Linda Stauffer on wed 15 apr 98
This is my first year filing schedule C on my taxes. Does anyone have
any advice as to how I determine the amount of raw materials(glaze
chemicals) I have left at the end of the tax year? Is it fair to
estimate that a 5 gallon bucket of most glazes uses about $3.50 worth of
chemicals? and then deduct the dollar amount from the inventory? I know
how many buckets I mixed up! What about the bisque ware? How do you
determine the value of the finished pots remaining on the shelf? The
asking price? or the cost to make? How do I determine that?
I understand that inventory is the raw materials and any work in
progress, and finished work not yet sold. I know how much the materials
cost me initially, but it is next to impossible to record everytime I
take 247 grams of Feldspar to mix up a glaze. This is really complicated
:(
I've found some help in a book "The Crafts Business Answer Book" by
Barbara Brabec. But she doesn't answer the above questions!
BeardiePaw on mon 25 aug 08
I know, it is too early yet, but I was wondering, do any potters out ther=
e do taxes? I just signed up for a tax preparation course with H and R B=
lock. Just wanted to know if anyone else has done that and was it worth =
the time I'll have to invest in it. Cost wasn't bad, though. Sher morrow=
=20
Steve Slatin on mon 25 aug 08
H&R's training isn't bad, and after you take it
-- even if you don't do taxes for anyone else --
you'll at least be able to put your own taxes
together really well. (It will also induce you
to keep better records.)
You probably should not go out and do complex
business returns for other folks after just
an H&R course, though. And there are
liability issues if you prepare taxes for a
fee, and that means if you're planning to
be a paid preparer, you should think about
working for an established business or
at least establish the cost basis first --
and the cost of a professional tax package,
professionally liability insurance, enough
advertising to get business in the door,
etc. is rather costly.
Potentially the most valuable thing about
the H&R course is that it encourages you
to think about the business side of a craft.
I know many potters who don't understand that
depreciation is a 'real' expense, or how
the cost of transportation and shipping
works into their bottom line and so on.
It doesn't hurt.
Steve Slatin --
--- On Mon, 8/25/08, BeardiePaw wrote:
> From: BeardiePaw
> Subject: Taxes
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 8:33 AM
> I know, it is too early yet, but I was wondering, do any
> potters out there do taxes? I just signed up for a tax
> preparation course with H and R Block. Just wanted to know
> if anyone else has done that and was it worth the time
> I'll have to invest in it. Cost wasn't bad, though.
> Sher morrow
Bonnie Hellman on mon 25 aug 08
Hi Everyone,
As a professional tax preparer (and CPA doing tax returns since 1982), I
wouldn't be as charitable as Steve about the H & R Block course.
I have a number of tax clients who are H & R Block refugees because their
tax returns were incorrectly prepared at H & R Block.
Sher, if you want to take the course for general information for yourself,
then by all means go ahead. The H & R basic course, as described on their
web site, has nothing about business taxes, but covers, well, uh, the
basics. Some of the topics might be interesting to you.
If you are thinking that you could work for H & R after taking their one
(relatively) short course, you'll find you will only be preparing simple
returns, likely being required to push their "refund anticipation loans" at
relatively high rates. In previous years, you'd be asked to sell IRA funds
to people who really shouldn't be doing this now or where the investments
made in their IRA accounts are not ones that most rational people would
make. I think they have since signed a "cease and desist" order on the IRA
accounts.
Sometimes a local community college will offer a semester course in Taxes
101, and that would be a far better, more complete course to take IMHO.
Because income taxes are only peripherally related to accounting, often that
first income tax course has no prerequisites.
Bonnie
Bonnie D. Hellman, CPA
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: "Steve Slatin"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 1:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Taxes
>
>
>> H&R's training isn't bad, and after you take it
>> -- even if you don't do taxes for anyone else --
>> you'll at least be able to put your own taxes
>> together really well. (It will also induce you
>> to keep better records.)
>>
>> You probably should not go out and do complex
>> business returns for other folks after just
>> an H&R course, though. And there are
>> liability issues if you prepare taxes for a
>> fee, and that means if you're planning to
>> be a paid preparer, you should think about
>> working for an established business or
>> at least establish the cost basis first --
>> and the cost of a professional tax package,
>> professionally liability insurance, enough
>> advertising to get business in the door,
>> etc. is rather costly.
>>
>> Potentially the most valuable thing about
>> the H&R course is that it encourages you
>> to think about the business side of a craft.
>> I know many potters who don't understand that
>> depreciation is a 'real' expense, or how
>> the cost of transportation and shipping
>> works into their bottom line and so on.
>> It doesn't hurt.
>>
>>
>> Steve Slatin --
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 8/25/08, BeardiePaw wrote:
>>
>>> From: BeardiePaw
>>> Subject: Taxes
>>> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>>> Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 8:33 AM
>>> I know, it is too early yet, but I was wondering, do any
>>> potters out there do taxes? I just signed up for a tax
>>> preparation course with H and R Block. Just wanted to know
>>> if anyone else has done that and was it worth the time
>>> I'll have to invest in it. Cost wasn't bad, though.
>>> Sher morrow
>
David Hendley on wed 11 nov 09
----- Original Message -----
>I am absolutely NOT joking. Social Security is insurance! It's not a
>pension. My father in law was disabled at forty he is 69 now. He never mad=
e
>much money when he was working. Tell me again how well he would have lived
>if he had saved the miserable few per cent that he was paying in payroll
>taxes from 1960 to 1980. I friend died with three small children and a wif=
e
>who had never worked. How well off would they have been if all he had was
>his savings or investments? He worked for the county.
> JB
Dollar for dollar, private insurance is much more efficient
than Social Security.
Of course, any responsible family provider buys insurance before
buying anything else. And, the premium for a good policy would
be affordable if all those Social Security deductions were not
taken out of paychecks. Any extra can be invested.
The people who run private insurance companies would be
thrown in jail for life if they squandered their clients money,
as been done with the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.
To top it all off, someone like me, who has been fortunate to be
able to work a full productive life and whose children are grown,
no longer needs an insurance policy.
Yet, here I am, still sending my money to the system. I could
be investing it for my retirement.
Yes, Kathi, I am really good at investing, which is NOT "playing
the stock market". If you aren't greedy you will never "lose
everything" because you will have a portfolio of rock solid
investments, such as government bonds, combined with a
percentage of potentially more lucrative, but more volatile, stocks.
Yes, Robert, it's about control. I can control my own life, thank
you very much.
David Hendley
david@farmpots.com
http://www.farmpots.com
Peggy Thompson on wed 11 nov 09
I can only say as a 65 year old,I am glad we paid our taxes and are
now eligible to collect a social. Security check. I always felt we
were pulling our share paying taxes that were due and never feared a
letter in the mail nor a knock onthe door. I hoped it paid to help
build the schools, roads and gave benefits to unemployed and medical
to those when they needed it.I know there is waste and corruption but
living in a real world is never perfect and I hope our democracy will
continue.
No soapbox as it is just my feelings.
Sent from my iPhone
Bonnie Hellman on wed 11 nov 09
When one of our daughters first worked for a non-university company where
they withheld social security and Medicare, she phoned me after receiving
her first paycheck. She whined, "Mom, they took out too much in taxes!"
I had her read what had been withheld, which was pennies in federal income
tax and state income tax, but the full 7.65% in social security & Medicare.
My mother happened to be with me when I received the phone call, and she
replied, "Tell her, thank you very much!"
For lower income people in the United States that 7.65% represents a huge
chunk, the largest amount of money they don't get to spend immediately.
For higher income people, still below the social security maximum for the
year, it's also a lot of money they don't get to spend immediately.
Bonnie
Bonnie D. Hellman, CPA
Ouray, CO 81427
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Peggy Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:39 AM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Taxes
I can only say as a 65 year old,I am glad we paid our taxes and are
now eligible to collect a social. Security check. I always felt we
were pulling our share paying taxes that were due and never feared a
letter in the mail nor a knock onthe door. I hoped it paid to help
build the schools, roads and gave benefits to unemployed and medical
to those when they needed it.I know there is waste and corruption but
living in a real world is never perfect and I hope our democracy will
continue.
No soapbox as it is just my feelings.
Sent from my iPhone
Sherron & Jim Bowen on wed 11 nov 09
That 7.65 is the best insurance money can buy.
JB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bonnie Hellman"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Taxes
David Hendley on wed 11 nov 09
----- Original Message -----
> That 7.65 is the best insurance money can buy.
> JB
>
Surely you are making a cruel joke. If I had been able to invest
the Social Security payments I've made over the 30+ years of
my career as a potter, I would be retiring as a millionaire or
close to it.
It's 15.30%, by the way, right off the top, year after year, as a
self-employed potter.
As it is, I expect that by the time I retire, the benefits won't keep
up with rampant inflation, and 'means-testing' will reduce my
benefits even more. The system has been so mis-managed
there is no way it will be able to handle the retiring baby boom
generation.
David Hendley
david@farmpots.com
http://www.farmpots.com
Sherron & Jim Bowen on wed 11 nov 09
I am absolutely NOT joking. Social Security is insurance! It's not a
pension. My father in law was disabled at forty he is 69 now. He never made
much money when he was working. Tell me again how well he would have lived
if he had saved the miserable few per cent that he was paying in payroll
taxes from 1960 to 1980. I friend died with three small children and a wife
who had never worked. How well off would they have been if all he had was
his savings or investments? He worked for the county.
JB
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Hendley"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: Taxes
> ----- Original Message -----
>> That 7.65 is the best insurance money can buy.
>> JB
>>
> Surely you are making a cruel joke. If I had been able to invest
> the Social Security payments I've made over the 30+ years of
> my career as a potter, I would be retiring as a millionaire or
> close to it.
> It's 15.30%, by the way, right off the top, year after year, as a
> self-employed potter.
> As it is, I expect that by the time I retire, the benefits won't keep
> up with rampant inflation, and 'means-testing' will reduce my
> benefits even more. The system has been so mis-managed
> there is no way it will be able to handle the retiring baby boom
> generation.
>
> David Hendley
> david@farmpots.com
> http://www.farmpots.com
>
KATHI LESUEUR on wed 11 nov 09
On Nov 11, 2009, at 6:59 PM, David Hendley wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> That 7.65 is the best insurance money can buy.
>> JB
>>
> Surely you are making a cruel joke. If I had been able to invest
> the Social Security payments I've made over the 30+ years of
> my career as a potter, I would be retiring as a millionaire or
> close to it.>>>
David,
I'd suggest that if you are really that good at playing the stock
market then you should be retiring as a millionaire even with out the
money from Social Security. People always say, "If I'd been able to
invest that money" but I just look at all of those people who lost
everything in the last crash. Just think how well they'd be doing if
they'd been able to invest their Social Security. They were going to
retire rich. Now they have nothing.
My mother-in-law has been retired for 22 years and and receiving SS
the whole time. To date she's received about half a million in
benefits. Seems a pretty good return given what she put in.
> KATHI LESUEUR
http://www.lesueurclaywork.com
Bonnie Hellman on wed 11 nov 09
Paul, each of us has our own perspective.
Your friend is not paying the other half of social security & Medicare. His
employer is paying it. He may think that his employer would pay him more
money if they didn't have to pay their 6.2% (FICA or social security) and
their 1.45% (Medicare) but I personally wouldn't bet on it.
However, self employed people actually do receive the same deduction for th=
e
employer's portion of social security and Medicare.
You, as a US self employed person, compute your self-employment tax on Form
SE. It is computed at 7.65% times 2 or 15.3%. This carries to Line 57 on
page 2 of the 2008 Form 1040. The 7.65% is composed of 6.2% social security
or FICA and 1.45% Medicare.
On Line 27 of page 1 of Form 1040 (on your 2008 tax return), there is a
deduction for the employer's half.
This works out to the same as if you (as "your" employer) were able to
deduct the employer's potion of social security & Medicare. I know this is
not intuitive, but it's how it really works.
This was not always true, and there was a long time when self employed
people only paid the employee's half. In the 1980's this was gradually
increased. In addition, at some point, Medicare withholding was broken out
separately and added as a separate withholding (and probably increased).
These occurred when it became obvious that without additional funds there
would not be enough money for baby boomers to collect social security and
have Medicare health insurance.
As for David Hendley's contention that he would have been able to better
invest his contributions, I wouldn't argue with him. If we'd been able
to invest 100% of our contributions, many of us would have had far more
money in retirement than we are likely to see from social security.
However, as the dot com burst bubble showed, and as we've seen recently wit=
h
people sucked in by scammers and thieves, not everyone would have been so
successful. I surmise that this is one of the reasons why the law was not
changed at the beginning of the 21st century.
In addition, social security is more than a pension plan. There is a
significant insurance component that pays something to surviving spouses an=
d
minor children, and pays spouses the higher of what their social security
accounts would generate or half of their spouse's account (up to a certain
maximum), and it makes disability payments for disabled workers who qualify
under social security. I've probably missed a few things, but you get the
idea.
Although each qualifying person's benefits are based on their earnings and
payments into social security, the system is not one where you are
guaranteed to get out some multiple of what you paid in.
Some people will make greater payments into social security than they will
ever receive (possibly from early death or never qualifying to receive
payments), and some people will receive greater benefits than their payment=
s
(from living long lives or qualifying as surviving spouse, or collecting
half of their spouse's benefits which, BTW, does NOT reduce that spouse's
benefits, or becoming disabled before retirement age).
Paul, when most employees pay income tax on their gross wages, i.e. income
before taxes and withholding. Most self employed people get to deduct their
business expenses and THEN pay social security, Medicare and income taxes o=
n
their net wages. Employees in general find it difficult to deduct their
non-reimbursed expenses (because they must itemize deductions and then
subtract an amount equal to 2% of adjusted gross income).
Occasionally for my clients I've computed their taxes and social
security/Medicare costs and sometimes the person gets a better break as an
employee and sometimes as a self employed person.
If a self-employed person with no employees has the money available and
chooses to do so, he/she can create a pension plan for him/herself. This
money reduces income tax, although not social security/Medicare expense.
There are a variety of types of pension plans available, not just the IRAs
that many of us are familiar with.
There is a similar situation with Medicare, probably more analogous to
health insurance than anything else. Each beneficiary is entitled to
Medicare benefits based on their health needs (as defined by Medicare), not
based on their payments into Medicare. People with greater needs will
receive more benefits. Personally I hope that I have paid in far more money
to Medicare than the benefits I someday hope to receive.
I know that this is not a complete or detailed discussion of how these
programs work, but rather an outline that I hope is not misleading. I don't
claim to be a social security/Medicare expert, and I apologize in advance i=
f
what I've written isn't clear.
Bonnie
Bonnie D. Hellman, CPA
Ouray, CO 81427
From: Paul Lewing [mailto:pjlewing@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:12 PM
To: Bonnie Hellman
Cc: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Taxes
On Nov 11, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Bonnie Hellman wrote:
I had her read what had been withheld, which was pennies in federal income
tax and state income tax, but the full 7.65% in social security & Medicare.
As David pointed out, for self-employed people it's 15.3%. Thank you Ronal=
d
Reagan and your tax "cut" for that.
For some time I have had a disagreement with a friend of mine, who happens
to be an economist. He maintains that he is paying the same percentage as =
I
am although he works for a university and they kick in the other 7.65%. Hi=
s
argument is that he is paying it in decreased wages- that if he had to pay
it all himself, the U would just increase his pay that much. This line of
reasoning has never made sense to me. He never sees the money, he doesn't
pay income tax on it, how is it income for him? The U declares it as their
expense in their payroll. How is this anything but them paying half of his
tax for him? Isn't that why they call it a "benefit"? If everybody was
forced to pay all of it themselves, maybe the U would give him an extra
7.65% in his pay check, but I'd bet most businesses wouldn't.
Paul Lewing
www.paullewingtile.com
>
www.paullewingart.com
Paul Lewing on wed 11 nov 09
On Nov 11, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Bonnie Hellman wrote:
I had her read what had been withheld, which was pennies in federal
income
tax and state income tax, but the full 7.65% in social security &
Medicare.
As David pointed out, for self-employed people it's 15.3%. Thank you
Ronald Reagan and your tax "cut" for that.
For some time I have had a disagreement with a friend of mine, who
happens to be an economist. He maintains that he is paying the same
percentage as I am although he works for a university and they kick in
the other 7.65%. His argument is that he is paying it in decreased
wages- that if he had to pay it all himself, the U would just increase
his pay that much. This line of reasoning has never made sense to
me. He never sees the money, he doesn't pay income tax on it, how is
it income for him? The U declares it as their expense in their
payroll. How is this anything but them paying half of his tax for
him? Isn't that why they call it a "benefit"? If everybody was
forced to pay all of it themselves, maybe the U would give him an
extra 7.65% in his pay check, but I'd bet most businesses wouldn't.
Paul Lewing
www.paullewingtile.com
www.paullewingart.com
Loren JOnes on thu 12 nov 09
I personally don't come to clayart to be involved in political discussions!=
There are plenty of blogs out there for you to sound off. Lets get back on=
the topic of clay, glazes, and firings. Thanks, Loren
________________________________
From: David Hendley
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Sent: Wed, November 11, 2009 9:26:00 PM
Subject: Re: Taxes
----- Original Message -----
>I am absolutely NOT joking. Social Security is insurance! It's not a
>pension. My father in law was disabled at forty he is 69 now. He never mad=
e
>much money when he was working. Tell me again how well he would have lived
>if he had saved the miserable few per cent that he was paying in payroll
>taxes from 1960 to 1980. I friend died with three small children and a wif=
e
>who had never worked. How well off would they have been if all he had was
>his savings or investments? He worked for the county.
> JB
Dollar for dollar, private insurance is much more efficient
than Social Security.
Of course, any responsible family provider buys insurance before
buying anything else. And, the premium for a good policy would
be affordable if all those Social Security deductions were not
taken out of paychecks. Any extra can be invested.
The people who run private insurance companies would be
thrown in jail for life if they squandered their clients money,
as been done with the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.
To top it all off, someone like me, who has been fortunate to be
able to work a full productive life and whose children are grown,
no longer needs an insurance policy.
Yet, here I am, still sending my money to the system. I could
be investing it for my retirement.
Yes, Kathi, I am really good at investing, which is NOT "playing
the stock market". If you aren't greedy you will never "lose
everything" because you will have a portfolio of rock solid
investments, such as government bonds, combined with a
percentage of potentially more lucrative, but more volatile, stocks.
Yes, Robert, it's about control. I can control my own life, thank
you very much.
David Hendley
david@farmpots.com
http://www.farmpots.com
marci and rex on thu 12 nov 09
At 09:59 AM 11/12/2009, Loren JOnes wrote:
>I personally don't come to clayart to be involved in political
>discussions! There are plenty of blogs out there for you to sound
>off. Lets get back on the topic of clay, glazes, and firings. Thanks, Lore=
n
Hi Loren,
ILl say the same thing to you that I say to the folks
on my PPIO mailing list:
If you dont like where the conversation is going, rather than
just bitch and whine about it , write in something constructive
to change the topic. The conversation will follow suit.
Marci
www.ppio.com
Larry Kruzan on thu 12 nov 09
Hi Loren,
I agree that Clayart is about clay and things that pertain to it. I also
think that as a working artist who is also a small businessman, this IS an
important subject that is relevant. Most artists are woefully unprepared fo=
r
the business side of art so Bonnie, Mel, David and anybody else working
successfully (read profitably) as an artist/business person needs to be
encouraged to tell us how to survive in this economic climate.
Larry Kruzan
Lost Creek Pottery
www.lostcreekpottery.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Loren JOnes
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:59 AM
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Taxes
I personally don't come to clayart to be involved in political discussions!
There are plenty of blogs out there for you to sound off. Lets get back on
the topic of clay, glazes, and firings. Thanks, Loren
________________________________
From: David Hendley
To: Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Sent: Wed, November 11, 2009 9:26:00 PM
Subject: Re: Taxes
----- Original Message -----
>I am absolutely NOT joking. Social Security is insurance! It's not a
>pension. My father in law was disabled at forty he is 69 now. He never mad=
e
>much money when he was working. Tell me again how well he would have lived
>if he had saved the miserable few per cent that he was paying in payroll
>taxes from 1960 to 1980. I friend died with three small children and a wif=
e
>who had never worked. How well off would they have been if all he had was
>his savings or investments? He worked for the county.
> JB
Dollar for dollar, private insurance is much more efficient
than Social Security.
Of course, any responsible family provider buys insurance before
buying anything else. And, the premium for a good policy would
be affordable if all those Social Security deductions were not
taken out of paychecks. Any extra can be invested.
The people who run private insurance companies would be
thrown in jail for life if they squandered their clients money,
as been done with the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.
To top it all off, someone like me, who has been fortunate to be
able to work a full productive life and whose children are grown,
no longer needs an insurance policy.
Yet, here I am, still sending my money to the system. I could
be investing it for my retirement.
Yes, Kathi, I am really good at investing, which is NOT "playing
the stock market". If you aren't greedy you will never "lose
everything" because you will have a portfolio of rock solid
investments, such as government bonds, combined with a
percentage of potentially more lucrative, but more volatile, stocks.
Yes, Robert, it's about control. I can control my own life, thank
you very much.
David Hendley
david@farmpots.com
http://www.farmpots.com
Lee Love on thu 12 nov 09
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM, marci and rex wrot=
=3D
e:
>
>
> =3DA0Hi =3DA0Loren,
> =3DA0 ILl say the =3DA0same thing to you that I =3DA0say =3DA0to =3DA0the=
=3DA0folks
> on =3DA0 my PPIO mailing =3DA0list:
> =3DA0 =3DA0If you dont like where the =3DA0conversation is =3DA0going, ra=
ther =3DA0=3D
than
> just bitch and whine about it , write in =3DA0something =3DA0constructive
> to =3DA0change =3DA0the =3DA0topic. The conversation will =3DA0follow =3D=
A0suit.
> =3DA0Marci
> =3DA0www.ppio.com
Marci, I think discussions about retirement income are very
relevant for someone making their living in pottery. Maybe it will
help younger folks have more options if they start thinking about it
now.
Health insurance, property insurance and liability
insurance are other pertinent topics. I wish I knew back then, what
I know know. :^)
--
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97that=
is, "Th=3D
e
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
marci and rex on thu 12 nov 09
At 01:46 PM 11/12/2009, Lee Love wrote:
>Marci, I think discussions about retirement income are very
>relevant for someone making their living in pottery.
Yes! I totally agree, Lee... ( OK..you can pick yourself up
off the floor now LOL !) ...and I am enjoying the discussion ....
That wasnt my point...
My point was : if you ( and I dont mean "you" you ...
I mean Loren) dont like the way the discussion is headed
on a mailing list, dont just write in and bitch about it ...
Change the subject . Thats more effective than
announcing that you are sick of the discussion .
I am merely suggesting that sending in questions
or information about clay is a better way to direct the
conversation than declaring " I dont want to listen to
this" which eventually degenerates into " Why dont you all just
SHUT UP!!!" ...
AND , Clayart also comes with a handy
little feature that we also have on PPIO :
a delete button ...( Dont want to read it? Send it to email hell )
Easy peasy :O)
Marci
www.ppio.com
Bonnie Staffel on thu 12 nov 09
When I was married, we paid our taxes but put the SS into my husband's
records. I always felt it unfair when we were operating our studio and
gallery to put it in his account as I was doing most of the pottery =3D
work.
However, they told me at SS that he had the longer work record as for
working for someone else. Now that we are divorced I reap the "rewards" =3D
of
that investment. My ex lives off his SS but I have to keep working in =3D
order
to cover my expenses. Still doesn't seem fair but still the incentive to
keep living my life productively, I think I am happier than my ex.=3D20
At age 87 I still make pots, put them in a few galleries, so I don't =3D
have to
do any work selling, shipping, and a little record keeping. What is odd
though, I am still paying into SS because I have an income. Not making
enough as my expenses offset any profits in my business ventures. But it =
=3D
is
getting harder and harder as I grow older. I am thankful for family
assistance when needed. Growing old is not for sissies, IMO.
Bonnie
http://webpages.charter.net/bstaffel/
http://vasefinder.com/bstaffelgallery1.html
DVD=3DA0 Throwing with Coils and Slabs
DVD=3DA0 Introduction to Wheel Work
Charter Member Potters Council
Earl Krueger on fri 13 nov 09
The title is "Social" Security. We all pay in for the
good of society as a whole, not just for our own selves.
If I were living 10,000 years ago I would probably
be giving half of the deer or antelope that I killed
to other members of the tribe, so today's 15% is
a good deal.
The way I figure it, for the last 29 years since my
father died I have been paying for my mother's
retirement ( read minimally comfortable existence).
If I didn't pay it through SS I would be paying it in
other ways, and probably paying more.
earl krueger
Oregon, USA
Loren JOnes on fri 13 nov 09
"Bitching and moaning" was not my intent. The latter of your suggestions wa=
s. I agree that retirement is an important topic to discuss. I just was a l=
ittle uneasy about some of the commentary. Cheers, Loren
________________________________
From: marci and rex
To: Loren JOnes ; Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 9:56:47 AM
Subject: Re: Taxes
At 09:59 AM 11/12/2009, Loren JOnes wrote:
> I personally don't come to clayart to be involved in political discussion=
s! There are plenty of blogs out there for you to sound off. Lets get back =
on the topic of clay, glazes, and firings. Thanks, Loren
Hi Loren,
ILl say the same thing to you that I say to the folks on my PPIO =
mailing list:
If you dont like where the conversation is going, rather than just b=
itch and whine about it , write in something constructive to change the=
topic. The conversation will follow suit.
Marci
www.ppio.com
Des & Jan Howard on fri 13 nov 09
Loren
Moderator Mel will call a halt when needed.
Rejoice in the richness of the Clayart Experience!
Just use the delete key until then.
Des
Loren JOnes wrote:
> I personally don't come to clayart to be involved
> in political discussions! There are plenty of blogs
> out there for you to sound off. Lets get back on the
> topic of clay, glazes, and firings. Thanks, Loren
--
Des & Jan Howard
Lue Pottery
Lue NSW
Australia
2850
02 6373 6419
www.luepottery.hwy.com.au
-32.656072 149.840624
| |
|
