| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| GuitarGuy305 |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 09:38:16 AM
So it's tax time again. And I'm looking forward to getting my refund to help pay for my wedding.
A question I had though, for anyone that might know. I had a gig in 2004 that paid me $150. It was at a coffee shop that happens to be owned by a larger company, so it wasn't the standard coffee shop under the table cash payment you would normally get. They had me complete a W-9 form. Should I be getting a W-2, or some similar document, from them? I was looking up W-9 on the internet, and I can't figure out if this is income I need to report or not. I have my W-2 from my job, and all the other stuff I need. I just need to know if I can go ahead and file, or if I should contact the place I played the gig for to see if I should be getting something from them.
Any thoughts? |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Robin |
Posted - 02/06/2005 : 9:57:20 PM
My head hurts....Peace, Robin |
| GuitarGuy305 |
Posted - 02/06/2005 : 2:36:44 PM
Yeah, this is what I was thinking. I have been advised to claim it, even if I didn't receive a 1099, but I was doing my taxes online, and it was such a bitch figuring out where and how to add that as additional income, I said screw it and just didn't claim it.
I figure the worst that could happen is I get something from the IRS saying I owe tax on the money, and I doubt that would happen. |
| Lindalu |
Posted - 02/06/2005 : 1:37:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by GuitarGuy305
So it's tax time again. And I'm looking forward to getting my refund to help pay for my wedding.
A question I had though, for anyone that might know. I had a gig in 2004 that paid me $150. It was at a coffee shop that happens to be owned by a larger company, so it wasn't the standard coffee shop under the table cash payment you would normally get. They had me complete a W-9 form. Should I be getting a W-2, or some similar document, from them? I was looking up W-9 on the internet, and I can't figure out if this is income I need to report or not. I have my W-2 from my job, and all the other stuff I need. I just need to know if I can go ahead and file, or if I should contact the place I played the gig for to see if I should be getting something from them.
Any thoughts?
I'm pretty sure you need to make at least 600$ from any one source before you're required to claim that. If you didn't recieve a 1099 from them, I wouldn't worry about it. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 9:10:02 PM
i should have put up a quote and i didn't. my mistake. i still think it was obvious who i was talking to, but better to make it clear i suppose.
good eye. i think i will answer it here, as it has a bearing on this topic and i have a few minutes to spare. at first is does seem that those two statements are at odds with each other. they are, after all, two clearly different ways of thinking. but then, these are two clearly different topics. all i said in response to "it's your history too" was that, in fact, it wasn't my history. because it isn't. i never said anything about it not applying to me or having any bearing on me, which would be the same between as saying "laws made before me don't apply to me." it does have a bearing on me, because it's my country's history. there's a difference between my country's history and my history. the bearing is different, than say the potato famine, which has a larger impact on my history. hope that clears up why the statements are not at odds.
again, sorry for not quoting and then misquoting and whatever other nonsense i did. that was careless of me. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 5:23:16 PM
wow I started a landslide! Without even being very concerned about the question... well I started it plus Dan P not remembering who he was talking to, and Fluffy thinking Dan was talking to him... but apparently I have missed out on a big discussion in the rule proposed thread! |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 3:09:55 PM
Jiyra asked: quote:
the whole taxation without representation thing doesn't make much sense to me, mostly because from what I understand, D.C. does have congresswomen and men, again, from what I understand, so, my question is: Why, even as a district, don't they get the full package?
Hopefully the following will help you understand better....
The majority of Americans may not be aware that the citizens of Washington DC are currently disenfranchised and largely ignored, because they lack statehood. There are nearly 600,000 taxpaying citizens in the District of Columbia who have no federal voting representation in Congress. Despite the fact that DC residents have fought and died in every war since the War for Independence, and including the recent "Operation Iraqi Freedom," they do not return home to a democratic society with the same rights and privileges as all other Americans who served their country.
We need to fully restore DC to financial health. We must provide for increased infrastructure, jobs, education, and health care spending. DC residents pay enough annually in federal taxes to support a state. In fact, they pay more federal taxes than several states and have a per capita tax payment that is above the national average. Because it belongs to the federal government, approximately 50% of DC's real estate is exempt from taxation. Over half of all sales in DC are to the federal government or other tax-exempt organizations, and this produces no revenue to the DC government.
It is time DC residents had statehood and the same rights as all Americans. This can be achieved specifically through the following steps:
1)Create local authority within the District over our three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial.
2)Eliminate all federal government committees and/or subcommittees that have oversight or appropriation power over the DC government.
3)Provide complete and equal voting representation in the United States Congress.
4)Achieve equality through statehood.
As Sam Smith wrote in his article, The Case for DC Statehood, "Our right is entire membership in the United State of America as the 51st state. Let us seek nothing less."
For more information, please read Sam Smith's "The Case for DC Statehood":
http://prorev.com/dcstdfirst.htm
The last few paragraphs should be of most import to the the casual reader. Take a minute to understand. THANX For those to lazy to click on the link, I have quoted some of the paragraphs below that should help put it in a better perspective for you.....
quote:
.........Statehood means nothing more nor less than what Wyoming, Rhode Island, Delaware, or any of the states smaller and larger than the District enjoy. When Alaska became a state, Congress declared that it was "admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all respects whatever." That's what we should demand: equal footing, not some more benevolent form of colonialism foisted off as "home rule." In the old days, when Congress admitted new states, it put it even more gracefully and accurately.
The states were declared a "new and entire member of the United States of America."
The District has never been an entire member of the United States of America. It is the indentured servant of the nation. Our goal must be simple and clear: the US must let us in.
First, redefine the District. The Constitution does give Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District. But it does not define the District other than to restrict it to not more than ten square miles. At the time the city became the seat of the government, it contained a mere 14,000 residents, whom Madison assured in the Federalist Papers "will of course be allowed" a municipal legislature "for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages." On this land sprung a metropolis of three-quarters of a million, as large as all the New England states in 1800 combined, excluding Massachusetts. Only the peculiar perversity of the congressional mind has led to the conclusion that the framers of the Constitution expected Congress to exercise total control over, and deny franchise to, a population equal to five of the 13 original colonies. If John McMillan and Joel Broyhill had been around then, pushing such a scandalous suggestion, the Union might never had made it past Philadelphia.
But we need not continue the debate on the intent of the forefathers. We can swiftly correct the ill effects of their vagueness by redefining the District (perhaps to a narrow strip running from the White House to the Capitol) over which avaricious national legislators can exercise their domain, and the rest of the city shall be evermore free of the curse of Article I, Section 8.
More links for those who would like to EDUCATE themselves on the topic of TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION:
http://www.virtualology.com/virtualwarmuseum.com/revolutionarywarhall/notaxationwithoutrepresentation.net/
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h640.html
http://www.dcvote.org/
To my knowledge, we are only license plate in the country that has a slogan that could be called confrontational, rebellious, or even NEGATIVE.......certainly all the "STATES" are more positive and complimentary in their approach, with the possible exception of the old New Hampshire tag line "Live Free OR Die" LOL
http://www.mistupid.com/facts/page050.htm
I PROUDLY display mine on my new car!
|
| Fluffy |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 2:20:30 PM
dan P said: quote:
first of all, fluffy, what the hell are you talking about? the comment wasn't even directed at you. it was directed at jirya. how can you not see that?
HMMMMM, I guess I couldn't see it because there was noone SPECIFIC quoted, and since it followed my post with mention of TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION I assumed it was directed at me and you were somehow implying that I had said I don't have to follow laws which had me totally baffled since I have never said such a thing. Now you have learned the valuable lesson of why "quoting" can be so important on a thread. The other readers know WHICH point to you are commenting on. Helps avoid misunderstandings.
quote:
it was who jirya said he doesn't know why he had to pay taxes, seeing as he can't yet vote for a representive.
And it wasn't Jiyra who seems to have brought it up, it was Muskrat..
quote:
"Muskrat" quote:
Yeah but the amount I'm taxed is determined by laws made and approved by elected officials, since I have no part in electing those officials, I would think that'd be taxation without representation, and I THOUGHT that was illegal in the US...
"Jiyra" quote:
it is illegal, unless you live in D.C.
Back to DanP saidquote:
if you're still pissed about that other thread, take it there, please. don't waste everyone's time by lashing out at me when it'd obvious i wasn't talking to you.
Don't worry, I will be getting back to the other thread when I have the TIMe it deserves for a DETAILED response. Sorry if I WASTED everyones TIMe here, but unlike dan, I did not see how it was "OBVIOUS (he) wasn't talking to (ME)".
quote:
of course such a statement as "the laws were made before i was born, so they don't apply to me," sounds ridiculous. it is ridiculous.
quote:
i have no native blood, and my grandfathers and grandmothers are the first of my ancestors to be born in the usa, so as a matter of fact it isn't my history at all. no one on either side of my family had a part in any of the atrocities. and as bloodstained and regrettable a history as it is, it isn't mine, personal or hereditary. it is the history of the country i was birthed into.
Sounds like similar statements to me, but by your own admission, ONE is ridiculous. So why not the other as well? Don't worry, more on this in the "rule proposed" thread coming. You don't need to answer it here, just wanted to point out the inconsistency.
quote:
one can assume, given his statement, that he doesn't think he should be paying taxes because he can't vote in a a representative. but by law, you know that thing, he has to. there are other laws, too. and they were made without him voting. if he doesn't think that tax law applies to him because of no representation, then by that same logic, he would have to think that the other laws made don't apply to him. it's as plain as fucking day and i don't understand why you don't see it.
Obviously, I do see it given my comment. I think it's RIDICULOUS. All my comment was asking for was where "I" ever said such nonsense since I thought "YOUR" comment was directed at me. My mistake(since you didn't quote the source to which your reply was directed)
quote:
you need to calm down before you decide you want to start an argument with me. now if you'll excuse me. there's practicing needs doing.
I am calm, very calm. Just curious where I started an argument? I, as always, only addressed comments made. Again I agree, more PRACTICING, less arguing.
Sorry again to everyone for WASTING their valuable TIMe on this, BUT hopefully EVERYONE has learned the value and importance of QUOTING a reference to your comments. It helps eliminate confusion and misunderstandings which leads to pointless, TIMe-wasting posts from ME. EXAMPLE: Had DanP quoted Jiyra as the source he was responding to I would have felt NO NEED to post more senseless, meaningless and "argumentative" posts to WASTE more of your TIMe on this thread.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 11:13:20 AM
first of all, fluffy, what the hell are you talking about? the comment wasn't even directed at you. it was directed at jirya. how can you not see that? your post was an informative bit about 9-ws. it was who jirya said he doesn't know why he had to pay taxes, seeing as he can't yet vote for a representive. not you. it was "explain why i have to pay taxes when i can't vote," or some such thing. if you're still pissed about that other thread, take it there, please. don't waste everyone's time by lashing out at me when it'd obvious i wasn't talking to you. of course such a statement as "the laws were made before i was born, so they don't apply to me," sounds ridiculous. it is ridiculous. and it's essentially what jirya said, when you think about. if you want to.
one can assume, given his statement, that he doesn't think he should be paying taxes because he can't vote in a a representative. but by law, you know that thing, he has to. there are other laws, too. and they were made without him voting. if he doesn't think that tax law applies to him because of no representation, then by that same logic, he would have to think that the other laws made don't apply to him. it's as plain as fucking day and i don't understand why you don't see it.
you need to calm down before you decide you want to start an argument with me. now if you'll excuse me. there's practicing needs doing. |
| tericee |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 04:11:45 AM
D.C. has a delegate to Congress, but that person has no vote. Similar to Puerto Rico.
FYI: Puerto Ricans don't get to vote for President, where DC people do. But then I don't think they pay Federal income tax either. |
| Jiyra |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 03:40:46 AM
the whole taxation without representation thing doesn't make much sense to me, mostly because from what I understand, D.C. does have congresswomen and men, again, from what I understand, so, my question is: Why, even as a district, don't they get the full package? |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 02:59:09 AM
dan p. asked: quote:
all laws created thus far have been made without you being able to vote. do you hold yourself exempt from all these laws?
Not sure where I said I hold myself exempt from laws, sure hope you can reference that comment for me. But now that you have asked the question I have decided to answer using with YOUR nonsensical logic from the other post. Since MOST of the laws were written before I was born and I in no way contributed to their drafting or institution. So you are correct, I am not responsible and I am exempt from said laws.
SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THAT SOUNDS. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 10:16:07 PM
yeah, just the $$$  joking aside, I didn't think about that, but that still doesn't really answer the "taxation without representation" query... |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 8:40:39 PM
all laws created thus far have been made without you being able to vote. do you hold yourself exempt from all these laws? even the ones that work in your favor? or is it just the money you're concerned with. |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 6:08:37 PM
Although I do ALOT of accounting, I am by no means a CPA, BUT here is how it would work if you lived in DC. You may want to check and see if it is the same for your state.(Although DC ISN'T a state: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!)
If you fill out a W-9 for a club, that would indicate that it is reportable income and you should recieve a 1099(I think, you should recieve some kind of statement, not sure if it's a 1099 or some other of the myriad of forms for the fucking IRS)
I fill out W-9 for TR and CW all the TIMe and they are responsible for the taxes on that money earned. Having said that, bands at your level have a little different situation. Here in DC(and I think this is federal, but again you should check) if you don't earn more than $600 you don't have to bother with it.
Example: Band A plays the 930 club 3 TIMes for $100 each TIMe. Yes they filled out a W-9 for each performance BUT unless they play 6 or more shows in a year it isn't something reported. I think it's $600, if you earn more than $600 from a particular club it WILL be reported. It still might be reported under that amount depending on the state and club, but I don't think it's required to report under $600.
Anyway, long and short is if you filled out a W-9, I personally would report it to air on the side of safety. You don't want to be audited down the road. To my knowledge the club is required to send you some kind of 1099 or something, but I wouldn't count on then actually doing it even if they report it. The IRS won't really take the excuse "They didn't send me anything" if you are audited because they reported it and you didn't. Although the club might in up in little trouble as well because they didn't send you something. Of course the amounts we are talking about are much less for you than TR, BUT I would say air on the side of safety and report it. I say this, not because I love the govt or think the IRS deserves your money, BUT I would hate to see you get fined or worse for such a minor infraction.
My understanding is that if you fill out a W-9 it will be reported. Thats why you fill out the W-9. Your best bet might be to call the coffee house and see what their policy is about reporting amounts under $600 earned in one year. Hope this helps. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 4:05:35 PM
Because I don't make enough money to have to pay taxes. The job that I'm working at now, being a Resident Advisor at my university, doesn't pay enough cash. Most of my "pay" goes towards housing, food, and tuition, so I don't see anything except about $100-150 dollars a month. |
| SandyCarl |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 3:22:42 PM
no, it shouldn't matter if they do report it with their taxes. I am sure that amount is not enough for you to have to report. I have the same situation. I got paid about $200 for some work I did. I got a W9 for it. My boss did the work with me, and got paid [definately more] than me. He also did the W9. However, he got a tax form (like a W2) that he'll have to report with his income, whereas I did not. I asked around, and found out that $200 isn't enough for it to be necessary for me.
So from my experience, I'd tell you not to worry about it. But I still recommend you finding out from someone officially. |
| GuitarGuy305 |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 09:19:49 AM
I have a friend that "forgot" to pay taxes in 2000, and nothing has happened to her yet.
|
| Jiyra |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 04:26:37 AM
[/quote]
I would think that'd be taxation without representation, and I THOUGHT that was illegal in the US... 
[/quote]
it is illegal, unless you live in D.C.
and Arthen, I know why I'm not paying taxes, why aren't you? |
| Arthen |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 11:18:21 PM
I haven't paid taxes in two years, and I won't be paying this year! |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 10:52:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tericee
If you're old enough to earn money, you're old enough to pay tax. Can't explain the voting thing...
Yeah but the amount I'm taxed is determined by laws made and approved by elected officials, since I have no part in electing those officials, I would think that'd be taxation without representation, and I THOUGHT that was illegal in the US... |
| GuitarGuy305 |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 5:15:18 PM
I'm going to wait until the end of this week. I got something today from my insurance company postmarked 01/31, so if it doesn't come in the next couple days, I'll assume they didn't have it out in the mail by 01/31. I have the email of the woman that booked me, so if anything she should be able to get a duplicate sent to me. |
| tericee |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 4:42:11 PM
If you're old enough to earn money, you're old enough to pay tax. Can't explain the voting thing... |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 4:35:30 PM
Explain why I must pay taxes when I can't vote? Shouldn't my parents be taxed since I am dependent on them? Not that it really matters, but it seems weird to me... I'm not whining, just wondering. |
| GuitarGuy305 |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 3:31:53 PM
I work for an investment company so I know more than I'd like to about 1099s. I just wasn't sure if I had to report such a small amount. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 3:13:53 PM
a 1099 they give u the full amount then u pay the tax at the end of the year so we can take over countries. |
| GuitarGuy305 |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 2:34:27 PM
The did not withhold tax from it. Just got a check for $150, and completed the W9. |
| therippa |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 1:42:03 PM
Did they withhold taxes from it? If so, I wouldn't really worry about it. If not, then put is as a 1099 misc.
Expect to pay something like 30%-45% on it.
quote:
Originally posted by tericee
I would say figure out your taxes with and without that $150 in income. If it raises you to another tax bracket, find a way not to report it. If it doesn't, report it since it won't cost you more than a couple of dollars in taxes.
If it does indeed put you into a new bracket, you don't need to worry about it. It's a misconception that if you get a raise at work that barely puts you into the next bracket you will end up earning less. Only the money that put you over your previous bracket will be taxed at the higher rate. It works kinda like this...
For example, if you make X, you get taxed Y
$20,000 15%
$30,000 20%
$40,000 25%
$50,000 30%
People assume that if you make $40,001 you get taxed 25% across the board. That's not how it works. You would get taxed 15% of $20,000, 20% of 10,000, 25% of 10,000 and 30% of $1.
|
| tericee |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 11:31:23 AM
I would say figure out your taxes with and without that $150 in income. If it raises you to another tax bracket, find a way not to report it. If it doesn't, report it since it won't cost you more than a couple of dollars in taxes. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 10:21:52 AM
i dont know
i forget
they usually have yo sign ur social and sign
but you only have to report if u make over $300 in one gig a year...
if not u dont have to claim it...so what you fcan do if u have mor epeople in ur band, switch off on signing it...
i got screwed and have to pay $800 through my real work because the payroll screwed up...
anyway, now i get to pay into this war and the next oen...
its bullshit...its not even the $800 that kills me, its the prinicpal that I have to pay without receiveing ANYTHING...
not to mention i am taxed without representation...do any of you feel represented by our government? I dont...my governor wasnt even elected...he was selected because McGreevey said he was a gay american...
fucking america...give me a break |
|
|
