Mayssan Shora Farra on fri 4 jan 08
Hello Bonnie:
I use Quick books simple start that came with my computer. It works pretty
good for my purposes but I cannot figure how to make it do consignments
where I can apply one item at a time and then apply the extra 30/ 35/ 40
percent consignment fee that I pay to galleries.
If i upgrade to a more complete quick bookswould it do that too? or is
there a way that i am not seeing now.
Thanks for the help.
Mayssan
http://www.clayvillepottery.com
Steve Slatin on fri 4 jan 08
Paul --
Huckabee has a 5 point tax plan are as follows --
1. For every dollar spent retail, add a US government
tax of 30 cents.
2. Refer to this 30% tax as a "23 percent tax" hoping
that the electorate is so stupefyingly ignorant that they
won't be able to tell they're being hoodwinked.
Points 3 through 5 are even more foolish, so I'll leave
them out.
Regards -- Steve (Oh, do I have preconceived notions?) Slatin
Paul Lewing wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Bonnie Hellman wrote:
Here it is January 4th, 2008, and as a CPA who does tax work for a
living,
I'm thinking about US income taxes.
And I was just thinking about you and US income taxes today too, Bonnie.
All day today I've been, of course, hearing about Mike Huckabee
winning the Iowa Caucuses yesterday. One of his distinctive
proposals is to do away with income taxes and the IRS, and institute
a 23% national sales tax. One of his arguments for doing this is
that it would be more fair, and would also tax the so-called
underground economy
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Bonnie Hellman on fri 4 jan 08
Hi Everyone,
Here it is January 4th, 2008, and as a CPA who does tax work for a living,
I'm thinking about US income taxes.
I'm not big on New Year's resolutions, but since I've already spent a lot of
time at the end of last year with clients doing year end planning and
projections, it reminded me that those people who are used a tax program
that allows them to input data throughout the year were ready to complete
their planning for 2007. Those who keep manual records had to put in a lot
of time to get to the point where we could do some planning.
So, I thought I'd share the thought that since it's still early in the year,
this would be a good time start using a program such as QuickBooks (or even
Quicken or Money) for 2008. If your 2007 data is still unsorted in paper
folders, you could enter it into your program a little bit every day, and
you'll be ready to go by February.
Last year I offered and emailed a list of accounts that a potter might use
in QuickBooks. I can also send this as a backup, so you could restore it to
a new QuickBooks company if you are just starting out. I would be happy to
email this to anyone else who wants it. I have this in QuickBooks 2007. My
list has a lot of duplication, because some terms are more meaningful to
some people than others, and it is designed as a starting point for ceramic
artists.
(Please email me privately at: mou10ms at frontier.net with your email
address. Substitute the @ sign for the word "at" in my address.)
Anyway, I'm thinking about US taxes, having taken several update courses in
late 2007. I'm also thinking about ceramics and I wish everyone a Happy,
Healthy 2008.
Bonnie
PS As I'm getting ready for the 2007 filing season, I am able to accept a
few more clients, if you are interested.
Bonnie D. Hellman, CPA in CO & PA
Ouray, Colorado 81427
As required by United States Treasury Regulations, you should be aware that
this communication is not intended or written by the sender to be used, and
it cannot be used, by any recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties
that may be imposed on the recipient under United States federal tax laws.
Bonnie Hellman on fri 4 jan 08
Hi Paul and anyone else into philosophical taxes-
Last year I read a book about this proposal. Actually I listened to the book
on CDs. It is called
The Fair Tax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS by
Neal Boortz and John Linder
and their argument is compelling. I have to say that I did not pay
attention to Mike Huckabee's proposal, but it sounds like The Fair Tax
proposal. The so-called Fair Tax proposal, which the authors say has a lot
of support, would save everyone and all businesses money because we'd
eliminate a lot of bureaucracy, and have a bazillion other favorable
benefits with no downside. The CD tone of voice is "This sounds too good to
be true, but it really is true!"
I don't know what the level of income of most potters is, but if it is
relatively low, Neal Boortz and John Linder's proposal includes a component
that is a credit or payment, which purports to equalize things for lower
income earners. Otherwise, lower income earners would end up paying more in
tax under the new plan than they do now. This Fair Tax plan is supposed to
substitute the 23% for social security taxes, all federal and state (and
local) income taxes and sales taxes. They explain the derivation of the 23%,
but this is the part that makes me look at their proposal skeptically.
However, as you know, both houses of Congress would need to pass legislation
changing the tax code section of our laws, and the president would need to
sign this legislation. In the past we've seen that having a president who
wants a particular type of legislation is not a guarantee that it will
happen. So after listening to the book, I wasn't going to hold my breath
that we'd switch over to this system tomorrow.
As a CPA and tax person, I deal with the existing law, and will continue to
do so. I am not worried about my livelihood because another important
component of what I do includes business advisory services. The same as
any artist who finds that his/her work is not selling as well as he/she
would like, if you need to sell your product/service to pay your bills, you
make accommodations. The difference between a business and a hobby is
that a business has a profit motive, the desire to earn more money than they
spend. So I would do what everyone does if my "usual" product isn't selling.
I'll look for something else to sell.
For the 2007 tax filing season, my job is to help my clients legally deduct
ALL their "ordinary and necessary" business expenses, as well as all legal
deductions, in addition to including all taxable income and all credits for
which they qualify.
Anyway, we're getting off the subject of ceramics here.
Best wishes,
Bonnie
(I'll put all those worms back in the can now. )
Bonnie D. Hellman, CPA in CO & PA
Ouray, Colorado 81427
As required by United States Treasury Regulations, you should be aware that
this communication is not intended or written by the sender to be used, and
it cannot be used, by any recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties
that may be imposed on the recipient under United States federal tax laws.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Lewing"
To:
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Thinking about US Income Taxes
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Bonnie Hellman wrote:
> Here it is January 4th, 2008, and as a CPA who does tax work for a
> living,
> I'm thinking about US income taxes.
>
> And I was just thinking about you and US income taxes today too, Bonnie.
> All day today I've been, of course, hearing about Mike Huckabee
> winning the Iowa Caucuses yesterday. One of his distinctive
> proposals is to do away with income taxes and the IRS, and institute
> a 23% national sales tax. One of his arguments for doing this is
> that it would be more fair, and would also tax the so-called
> underground economy. We do not have an income tax here in Washington
> state, but we do have high sales taxes. Consequently we have one of
> the most regressive tax systems of any state.
> So I was wondering, as Clayart's resident tax expert, what you
> thought of this proposal as it would apply to the income level of
> most potters? Would it be good for us or not?
> Paul Lewing
> www.paullewingtile.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change your
> subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
Taylor Hendrix on fri 4 jan 08
Bonnie,
I am doing all the things I need for starting my small business. I am
reading books, filing DBA in my county, tax number, etc. and I really
didn't think much about bookkeeping until now. As a seasoned pro,
what program do you suggest for keeping things straight? I input sales
into some program for our local locksmith, but I don't know from Adam
which program is better for small, one employee businesses. You're
sharp, Bonnie, so I'll listen to you.
And the rest of you, any compelling reason I can't assume "Wirerabbit
Pottery"? Lezlie has me down as "Death Farm and Animal Rescue Pottery"
but that's just too long, dear. That or "Hendrix Pottery". All I got
for a year's cogitation.
I'm filing next week sometime, but the book keeping software can wait
for a few months or longer.
On 1/4/08, Bonnie Hellman wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Here it is January 4th, 2008, and as a CPA who does tax work for a living,
> I'm thinking about US income taxes.
--
Taylor, in Rockport TX
http://wirerabbit.blogspot.com
http://wirerabbitpots.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirerabbit/
Bonnie Hellman on fri 4 jan 08
Hi Taylor,
I am a big fan of QuickBooks. I like that for non-accountants, all you have
to know is whether the money is coming in or going out. No debits and
credits required.
There are a variety of ways to input information into QuickBooks, and there
are a number of versions of QuickBooks, each one purporting to be "perfect"
for certain types of businesses. IMHO for a small business, in most cases,
your basic QuickBooks will do what you need.
You have choices. You can input bills you receive from vendors, and sales
you make to customers, and record payments as they are made or income as it
is received, if you want to track this information. Or, you can also use
QuickBooks like a checkbook and open a screen that looks like your checkbook
and input your income/expenses, sending them to the appropriate accounts
from your chart of accounts. You can also use a hybrid method and track your
sales using QB Customer windows, yet record expenses directly into that
checkbook screen.
In QuickBooks you can have more than one business, and your hardest job will
be to be sure you open the correct company when you are doing your
bookkeeping. Each company will have its own chart of accounts, presumably
appropriate for that business, which is why I offered to share a start set
of accounts for ceramic artists.
A lot of people like Quicken, because 1) it's cheaper than QuickBooks and 2)
it already comes loaded on some computers and 3) it is supposedly "user
friendly". I believe it is designed for home use, tracking non-business
expenses and income. Although it can be configured to use for a business, I
find it harder to use than QuickBooks. Microsoft Money is a program I used
when it was first released many years ago and I still prefer QuickBooks. I
think you can download a trial version of QuickBooks and use it 10 times
(i.e. open it 10 times) before you have to pay for it.
I have been using a variety of versions of QuickBooks over many years, and
with every release (the one you'd buy today is QuickBooks 2008) they make
changes. QuickBooks 2007 made changes I liked and QB 2008 looks pretty
good, too. Earlier versions are OK, but the changes in 2007 and 2008 are
particularly good when you're working with a CPA. 2006 wasn't bad. I
bought and use all the following QuickBooks: 2005, 06, 07, 08, depending on
what my clients are using.
BTW I am not an authorized seller of QuickBooks, nor do I make any profit
from it. However, I like the ability to view my clients' books in QuickBooks
when I'm working with them. I still have clients who keep manual records,
but I keep pushing them to convert to QuickBooks, unless they don't use
computers at all.
BTW I understand that QuickBooks also sells a Canadian version, although
I've not seen it.
Bonnie
Bonnie D. Hellman. CPA in CO & PA
Ouray, Colorado 81427
As required by United States Treasury Regulations, you should be aware that
this communication is not intended or written by the sender to be used, and
it cannot be used, by any recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties
that may be imposed on the recipient under United States federal tax laws.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Taylor Hendrix"
To:
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Thinking about US Income Taxes
> Bonnie,
>
> I am doing all the things I need for starting my small business. I am
> reading books, filing DBA in my county, tax number, etc. and I really
> didn't think much about bookkeeping until now. As a seasoned pro,
> what program do you suggest for keeping things straight? I input sales
> into some program for our local locksmith, but I don't know from Adam
> which program is better for small, one employee businesses. You're
> sharp, Bonnie, so I'll listen to you.
>
> And the rest of you, any compelling reason I can't assume "Wirerabbit
> Pottery"? Lezlie has me down as "Death Farm and Animal Rescue Pottery"
> but that's just too long, dear. That or "Hendrix Pottery". All I got
> for a year's cogitation.
>
> I'm filing next week sometime, but the book keeping software can wait
> for a few months or longer.
>
> On 1/4/08, Bonnie Hellman wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> Here it is January 4th, 2008, and as a CPA who does tax work for a
>> living,
>> I'm thinking about US income taxes.
>
> --
> Taylor, in Rockport TX
> http://wirerabbit.blogspot.com
> http://wirerabbitpots.blogspot.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirerabbit/
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change your
> subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
Paul Lewing on fri 4 jan 08
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Bonnie Hellman wrote:
Here it is January 4th, 2008, and as a CPA who does tax work for a
living,
I'm thinking about US income taxes.
And I was just thinking about you and US income taxes today too, Bonnie.
All day today I've been, of course, hearing about Mike Huckabee
winning the Iowa Caucuses yesterday. One of his distinctive
proposals is to do away with income taxes and the IRS, and institute
a 23% national sales tax. One of his arguments for doing this is
that it would be more fair, and would also tax the so-called
underground economy. We do not have an income tax here in Washington
state, but we do have high sales taxes. Consequently we have one of
the most regressive tax systems of any state.
So I was wondering, as Clayart's resident tax expert, what you
thought of this proposal as it would apply to the income level of
most potters? Would it be good for us or not?
Paul Lewing
www.paullewingtile.com
James and Sherron Bowen on sat 5 jan 08
These are always figured in "total employee compensation" and are part of
negotiations with unions and employers.
It sure isn't a gift.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Lewing"
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Thinking about US Income Taxes
> On Jan 5, 2008, at 6:53 AM, James and Sherron Bowen wrote:
>
> I am not a CPA but it has always been my understanding that the
> amount of
> payroll taxes paid into each persons account is the same whether or
> not that
> person is self employed. As far as I am concerned the 16% David
> referred to
> is also being paid by the average worker too. It's just that only
> half shows
> up on the workers pay stub. The balance is still money that could
> have been
> wages. So the cost to both workers is the same.
>
> I've never understood this reasoning. When the employer gets to
> deduct that payment, and the worker never sees it or has any say in
> whether they see it or not, how can it ever be said that the employee
> is also paying that part of it? As I see it, it's purely a gift from
> the employer to the employee. That's why they call stuff like that
> "benefits".
>
> Paul Lewing
> www.paullewingtile.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change your
> subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
>
>
Bruce Glassford on sat 5 jan 08
On Jan 5, 2008 8:32 PM, Paul Lewing wrote:
> I don't think VAT is exactly the same thing as a sales tax. As I
> understand it, VAT is collected at every stage in the production or
> marketing of an item, and the cost of that item is deducted from the
> selling price on which the tax is collected. In a sales tax, only
> the final sale is taxed and there is no provision for deduction of
> the cost of the item.
> Pray they never institute a VAT in this country. The people who pay
> that tax the most are people whose main contribution to the final
> cost of the item is talent. Ten percent is a good markup on
> groceries. Compare that to an artist who takes a $2 piece of paper
> and converts it into a $500 painting. Software developers are
> another class of people who are hit particularly hard by it.
>
> Paul Lewing
> www.paullewingtile.com
Not really - it's added to the cost, paid by the next consumer in the
chain. It's the folks beyond the talent that pay the big hit -
tighter margins all around. Simply raise prices 8% (or whatever the
VAT is), put that 8% in a different pocket and send it to the govvies
at the end of the week. Right now there's such a hodgepodge of taxes
at all levels that we're probably paying even more than whatever the
VAT would be - it's hidden from us.
.... Bruce
Anita Rickenberg on sat 5 jan 08
Yes, they're called "benefits" but it's certainly not a "gift". It's
considered part of the total compensation package that each employee =
costs
the company. Salary, insurance, vacation, taxes, etc. are added =
together to
calculate the cost per employee. The company I work for has even added =
a
personalized pie chart to the individual employee webpage so we can see =
very
graphically how many dollars are being paid to/for us that we don't see =
on
the paycheck.=20
Anita
James and Sherron Bowen on sat 5 jan 08
excellent post.
JB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Priddy"
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Thinking about US Income Taxes
> Whenever I hear talk of taxes being too high or me being
> required to be tax collector for free or any other tax complaints,
>
> I think about the k-12 education I got for "free" and
> that is available to anyone who will attend
David Hendley on sat 5 jan 08
I don't know much about Mike Huck-a-bee and his proposal,
but there have been several politicians who have advocated
replacing the income tax with a national sales tax.
ALL of the plans include some sort of provision to exempt a
base amount from the tax, because a straight sales tax is so
regressive it is unacceptable. Yikes, can you imagine hitting
a low-income wage earner who currently pays no income tax
with a 23% sales tax?
Unless they have other sources of income, most potters probably
pay very little income tax. The biggest tax burden for virtually
all potters is the "self-employment taxes" - Medicare and Social
Security. It's approximately 16% right off the top, no floor, no
exemptions, and a cut off point too high to affect a potter.
So, really, this is the area that would affect potters more than
changing the income tax.
As a potter, I hate the thought that I would have to become a
tax collector or the U.S. government, which is what we would be
if a sales tax were instituted. Man, at 23% that would run in to a
lot of money we would have to take in, account for, protect, and
finally remit to the government. Imagine depositing $5,000 in
your bank account from a successful sale and then, weeks later,
after you have spent a lot of it paying bills, realizing that you
have to send a check for $1,150 to the U. S. government, as well
as a check to the state.
Most of us already do this, on a smaller scale, with our state
governments, and it makes me mad every time I write the
check. Why should I, for free, be forced to be a tax collector?
As for taxing the underground economy, Mike has got to be
kidding.Does he really think that flea market venders, tiny
mom & pop operations, street performers, and drug dealers
would collect and remit a 23% sales tax? As it is, with a 6 or
7% state tax, I regularly encounter customers who want to
pay me cash and "forget about the tax". At 30% (combined
state and federal), the fraud would careen out of sight. As a
small-time potter I would probably have to deal with people
trying to avoid the tax virtually every day!
Not my idea of a fun time.
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
david(at)farmpots(dot)com
http://www.farmpots.com
----- Original Message -----
> All day today I've been, of course, hearing about Mike Huckabee
> winning the Iowa Caucuses yesterday. One of his distinctive
> proposals is to do away with income taxes and the IRS, and institute
> a 23% national sales tax. One of his arguments for doing this is
> that it would be more fair, and would also tax the so-called
> underground economy. We do not have an income tax here in Washington
> state, but we do have high sales taxes. Consequently we have one of
> the most regressive tax systems of any state.
> So I was wondering, as Clayart's resident tax expert, what you
> thought of this proposal as it would apply to the income level of
> most potters? Would it be good for us or not?
> Paul Lewing
Lois Ruben Aronow on sat 5 jan 08
I am a huge fan of Quickbooks. I have just upgraded to a Manufacturing and
Wholesale version, which lets you track raw materials and wholesale, among
other things. I know I am not a "manufacturer", but this is more the way I
do business. I will have to tweak some categories, but I will also be able
to do Purchase Orders, which the other versions don't let you do.
Re: Huckabee's tax "idea" - this is not new at all. In fact, it's the very
same thing they do in the UK, only there it is called "VAT" (value added
tax). The tax is built in to the price of goods at the counter, so the
vendor doesn't have to do anything except file and remit. It would make
sales easier for those who sell in more than one state.
There should be no other repercussions if you file and pay your sales tax.
On a personal note, I doubt America is ready to see a 23% increase overall
in the prices they pay. This sticker shock would curb consumer spending, and
well, you know the rest. It's not a pretty picture.
**********
Lois Aronow Porcelain
Brooklyn, NY
www.loisaronow.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Paul Lewing
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:03 PM
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: Thinking about US Income Taxes
>
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Bonnie Hellman wrote:
> Here it is January 4th, 2008, and as a CPA who does tax work
> for a living, I'm thinking about US income taxes.
>
> And I was just thinking about you and US income taxes today
> too, Bonnie.
> All day today I've been, of course, hearing about Mike
> Huckabee winning the Iowa Caucuses yesterday. One of his
> distinctive proposals is to do away with income taxes and the
> IRS, and institute a 23% national sales tax. One of his
> arguments for doing this is that it would be more fair, and
> would also tax the so-called underground economy. We do not
> have an income tax here in Washington state, but we do have
> high sales taxes. Consequently we have one of the most
> regressive tax systems of any state.
> So I was wondering, as Clayart's resident tax expert, what
> you thought of this proposal as it would apply to the income
> level of most potters? Would it be good for us or not?
> Paul Lewing
> www.paullewingtile.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ________________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or
> change your subscription settings here:
> http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
James and Sherron Bowen on sat 5 jan 08
I am not a CPA but it has always been my understanding that the amount of
payroll taxes paid into each persons account is the same whether or not that
person is self employed. As far as I am concerned the 16% David referred to
is also being paid by the average worker too. It's just that only half shows
up on the workers pay stub. The balance is still money that could have been
wages. So the cost to both workers is the same.
JB
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Hendley"
To:
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: Thinking about US Income Taxes
James and Sherron Bowen on sat 5 jan 08
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
Unspinning the FairTax
A look at the numbers behind the numbers.
JB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lois Ruben Aronow"
To:
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: Thinking about US Income Taxes
Maggie Jones on sat 5 jan 08
Yes, the cost is the same but...an employed person gets the SS tax taken
out of the paycheck and never has it in their hand....paid by employer.
The self-employed is the employer..... SS tax comes from income then paid
in a lump at tax-time....unless the funds are put aside throughout the
year, like from a "paycheck". So I think David is right as to the
consequences of that plan.
Maggie
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 07:53:29 -0700 James and Sherron Bowen
writes:
> I am not a CPA but it has always been my understanding that the
> amount of
> payroll taxes paid into each persons account is the same whether or
> not that
> person is self employed. As far as I am concerned the 16% David
> referred to
> is also being paid by the average worker too. It's just that only
> half shows
> up on the workers pay stub. The balance is still money that could
> have been
> wages. So the cost to both workers is the same.
> JB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Hendley"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Thinking about US Income Taxes
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
_____
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change
> your
> subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
>
>
steve graber on sat 5 jan 08
it'll never happen.
taxes in all forms are a part of all civilizations. to delete the income tax would throw tons of accountants out of work. ~ as well as lawyers. that's billions of dollars to the economy that would be out of work.
(i hate to think this is why diabetes and cancer will not find a cure - there's too much money involved in leaving everything as is).
today i read still more about creative ways they are trying to ADD more taxes. forget about anyone simplifying them in our lifetime.
see ya
Steve Graber, Graber's Pottery, Inc
Claremont, California USA
The Steve Tool - for awesum texture on pots!
www.graberspottery.com steve@graberspottery.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Lewing
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2008 6:03:15 PM
Subject: Re: Thinking about US Income Taxes
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Bonnie Hellman wrote:
Here it is January 4th, 2008, and as a CPA who does tax work for a
living,
I'm thinking about US income taxes.
And I was just thinking about you and US income taxes today too, Bonnie.
All day today I've been, of course, hearing about Mike Huckabee
winning the Iowa Caucuses yesterday. One of his distinctive
proposals is to do away with income taxes and the IRS, and institute
a 23% national sales tax. One of his arguments for doing this is
that it would be more fair, and would also tax the so-called
underground economy. We do not have an income tax here in Washington
state, but we do have high sales taxes. Consequently we have one of
the most regressive tax systems of any state.
So I was wondering, as Clayart's resident tax expert, what you
thought of this proposal as it would apply to the income level of
most potters? Would it be good for us or not?
Paul Lewing
www.paullewingtile.com
______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change your
subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
June Perry on sat 5 jan 08
I don't think the government cares about putting accountants or lawyers out
of work;or anyone else for that matter based on all the outsourcing in recent
years; but they do care about the excess tax money they would gain from all
that "hidden" undeclared income, as well as all the money they save from
getting rid of the monster IRS.
It's a system that could work if done fairly with tax exclusions on
necessities like food, medicine, and necessary clothing (not fur coats, jewelry, etc)
for example as well as limited or no tax for industrial machinery and other
products needed by industry to produce tangible goods, and at the same time
remove all deductions on those things.
The only reason they won't do it is because they can't hide their tax income
which they do now by manipulating tax write offs (usually getting rid of
them to increase their tax base), or taxing new things like they did with Social
Security income during the Clinton era.
If they went to a straight tax they'd have to be very up front about raising
which would not go over well with the citizenry.
Regards,
June
_http://www.shambhalapottery.com_ (http://www.shambhalapottery.com/)
_http://shambhalapottery.blogspot.com_
(http://shambhalapottery.blogspot.com/)
_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sodasaltfiring_
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sodasaltfiring)
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
KATHI LESUEUR on sat 5 jan 08
On Jan 5, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Maggie Jones wrote:
> Yes, the cost is the same but...an employed person gets the SS tax
> taken
> out of the paycheck and never has it in their hand....paid by
> employer.
> The self-employed is the employer..... SS tax comes from income
> then paid
> in a lump at tax-time....unless the funds are put aside throughout the
> year, like from a "paycheck". So I think David is right as to the
> consequences of that plan.
> Maggie
>
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 07:53:29 -0700 James and Sherron Bowen
> writes:
>> I am not a CPA but it has always been my understanding that the
>> amount of
>> payroll taxes paid into each persons account is the same whether or
>> not that
>> person is self employed. As far as I am concerned the 16% David
>> referred to
>> is also being paid by the average worker too. It's just that only
>> half shows
>> up on the workers pay stub. The balance is still money that could
>> have been
>> wages. So the cost to both workers is the same.
>> JB
I could be wrong, and I'm sure Bonnie can clarify this, but the
difference is that the self-employed person pays income tax on the
money they contribute to the employer's share of SS also. Those who
have an employer contributing that half do not receive it as income
and are not taxed on it.
I would also suggest that the estimates some have made of tax taken
out verses benefits paid is inaccurate. One of the problems with
Social Security is that people are living far longer that it was
estimated they would when the system was set up and so they are
receiving benefits far in excess of anything they put in. Those who
want to privatize the system may want to consider all of the people
who lost all of their market investments when it crashed. Most people
are not market savvy and even those who are got caught up in the hype
and lost lots. The controls put in place after the crash of '29 were
all that kept many people from loosing so much that they may have
taken the path of those of that era and jump to their death from tall
building.
There is no easy solution here. No complex problem every has an easy
solution.
Kathi
Dale Cochoy on sat 5 jan 08
----- Original Message -----
From: "steve graber"
> it'll never happen.
>
> taxes in all forms are a part of all civilizations. to delete the income
> tax would throw tons of accountants out of work. ~ as well as lawyers.
> that's billions of dollars to the economy that would be out of work.
>
> (i hate to think this is why diabetes and cancer will not find a cure -
> there's too much money involved in leaving everything as is).
>
> today i read still more about creative ways they are trying to ADD more
> taxes. forget about anyone simplifying them in our lifetime.
Steve,
I fear you are right on both counts.
Lawyers, who make our laws, will never do anything to reduce their
groups income . That is why we do not have a "Loser Pays" legal system in
the USA.
I feel it's a crime that all but the simplest of annual tax preperations
require some additional money spent to calculate. I scrape by annually with
a one man business, and wife has a typical job, no fancy incomes but a lot
of "ins" and "outs" with mine. There is no way I can figure my own taxes
each year so I spend about $450 to have an accountant give it to some
accounting student to do :>) This REALLY ticks me off that I have to spend
money to figure out how much money I have to give back!!
At least, state sales tax is still fairly easy to figure!!
As for cancer, I fear no there will never be a cure. There are Too many
kinds and it's too big of a money maker treating it. Also, even if they
develope a cure for cancer, most won't be able to afford it and insurance
companies won't pay for it as a preventative medicine even though it would
be far cheaper than treating it.
Dale
Steve Slatin on sat 5 jan 08
June --
Three problems with this, one philsophical, two practical.
Of the practical problems -- first, the undeclared
income issue can simply turn into an undeclared sales issue --
and unlike the present system, there'd be no
enforcement authority to pick up on fraud. If there were
no meter maids, who would feed a parking meter?
Expect a high rate of evasion, followed by a huge new
bureaucracy to track down evaders. Whee!
Second, the 'monster' IRS is, by the standards of the Federal budget,
rather small. See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/bib_irs.pdf
for a good overview of a recent IRS budget. It compares
to a $2.7 trillion budget for the same year, running the
USG just over one third of one percent of the budget.*
There could be savings there, but not so as you'd notice
them on your tax bill, and remember the need for a new
enforcement bureaucracy from the previous item? Probably
there'd be an overall loss.
The philosophical problem is this -- tax policy changes what
people do. This proposed change in tax policy presupposes
that people will spend their money on the same stuff even if
the price relatives change wildly. Naturally, people with
sufficient income to decide what they will buy will find this
not to be the case. They will avoid purchases of taxable
goods and spend more on (the now much cheaper) pleasures
of services. They will make financial arrangements to lease,
rather than purchase, thus avoiding a taxable incident. (These
are all things the very wealthy can do that the rest of us
cannot.) This means less income for the government,
which will instigate another increase in the 'fair' tax and
further feed the cycle.
There are other problems with the proposal, these are just
a few of the very serious issues.
Best wishes -- Steve Slatin
*Put differently, 25 "bridge to nowhere" projects for Senator
Stevens.
June Perry wrote:
I don't think the government cares about putting accountants or lawyers out
of work;or anyone else for that matter based on all the outsourcing in recent
years; but they do care about the excess tax money they would gain from all
that "hidden" undeclared income, as well as all the money they save from
getting rid of the monster IRS.
Steve Slatin --
History teaches us that there have been but few infringements of personal liberty by the state which have not been justified ...
in the name of righteousness and the public good, and few which
have not been directed ... at politically helpless minorities.
-- Harlan Fiske Stone
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Steve Slatin on sat 5 jan 08
Kathi --
Naw, they worked that one out -- it's an adjustment to income,
line 30, 1040. there's also a break for self-employed folks'
health insurance among those adjustments.
-- Steve Slatin
KATHI LESUEUR wrote:
I could be wrong, and I'm sure Bonnie can clarify this, but the
difference is that the self-employed person pays income tax on the
money they contribute to the employer's share of SS also. Those who
have an employer contributing that half do not receive it as income
and are not taxed on it.
I would also suggest that the estimates some have made of tax taken
out verses benefits paid is inaccurate. One of the problems with
Social Security is that people are living far longer that it was
estimated they would when the system was set up and so they are
receiving benefits far in excess of anything they put in. Those who
want to privatize the system may want to consider all of the people
who lost all of their market investments when it crashed. Most people
are not market savvy and even those who are got caught up in the hype
and lost lots. The controls put in place after the crash of '29 were
all that kept many people from loosing so much that they may have
taken the path of those of that era and jump to their death from tall
building.
There is no easy solution here. No complex problem every has an easy
solution.
Kathi
Steve Slatin --
History teaches us that there have been but few infringements of personal liberty by the state which have not been justified ...
in the name of righteousness and the public good, and few which
have not been directed ... at politically helpless minorities.
-- Harlan Fiske Stone
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Bonnie Hellman on sat 5 jan 08
Several people have alluded to the cost of social security and Medicare in
the US and who pays how much.
The employee's portion of social security and Medicare combined is 7.65%.
The employer pays an equal portion. Employers deduct the amount they pay as
a business expense, payroll taxes. (Employers also pay federal unemployment
tax called FUTA and as far as I know state unemployment taxes.)
These days self employed people, because conceptually they are the employed
as well as the employer, pay both shares or 7.65% times 2 or 15.30%.
However, self employed people do not deduct the 7.65% employers social
security tax on their Schedule C. This is calculated on Form SE (lines 4, 5
and 6), and deducted on the first page of the 1040 (line 27).
Effectively the self employed person is paying about 14.1% in combined
social security/Medicare tax. For some people, their payments to social
security and Medicare are higher than their income tax payments. And like
most flat rate taxes, it hits lower income people harder than higher income
people.
As for the self employed person putting their show proceeds into the bank,
and having to give up a large percentage of that money later, IMHO it's a
state of mind. If you've collected sales tax, you KNOW ahead of time that
the money isn't yours. You'll have to remit it to that state.
I usually give my clients an approximate percentage of the gross sales (not
including sales tax collected) that they should set aside for estimated
taxes. This is based on estimated gross, minus estimated expenses, i.e. net
income. Sometimes that number is 20%, so I'll suggest that a client could
put 20% of sales into another bank account where they KNOW ahead of time
that they'll be sending that money to the US Treasury and perhaps their
state. This is equivalent to having social security tax, federal and state
income taxes withheld from an employee's paycheck.
Remember that self employed people deduct their business expenses before
paying tax on their gross income. Employees, who might choose to spend money
on expenses that make it easier for them to do their jobs, might not be
reimbursed by employers, have a much harder time deducting those expenses.
Those are 2 different worlds and sometimes the grass does look greener in
the other camp. Sometimes the grass actually IS greener.
I just want to remind everyone here that Paul Lewing was the one who opened
this can of worms with his question about an alternative tax plan.
Although discussion of alternative systems can be interesting, IMHO we
should take advantage of the tax law wherever we legally can, and whenever
we benefit.
BTW every single one of my clients, whether they are low income, high income
or somewhere in the middle, feels like they pay a lot of taxes. I can't
disagree. We all pay a lot of taxes.
Bonnie
Bonnie D. Hellman, CPA in CO & PA
Ouray, Colorado 81427
As required by United States Treasury Regulations, you should be aware that
this communication is not intended or written by the sender to be used, and
it cannot be used, by any recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties
that may be imposed on the recipient under United States federal tax laws.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James and Sherron Bowen"
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: Thinking about US Income Taxes
>I am not a CPA but it has always been my understanding that the amount of
> payroll taxes paid into each persons account is the same whether or not
> that
> person is self employed. As far as I am concerned the 16% David referred
> to
> is also being paid by the average worker too. It's just that only half
> shows
> up on the workers pay stub. The balance is still money that could have
> been
> wages. So the cost to both workers is the same.
> JB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Hendley"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Thinking about US Income Taxes
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, or change your
> subscription settings here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
Earl Brunner on sat 5 jan 08
I'm not for or against, but,
If it wasn't phased in, it would take some getting used to. BUT, The amount you pay more, would be offset at least partially, by the increase in visible income that would come from not having any withholding taken out....
Earl Brunner
Las Vegas, NV
----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Slatin
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2008 12:40:40 PM
Subject: Re: Thinking about US Income Taxes
.... The philosophical problem is this -- tax policy changes what
people do. This proposed change in tax policy presupposes
that people will spend their money on the same stuff even if
the price relatives change wildly. Naturally, people with
sufficient income to decide what they will buy will find this
not to be the case. They will avoid purchases of taxable
goods and spend more on (the now much cheaper) pleasures
of services. They will make financial arrangements to lease,
rather than purchase, thus avoiding a taxable incident. (These
are all things the very wealthy can do that the rest of us
cannot.) This means less income for the government,
which will instigate another increase in the 'fair' tax and
further feed the cycle.
There are other problems with the proposal, these are just
a few of the very serious issues.
Best wishes -- Steve Slatin
Paul Lewing on sat 5 jan 08
On Jan 5, 2008, at 6:53 AM, James and Sherron Bowen wrote:
I am not a CPA but it has always been my understanding that the
amount of
payroll taxes paid into each persons account is the same whether or
not that
person is self employed. As far as I am concerned the 16% David
referred to
is also being paid by the average worker too. It's just that only
half shows
up on the workers pay stub. The balance is still money that could
have been
wages. So the cost to both workers is the same.
I've never understood this reasoning. When the employer gets to
deduct that payment, and the worker never sees it or has any say in
whether they see it or not, how can it ever be said that the employee
is also paying that part of it? As I see it, it's purely a gift from
the employer to the employee. That's why they call stuff like that
"benefits".
Paul Lewing
www.paullewingtile.com
Paul Lewing on sat 5 jan 08
On Jan 4, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Lois Ruben Aronow wrote:
Re: Huckabee's tax "idea" - this is not new at all. In fact, it's
the very
same thing they do in the UK, only there it is called "VAT" (value added
tax). The tax is built in to the price of goods at the counter, so the
vendor doesn't have to do anything except file and remit. It would make
sales easier for those who sell in more than one state.
I don't think VAT is exactly the same thing as a sales tax. As I
understand it, VAT is collected at every stage in the production or
marketing of an item, and the cost of that item is deducted from the
selling price on which the tax is collected. In a sales tax, only
the final sale is taxed and there is no provision for deduction of
the cost of the item.
Pray they never institute a VAT in this country. The people who pay
that tax the most are people whose main contribution to the final
cost of the item is talent. Ten percent is a good markup on
groceries. Compare that to an artist who takes a $2 piece of paper
and converts it into a $500 painting. Software developers are
another class of people who are hit particularly hard by it.
Paul Lewing
www.paullewingtile.com
Paul Lewing on sat 5 jan 08
As long as we're really airing gripes about the Social Security and
Medicare taxes, the other one that really frosts me is the cap on the
amount of income you have to pay on. Currently, no one pays on
income above (I believe) $92,000. That means that a self-employed
person making $46,000 pays more dollars in that tax than Alex
Rodriguez, who makes $25 million a year.
This means that not a single US senator or representative, including
all of the Presidential candidates, is paying on all of their
income. I'm sick of rich deadbeats beating the system. ADD A ZERO
TO THAT NUMBER!
Paul Lewing
www.paullewingtile.com
Elizabeth Priddy on sat 5 jan 08
Whenever I hear talk of taxes being too high or me being
required to be tax collector for free or any other tax complaints,
I think about the k-12 education I got for "free" and
that is available to anyone who will attend
and the roads and trains and transportation infrastructure
and my clean water to drink and relatively safe food suppy
and then thre's rural electrification...
other things pop to mind that are largely unappreciated
aspects of federal spending programs that taxes pay for
that are fairly undisputedly good things...
and then I remind myself to suck it up and
pay my damn taxes.
American life is not free and somebody has to pay for
all those trains running on time. The little pieces of the
budget that we bicker and squabble over balance out in the
end, like me not wanting to pay for bombs and some folks
not wanting to pay for Public Arts. I like to try and remember
that our taxes are part of a social contract of everyone pitching
in to make our lifestyle possible and agreeing to stay with it
even when we don't care for one hundred percent of it. it is a
small price to pay for all those roads and lights and like that.
There isn't much in existence that I would say is perfect and
usually 80% is pretty good rate of satisfaction per unit effort.
Happy New Year everybody!
E
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Lee Love on sun 6 jan 08
On 1/6/08, Bonnie Hellman wrote:
> Effectively the self employed person is paying about 14.1% in combined
> social security/Medicare tax. For some people, their payments to social
> security and Medicare are higher than their income tax payments. And like
> most flat rate taxes, it hits lower income people harder than higher income
> people.
J.B. Anybody who has been self-employed KNOWS you pay almost twice
as much S.S.,/Medicare tax.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://groups.google.com/group/ClayCraft
"Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by
education." -- Bertrand Russell
Robert Seele on sun 6 jan 08
On Sat Jan 05, 08, at 9:53 , Anita Rickenberg wrote:
> Yes, they're called "benefits" but it's certainly not a "gift".
Anytime the government gives you something, IT IS A GIFT.
It doesn't make any difference that they took twice as much from you.
.
Just be happy they gave you anything at all.
"I am from the government and I am here to help You",
is one of the three biggest lies in the world.
The second big lie is " The check is in the mail"
The third big lie is "XXX rated"
Bob
Robert Seele on sun 6 jan 08
On Sat Jan 05, 08, at 8:16 , Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> Whenever I hear talk of taxes being too high or me being
> required to be tax collector for free or any other tax complaints,
>
> I think about the k-12 education I got for "free" and
> that is available to anyone who will attend
>
FREE, I an over 70 and every year I pay taxes for k/12 and for
community collage.
I haven't used either of them for years.
>
>
> and the roads and trains and transportation infrastructure
The same thing here.
>
>
> and my clean water to drink and relatively safe food supply
FREE......I spent over $6000.00 this last year for a new well.
>
>
> and then tire's rural electrification...
I also pay taxes for transportation for the people in Chicago,
which I haver never used.
>
>
> other things pop to mind that are largely unappreciated
> aspects of federal spending programs that taxes pay for
> that are fairly undisputedly good things...
I don't mind paying my fair share,
but I hate paying for roads and bridges to nowhere,
or for studies on the sex lives of misquotes,
or for a study to determind if prostates enjoy having sex for hire.
Way too much is spent for garbage and pet project.
>
>
> American life is not free and somebody has to pay for
> all those trains running on time.
Let the people who use the trains pay to use them,.
Bob
Darlene Yarnetsky-Mudcat Pottery on mon 7 jan 08
> "I am from the government and I am here to help You",
> is one of the three biggest lies in the world.
Actually, I AM from the government and I AM here to help you!
I'm a reference librarian :0
(I'm getting a laugh out of the thread, but I just had to toss in that
some parts of government DO work -- libraries and extension services
are good example of government and education serving the community)
take care all,
Jerry Yarnetsky,
the potter's husband
Mudcat Pottery
Madison, Indiana
Lee Love on mon 7 jan 08
On 1/7/08, Darlene Yarnetsky-Mudcat Pottery wrote:
> Actually, I AM from the government and I AM here to help you!
>
> I'm a reference librarian :0
Librarians, and a few good teachers, saved my life as a
child. Along with 50cent paperbacks things like the theory of
relativity! :^)
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://groups.google.com/group/ClayCraft
"Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by
education." -- Bertrand Russell
KATHI LESUEUR on mon 7 jan 08
On Jan 6, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Lee wrote:
>
>
> I prefer the second: license cars by the pound and increase gas
> taxes to the level the rest of the industrial world charges, to cover
> actual cost of use.>>>
While in theory this sounds like a fair solution, the unintended
consequences are harsh. People with large incomes can well-afford
the latest (also the lightest) cars. The have no need for a vehicle
to transport tools for their job. Lower income people often work with
their hands. they often work in the trades. They travel from job to
jobs. These are the people who would suffer from such a system.
There are no high mileage vehicles that can pull a ton. But many
craftspeople need that kind of vehicle.
So, the wealthy just stay home with their computers or drive their
Preuis to work and let the rest of us subsidize the roads they drive on.
Kathi
>
>
Lee on mon 7 jan 08
On Jan 7, 2008 1:29 AM, Robert Seele wrote:
> Let the people who use the trains pay to use them,.
Bob, the trains pay a larger part of their cost from fees than cars
do on roads. So by your reasoning, light rail is better or we
should pay the actual cost of driving cars on roads.
I prefer the second: license cars by the pound and increase gas
taxes to the level the rest of the industrial world charges, to cover
actual cost of use.
Not to mention the higher envirionmental costs of gasoline
powered cars.
"994 OTA analysis estimates that car drivers pay about 60 percent of
the total cost of their travel. The remaining 40 percent consists of
costs of highway construction, maintenance and control (traditionally
subsidized by all three levels of government), "free" parking
(subsidized by employers, store owners, schools, federal tax laws, and
so on), and various social and environmental costs absorbed by
society.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_000010.htm
--
Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
--Sen No Rikyu
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
| |
|
