving the benefits of good healthcare? Inferior people who can't make enough money are obviously not worthy of living - their lack of weath is evidence of their inferiority - and can just die, right? Eugenics in action.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Only the wealthy have proven themselves worthy of receiving the benefits of good healthcare? Inferior people who can't make enough money are obviously not worthy of living - their lack of weath is evidence of their inferiority - and can just die, right? Eugenics in action.

That's a strawman argument.

Without the "rich" people paying for the advanced medicine research, NO ONE would get the quality drugs they need.

This class warfare crap is getting old.

Why do you think all of the best doctors from around the world, and all of the best pharmaceutical researchers come HERE?

Here's a clue, it isn't for altruistic reasons.

Take away the incentive (profit) for advanced research and medical development and you'll find that our medical care will be no better than anyone elses in due time.

 

[Steve House]

That's a strawman argument.

Without the "rich" people paying for the advanced medicine research, NO ONE would get the quality drugs they need.

This class warfare crap is getting old.

Why do you think all of the best doctors from around the world, and all of the best pharmaceutical researchers come HERE?

Here's a clue, it isn't for altruistic reasons.

Take away the incentive (profit) for advanced research and medical development and you'll find that our medical care will be no better than anyone elses in due time.

No class warfare argument has been offered. Some things are necessary for a society as a whole to survive and are outside the merchatile realm. General healthcare for all is one of them. Back in the 1800's you had to subscribe to fire protection - if you didn't have a paid subscription and the medallion on your building to prove it, the fire companies let it burn. Competing fire companies would duke it out in the streets for the right to sell you a subscription on the spot while your building burned if your building caught fire. Now we know there's a better way and realize that society is better off, safer for everyone, if fire potection is removed from the capitalist marketplace. Same thing with healthcare. Society as a whole is better off, including the rich, when everyone has equal access regardless of economic circumstances. And the idea that the USA is the only place in the world with decent healthcare is just plain wrong, a patriotic myth.

 

[basspig]

Steve, let me understand this... do you agree then that is it moral to commit armed robbery, so long as the proceeds from the theft go to help the 'needy'? Because that's what universal healthcare is.

I think one important factor that Socialized medicine and socialized anything overlooks is that in such a system, which punishes achievers and rewards leeches, the achievers will soon lose interest in their former ambitions and too becomes leeches. Once all of the achievers give up due to lack of fulfillment in a Socialist system, the entire of society will fall back into the Dark Ages. Is that what you want? Because that's what such a system ultimately leads to.

In a Laissez-faire Capitalist system (never before seen in America, except maybe some aspects of it prior to 1863), the market punishes wrongdoers and rewards those who do right by their customers. It has natural built in safeguards that filter out the bad businessmen and lets remain only the best businessmen with the best value of services/products.

As it is in Nature, so society needs to be, because it is the way that is harmonious with human nature. Government beyond the three moral purposes I mentioned earlier, is antithetical to human nature; as such, it will always be in violent conflict with humans. I don't know about you, but I would not want to live in a society full of retarded cripples, because we protected that which nature would have naturally eliminated. In fact, it is cruel to keep such persons alive when they cannot enjoy a life where they have the physical and mental ability to pursue and reach their full potential. It is monstrous to keep such persons alive, and criminal to do it by forcing others to pay for their life support care.


BTW, I am glad to see a few Objectivists here in the forum. At least two of you have the correct moral and political view, as expressed in your responses.

 

[AwakenedFilms]

Wow. Started as such a lively discussion on the practical application of sales tax. How did we end up here?

I charge sales tax on everything except for very specific situations - 1) I am clearly a 1099 freelance worker for another company 2) I am doing work for a bona-fide 501c3 (and I require documentation to prove it).

Jokerswild, I am curious what kind of letter to ask for from the IRS concerning tax code. I would like to have somthing handy because similar questions have arisen. I am also curious about taxation on blank media. When I lived in Canada, there was a large tax on blank media, but have not heard of anything similar here in NY/NJ. Does anyone have any comments?


Jason

 

[Steve House]

Steve, let me understand this... do you agree then that is it moral to commit armed robbery, so long as the proceeds from the theft go to help the 'needy'? Because that's what universal healthcare is.

....

What about the moral obligation of all members of a scoiety to contribute to the general good? Are you suggesting that one's contribution to, say, the cost of national defense be made strictly voluntary? How is insuring all members of society are protected from disease any different from insuring they're protected from foreign invasion?

 

[basspig]

It is really very simple: in a rational society (not the current one we have today, which consists of hedonists who are accustomed to getting handouts from government and having everything but their nose wiping taken care of from crib to crypt), the individuals would understand the importance of a national defense system and, if it were necessary to fund it with citizen money, they would voluntarily contribute.

In a system that does not steal over 90% of the wealth of the citizens through thousands of taxes, fees, monetary depreciation via fiat money, etc., there would be a lot more money for living and a good deal of surplus.

Another point is that, had America not become so overfunded and top-heavy, we would have likely kept our nose out of other countries' affairs and would not today be the object of hatred of the other 80% of the world. Had we not armed our idealogical enemies with funding from taxpayers, our idealogical enemies would still be living in caves and chucking spears at eachother and nothing more. They were primative and poor, and we were technologically developed. It angers me to know that, through the US private assets that some of these countries stole from us, they absconded with enough wealth to buy the weapons to become a genuine threat to the West. It was taxation that enabled evil, because it was tax money that the government gave away to use other small conflicting nations in a game of "chess", where the US manipulated these nations by funding their militaries and then funding their enemy's militaries, switching sides about every decade.

Had we kept government in the proper role of protecting individual rights, had government with its politcal agenda du jour not been involved in indoctrinating the young, we would have had less than 1% the cost and size of government that we had by 1970, and we would have few or no enemies, hence no need for a huge military.

Government, funded by extorted money, is an ever-expanding cancer--it cannot be held in check, no matter how many laws be passed in the name of responsible governance.

For a more thorough perspective in context on understanding this, I recommend "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand, and also "Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology [Second Edition]" by Ayn Rand, if you want to delve deeper into understanding the nature of man and how to live in a free society and what it requires to have and maintain a free society.

 

[Noiz2]

My god man you are a lunatic. It's the great capitalsts you are embracing that sold weapons to the folks you don't like. You don't think they made a pie doing it????? And that is OK with you because who ever makes the gold sets the rules, the real golden rule. That is by the way what this country fought to get away from in the revolution.

From a very practical point of view it's not good for the health of the haves to have too large a gulf between them and the have nots. Take a look at a lot of third world countries. Your scared of socialism well the fastest way to bring it to your doorstep is to disenfranchise the "lower classes". Folks with little to lose are a very dangerous thing.

I'm off this thread, and Steve I think it's a waste trying to convince some people that the world is indeed not flat.

It is really very simple: in a rational society (not the current one we have today, which consists of hedonists who are accustomed to getting handouts from government and having everything but their nose wiping taken care of from crib to crypt), the individuals would understand the importance of a national defense system and, if it were necessary to fund it with citizen money, they would voluntarily contribute.

In a system that does not steal over 90% of the wealth of the citizens through thousands of taxes, fees, monetary depreciation via fiat money, etc., there would be a lot more money for living and a good deal of surplus.

Another point is that, had America not become so overfunded and top-heavy, we would have likely kept our nose out of other countries' affairs and would not today be the object of hatred of the other 80% of the world. Had we not armed our idealogical enemies with funding from taxpayers, our idealogical enemies would still be living in caves and chucking spears at eachother and nothing more. They were primative and poor, and we were technologically developed. It angers me to know that, through the US private assets that some of these countries stole from us, they absconded with enough wealth to buy the weapons to become a genuine threat to the West. It was taxation that enabled evil, because it was tax money that the government gave away to use other small conflicting nations in a game of "chess", where the US manipulated these nations by funding their militaries and then funding their enemy's militaries, switching sides about every decade.

Had we kept government in the proper role of protecting individual rights, had government with its politcal agenda du jour not been involved in indoctrinating the young, we would have had less than 1% the cost and size of government that we had by 1970, and we would have few or no enemies, hence no need for a huge military.

Government, funded by extorted money, is an ever-expanding cancer--it cannot be held in check, no matter how many laws be passed in the name of responsible governance.

For a more thorough perspective in context on understanding this, I recommend "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand, and also "Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology [Second Edition]" by Ayn Rand, if you want to delve deeper into understanding the nature of man and how to live in a free society and what it requires to have and maintain a free society.