New Tax Reporting ($600 Threshold per year) and Consignments 21 21

[namisgr]

On 12/25/2022 at 10:45 AM, jcjames said:

There are hyperintellectual brainiacs (many who post in the Water Closet) who spout the idea that spending doesn't matter, just as long as the FedGov can still make the minimum credit payments.

Leaving aside the intellectual dishonesty of this post regarding the discussions of investing and finance in the Water Cooler, it neglects recent history.

The US has run budget deficits for nearly 250 years now during times of war.  It has run a budget deficit nearly every year since the early 1930s. The last surpluses were from 1998-2001.  They didn't result from reduced spending, but from increased revenues.  The economy was booming, the tax paying workforce was increasing, and more people were earning a livable wage, leading to increased revenue from personal and corporate taxes.  Also, collection compliance was much higher among the wealthiest paying into the highest tax bracket than it is today, and the pay rate of that bracket was higher than it is now.  

As for tax preparation, everyone can decide for themselves whether to report all earned net income in compliance with the law or not.  The decision should be easier this coming year now that the $600 reporting minimum limit for internet sales has been postponed.  It does seem to be a bad priority to collect net income from small sellers of collectible items and heirlooms rather than concentrating on the wealthiest citizens who fail to pay their legal obligation.

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by namisgr

[jaybuck43]

On 12/26/2022 at 7:00 AM, namisgr said:

  It does seem to be a bad priority to collect net income from small sellers of collectible items and heirlooms rather than concentrating on the wealthiest citizens who fail to pay their legal obligation.

 

But where are you getting this from? I don’t know many if at all “wealthy citizens” who are tax cheats. The complaint from people is that they don’t pay as much in taxes (either because the majority of their income comes in capital gains which has a max 20% tax rate verses a max income tax rate of 39%, or because they have so many deductions like using their private jets that “normal people” don’t have.) that’s a politics discussion, I’m going to avoid that. But the main issue here, and what I’ve said repeatedly is that ALL people (from the poorest to the wealthiest) have a requirement to truthfully report all of their earnings and then pay what they are required to. You can have issues with the deductions. That’s a different discussion. But here, you need to properly report. Having an estate sale? No problem because unless you’re selling more than $11 million in goods you won’t have to pay taxes on it… but you need to report it. 

[jimjum12]

On 12/26/2022 at 11:11 AM, jaybuck43 said:

But where are you getting this from? I don’t know many if at all “wealthy citizens” who are tax cheats. The complaint from people is that they don’t pay as much in taxes (either because the majority of their income comes in capital gains which has a max 20% tax rate verses a max income tax rate of 39%, or because they have so many deductions like using their private jets that “normal people” don’t have.) that’s a politics discussion, I’m going to avoid that. But the main issue here, and what I’ve said repeatedly is that ALL people (from the poorest to the wealthiest) have a requirement to truthfully report all of their earnings and then pay what they are required to. You can have issues with the deductions. That’s a different discussion. But here, you need to properly report. Having an estate sale? No problem because unless you’re selling more than $11 million in goods you won’t have to pay taxes on it… but you need to report it. 

I think you're missing the point of the discussion, Jay ... not whether taxing is legally or even ethically required, but rather WHO is being targeted with this 600 dollar threshold.   In that vein, Bob's comments are perfectly valid. Let's have this conversation in 50 years, when Capitalism and all of it's advantages provided (politically or otherwise) to the wealthy and elite has caused Communism to look like a step up for 98 percent of the people. For the record, I've filed for my comic sales for the last 13 years, even cash transactions. GOD BLESS ... jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited December 26, 2022 by jimjum12

[Math Teacher]

On 12/24/2022 at 11:08 AM, jaybuck43 said:

Sub $1 is rounded to $0 for tax purposes. And yes, there is a box for “treasure trove”.

So, if you found a $20 bill, you would report it as income?

Sorry I'm so late to the table on this discussion, but I've been away from my PC for several days.

[Math Teacher]

On 12/26/2022 at 10:11 AM, jaybuck43 said:

But where are you getting this from? I don’t know many if at all “wealthy citizens” who are tax cheats. The complaint from people is that they don’t pay as much in taxes (either because the majority of their income comes in capital gains which has a max 20% tax rate verses a max income tax rate of 39%, or because they have so many deductions like using their private jets that “normal people” don’t have.) that’s a politics discussion, I’m going to avoid that.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary (cnn.com)Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary (cnn.com)

[EastEnd1]

Having worked in the corporate tax area for thirty years (now retired), I wish I could tell you that there was a lot of thought behind reducing this threshold to $600 but most likely there wasn't.  My recollection is that this was brought in with the first covid bill passed by congress under the Biden administration (the "American Rescue Plan").  As is often the case, my guess is that in initially "scoring" the bill (ie, calculating it's cost) there were likely insufficient votes for passage due to it's price tag.  What then happens, "ask fors" get removed, and/or "pay fors" get added until the overall price tag gets reduced enough so that sufficient votes for passage are found.  Lowering this threshold, which on its face is simply going after unreported income, was simply one of these "pay fors" that was added that congress people could easily justify without creating too much controversy with the American voter.  In fact, I seem to remember that a lot of the attention at the time was put on a proposal to enhance bank reporting of transactions going in and out of bank accounts (which was ultimately removed), and this threshold reduction kind of snuck through quietly.  There really wasn't any malice involved... it's purely the horse-trading of politics.   

[rsouxlja7]

On 12/26/2022 at 11:14 AM, EastEnd1 said:

Having worked in the corporate tax area for thirty years (now retired), I wish I could tell you that there was a lot of thought behind reducing this threshold to $600 but most likely there wasn't.  My recollection is that this was brought in with the first covid bill passed by congress under the Biden administration (the "American Rescue Plan").  As is often the case, my guess is that in initially "scoring" the bill (ie, calculating it's cost) there were likely insufficient votes for passage due to it's price tag.  What then happens, "ask fors" get removed, and/or "pay fors" get added until the overall price tag gets reduced enough so that sufficient votes for passage are found.  Lowering this threshold, which on its face is simply going after unreported income, was simply one of these "pay fors" that was added that congress people could easily justify without creating too much controversy with the American voter.  In fact, I seem to remember that a lot of the attention at the time was put on a proposal to enhance bank reporting of transactions going in and out of bank accounts (which was ultimately removed), and this threshold reduction kind of snuck through quietly.  There really wasn't any malice involved... it's purely the horse-trading of politics.   

It was to pay for the handouts to the wealthy in the form of PPP loans. Gotta shakedown the working class to pay for it. 

[EastEnd1]

On 12/26/2022 at 12:38 PM, rsouxlja7 said:

It was to pay for the handouts to the wealthy in the form of PPP loans. Gotta shakedown the working class to pay for it. 

Actually that happened under the Trump administration... in the first year of covid.  The two are not connected at all.

[namisgr]

On 12/26/2022 at 11:11 AM, jaybuck43 said:

But where are you getting this from? 

The United States Treasury.

The top 1 percent are evading $163 billion a year in taxes, the Treasury finds.

Coupled with the lowering of the top tax bracket rate since the last time there was a budget surplus (2001), it's a substantial amount of potential revenue lost.

Edited December 26, 2022 by namisgr

[awakeintheashes]

On 12/26/2022 at 12:14 PM, EastEnd1 said:

Having worked in the corporate tax area for thirty years (now retired), I wish I could tell you that there was a lot of thought behind reducing this threshold to $600 but most likely there wasn't.  My recollection is that this was brought in with the first covid bill passed by congress under the Biden administration (the "American Rescue Plan").  As is often the case, my guess is that in initially "scoring" the bill (ie, calculating it's cost) there were likely insufficient votes for passage due to it's price tag.  What then happens, "ask fors" get removed, and/or "pay fors" get added until the overall price tag gets reduced enough so that sufficient votes for passage are found.  Lowering this threshold, which on its face is simply going after unreported income, was simply one of these "pay fors" that was added that congress people could easily justify without creating too much controversy with the American voter.  In fact, I seem to remember that a lot of the attention at the time was put on a proposal to enhance bank reporting of transactions going in and out of bank accounts (which was ultimately removed), and this threshold reduction kind of snuck through quietly.  There really wasn't any malice involved... it's purely the horse-trading of politics.   

Yup, this is exactly what it was. It’s funny the dance that goes on when trying to get a bill scored favorably.  The Medicare Pard D “Rebate Rule,” which never went into effect (costing $0), but would have projected to have a price-tag associated with it, was delayed in the Inflation Reduction Act through 2031 (was supposed to be fully repealed) as being a “pay-for” and “saving” something like $200 billion. 

It’s why I figured the $600 threshold would get delayed, fixed, or even nixed before the 1099s were to be sent out. Classifying it as a revenue generator back then as a pay-for is all they needed to score it favorably. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by awakeintheashes

[ttfitz]

On 12/26/2022 at 11:11 AM, jaybuck43 said:

But where are you getting this from? I don’t know many if at all “wealthy citizens” who are tax cheats.

"Tax cheats" is a bit strong, even if literally true. The justification for increased funding for the IRS is the amount of owed taxes that will be collected when more resources are devoted to greater levels of investigation and audit, largely in the upper income categories (see: Willie Sutton). Dedicating resources by reducing the threshold so low, which requires the proverbial "grandma selling her sofa at a yard sale" to spend time and effort documenting that she didn't have a net gain, is not a good look.

(I feel compelled to point to my previous posts in this thread to illustrate that I am with you on your general point, that this isn't a change in what taxes are owed.)

Edited December 26, 2022 by ttfitz
Added a comma

[lizards2]

On 12/25/2022 at 10:31 PM, NP_Gresham said:

 

I for one almost never go to a show, my money will not be added to anyone’s bottom line if that means going somewhere I want to avoid.

 

Same for me - most comic shows are in s**thole cities, where I have no desire to visit or stay.

I used to go to the state wrestling championships in Portland every year. Luckily, they were moved out of there during the Covid years into rural areas. Now they are apparently going back there to the Memorial Colosseum this February, amidst the riots, the homeless encampments and crime - I have no desire to go to Portland ever again.

[jcjames]

On 12/25/2022 at 9:06 AM, shadroch said:

Which parts of government do you think should run like a business? Should our schools show a profit?  If we extend the school day and put the students to work two hours every day for the company who sponsors that school, think of the savings. How about the police department?  Maybe require each officer to write tickets equal to his salary and benefits each shift? Should our defense department make a profit? Maybe we should invade a few oil rich countries instead of wasting resources helping other countries? Maybe put prisoners to work assembling cars? Should each Congressman sell sponsorships so that Congress pays for itself?  Why should we pay the President a half a million a year when so many corporations would gladly give him millions, if not for those silly laws that prevent it.

Why send men to the moon when sending them to the Congo will turn a profit. 

There was an uproar here a few years ago when it was discovered the state was paying for cable tv in the waiting rooms of the welfare offices. Screw that. Lets show nothing but commercials and turn a profit.

Which parts of government do you think should run like a business? 

All of them should be run with at least the basic amount of common sense accounting. Budgets matter in any business. They don't seem to matter at the FedGov level though. That's what I'm talking about. There's been YEARS where the FedGov operated with essentially no approved budget. Spending is based NOT on what is necessary or required or efficient - and most importantly not based in anyway related to revenue... it was based on how many votes will this gov't expenditure buy for the people who pass it. That's not common sense business accounting or personal finance. 

 

Should our schools show a profit?  If we extend the school day and put the students to work two hours every day for the company who sponsors that school, think of the savings. 

You're mixing local gov't which (far more than FedGov) has to be more responsible with its expenses. Major cities have gone bankrupt doing what the FedGov is doing on a larger scale. Soon the bill will come due for the BigGov too. 

 

How about the police department?  Maybe require each officer to write tickets equal to his salary and benefits each shift?

Again, that's local gov't and no - running continually-growing deficits is NOT beneficial to any local gov't, so why would it be beneficial to BigGov? And your example is not how businesses run - retail employees are not required to sell their daily wages-worth of widgets to customers each shift. Engineers are not required produce their daily salary-worth of lines-of-code, data-analyses or processor-circuits each day. That's not how business works. I think you know that. And besides, writing tickets is not all (or even most) of what a local police department does. 

 

Should our defense department make a profit?  

A profit off of what? What are you talking about??? Do YOU make a profit when you buy a car from Toyota or Ford? How exactly would the FedGov "make a profit" off of buying ships, planes or paying military personnel? BigGov SPENDS money on those things, they are "expenditures".

Bottomline: 

The idea is that BigGov should not be perpetually spending $170 for every $100 it receives in revenue, with absolutely NO plan or even intention to balance, reduce or settle the growing debts, but instead just keep increasing one's debts. NO business or personal ledger sheet would or could operate like that and expect to NOT go bankrupt in the future. That's what I'm talking about. 

 

 

 

 

 

ETA: Grammar

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by jcjames

[Buzzetta]

On 12/26/2022 at 1:50 PM, lizards2 said:

Same for me - most comic shows are in s**thole cities, where I have no desire to visit or stay.

That's right ! Which is why there is a very slim chance I am going back to NYCC next year.

 

...waitaminute... 

[Larryw7]

 

[skypinkblu]

On 12/25/2022 at 11:06 AM, shadroch said:

Which parts of government do you think should run like a business? Should our schools show a profit?  If we extend the school day and put the students to work two hours every day for the company who sponsors that school, think of the savings. How about the police department?  Maybe require each officer to write tickets equal to his salary and benefits each shift? Should our defense department make a profit? Maybe we should invade a few oil rich countries instead of wasting resources helping other countries? Maybe put prisoners to work assembling cars? Should each Congressman sell sponsorships so that Congress pays for itself?  Why should we pay the President a half a million a year when so many corporations would gladly give him millions, if not for those silly laws that prevent it.

Why send men to the moon when sending them to the Congo will turn a profit. 

There was an uproar here a few years ago when it was discovered the state was paying for cable tv in the waiting rooms of the welfare offices. Screw that. Lets show nothing but commercials and turn a profit.

There is a huge difference between the government sending kids out to work in slave labor and having the Government act responsibly.  I worked for NYS, I watched furniture being literally trashed (sent to storage to be piled up never to be seen again) every time we got a new Commissioner...(and that was every few years...the new ones never liked the decor) ...Desks being built for my staff...AFTER the staff were all let go because of a surprise shut down of the facility.  When I asked what on earth tye were doing, I was told they had a $500k contract to build the desks so they HAD to be built (even though no one would be there to use them ...only to have them hire another contractor to take the desks apart after they were built...Office supplies that we HAD to order because you HAD to spend the budget...being trashed before a move. Thousands of $$...they laughed at me when I suggested they at least put them on eBay...I was told you HAD to throw them out. (We didn't, I told the staff to take them home...) Toilet paper ordered to the point where they couldn't fit the stuff in the cabinets (because you HAD to spend the budget)...I could go on and on, but I didn't get enough sleep and I'm going to ramble;) 

Very little was done in any kind of efficient manner if the directions came from Albany. I can't imagine the Feds are any different....I seem to remember huge amounts paid for hammers, etc.

So many decisions were made based on what companies supported the people in charge or what party was in charge and whose list you had to hire from. No private business could possibly survive that way, just constant waste.  

I've always tried to be practical...that was never a concern in the Governor's office.

[Dr. Balls]

On 12/26/2022 at 10:38 AM, rsouxlja7 said:

It was to pay for the handouts to the wealthy in the form of PPP loans. Gotta shakedown the working class to pay for it. 

PPP loans have to be paid back unless deemed forgiveable. Stimmie checks, rent and utility moratoriums caused many more problems for the working class than the PPP loans.

You can’t tell property owners they can’t collect rent for two years and expect them to not collect it on the back end, or even worse: sell their properties to larger property management corporations who require a much shorter ROA on their investment than mom-and-pop landlords.

Blaming the wealthy only goes so far, the government uses them as a scapegoat to cover for their mismanagement of every aspect of the economy.

[rsouxlja7]

On 12/29/2022 at 9:37 AM, Dr. Balls said:

PPP loans have to be paid back unless deemed forgiveable. Stimmie checks, rent and utility moratoriums caused many more problems for the working class than the PPP loans.

You can’t tell property owners they can’t collect rent for two years and expect them to not collect it on the back end, or even worse: sell their properties to larger property management corporations who require a much shorter ROA on their investment than mom-and-pop landlords.

Blaming the wealthy only goes so far, the government uses them as a scapegoat to cover for their mismanagement of every aspect of the economy.

PPP loans were automatically deemed forgivable - there was no manual review beyond the initial approval done by the bank that facilitated it. The wealthy were given an obscene amount of money while regular people were given a few thousand dollars. See for yourself. You can input your zip code here and see all of the handouts local businesses received: https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/

The company I worked for at the time had no decrease in revenue because companies still required our services. We never stopped working and were remote for maybe 3 weeks. The owners received close to $1M for free. 

Edited December 29, 2022 by rsouxlja7

[Dr. Balls]

On 12/29/2022 at 11:16 AM, rsouxlja7 said:

PPP loans were automatically deemed forgivable - there was no manual review beyond the initial approval done by the bank that facilitated it. The wealthy were given an obscene amount of money while regular people were given a few thousand dollars. See for yourself. You can input your zip code here and see all of the handouts local businesses received: https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/

The company I worked for at the time had no decrease in revenue because companies still required our services. We never stopped working and were remote for maybe 3 weeks. The owners received close to $1M for free. 

I stand corrected!

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1128207464/ppp-loans-loan-forgiveness-small-business

The government continues to mismanage itself.

[rsouxlja7]

On 12/29/2022 at 12:40 PM, Dr. Balls said:

I stand corrected!

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1128207464/ppp-loans-loan-forgiveness-small-business

The government continues to mismanage itself.

Yup. I think most people don't know the extent of just how much money went to these PPP loans. It's absurd.