Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Swedish Tax Office Targets Webcam Strippers

Posted by samzenpus on from the anything-for-my-job dept.

Sweden's tax authorities are cracking down on unreported webcam stripper income. They estimate that hundreds of Swedish women are dodging the law, resulting in a tax loss of about 40m Swedish kronor (£3.3m) annually. The search involves tax officials examining stripper websites, hours upon hours, for completely legitimate purposes. A slightly disheveled project leader said 200 Swedish strippers had been investigated so far, adding the total could be as much as 500. "They are young girls, we can see from the photos. We think that perhaps they are not well informed about the rules," he said.

65 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who are they, their pimps?

    1. Re:Seriously? by deraj123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't that basically the relationship we all have with the government?

    2. Re:Seriously? by scorp1us · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When you have an income tax, the government is everyone's pimp. The government can extract anything from its taxpayers with little recourse.

      When the US started the income tax it was 1% on incomes over $250,000 (adjusted) We now tax everyone 20-30% of anyone making over $600. Furthermore, your "fair share" is determined on how productive in enterprising you are. The more you stimulate the economy, the more you're penalized for it.

      I wish people in the US would realize that the more people in government there is, the exponentially more the burden on private enterprise. Assume 1 government worker in a population of 100 can pay 20% of their salary (say $1000) back. The remaining 80% of that salary comes from private enterprise. Now, imagine 99 government workers and one private enterprise person. We then have a $76,200 bill to be paid by one person. Good luck with that.

      Today fully one half of Americans receive federal funding in some way. Good luck with that.

      We have a federal debt of 12 Trillion dollars and a $1+ trillion deficit this year alone. Our taxes should be 60%. But our unborn have no representation in congress. I love those Obama girls. I can't wait to tap them - for their taxes!

      Of course, it is the income tax that allows this. It is so easy to collect as as long as we can keep raising it, we'll keep demanding more and more. Good luck with that.

      With a consumption tax this kind of spending would be impossible.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    3. Re:Seriously? by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As I understand it, it was also supposed to be temporary... what happened...

      Oh, let's see. On the right, we have a 600 billion dollar a year defense budget, and on the left, we have a welfare state.

      We can go back to having no income taxes if we get seriously cut the size of the military, get rid of medicare, all the welfare crap.. and, well, we also have to pay off the national debt.

      sounds like a plan to me.

      we'd still be stuck with a big payroll tax for social security. really, the only way your state can escape the us welfare crap is to have your state secede.

      --
      This is my sig.
    4. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Furthermore, your "fair share" is determined on how productive in enterprising you are.

      It's protection money for your... profit. You can be perfectly productive in a charitable or academic manner and your organisations will not have to worry much about tax. But if you want that money just to fund a larger house or private yacht, you're paying n% protection against the unwashed masses stealing the other (100-n)%. It's only right that the more personal wealth you amass, the more you should have to pay to protect it. If you want, we can move to an anarchy and see how long Gates gets to live safely.

      The more you stimulate the economy, the more you're penalized for it.

      The "economy" is just a bunch of people trading, not some huge singular blob. Just because x does a lot of trade benefitting set X, it doesn't mean I should care about x's successes unless I'm a member of X. But the government will stop me looting x because x pays the government protection money. Understand?

    5. Re:Seriously? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Furthermore, your "fair share" is determined on how productive in enterprising you are. The more you stimulate the economy, the more you're penalized for it.

      This argument is based on the assumption that those who are payed more in our society are more hard working and productive. As any fool can tell you, in reality the exact opposite of this assumption holds. Typically the more you are paid, the less productive you are.

      While there are exceptions, it is safe to say that those on the lower end of the payscale work very hard jobs for very long hours, whereas those in high paid executive positions are on a gravy train, with high salaries, bonuses, short hours, little responsibility and who actually do atrociously little work.

      The truth, and it is something that many simply cannot bear to face, is that the wealth of many individuals has very little to do with their own productivity and labour, and very much to do with the productivity and labour of the many people who work for them. This notion was, and still is, denied by many, particularly whose at the top end of the pay scale, who struggle to find some rationalisation for why they, who spend most of their day idle, spewing out buzzwords, on telephone calls, making powerpoint presentations or surfing for porn, should receive an order of magnitude or more compensation for their day than the people on the factory floor who visibly sweat in order to make their living. It's a powerful juxtaposition and one which I'm sure people in top paying jobs are subconsciously uncomfortable with. Hence they rationalise. Oh do they rationalise.

      Read Galbraith's book, "The Great Crash", where he analyises the 1929 stock market crash. Among other things, he argues that one of the main causes of the crash was the huge wealth disparity between the super rich and everyone else. Basically, there were a small number of people who had sucked up a sizable proportion of the money in the US, and gave nothing in return. When they stopped spending, the whole system froze up. They were essentially black holes which money flowed into, but never out of. Consumption taxes wouldn't have helped. Their money was idle and remained so.

      So I don't buy this idea about the "injustice" of taxing higher earners. In my opinion, the true leaches in our society are the people in top positions who sit around doing nothing while creaming off the labour of others. they are the true parasites, and they are ultimately the ones who got us into the current crises we now find ourselves in. I'm not a communist, but I don't buy the idea that people should receive unlimited compensation simply because they had a rich parent, an expensive education and the right contacts. And make no mistake, those are the only qualifications that 90% of business managers have today.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Billionaires are just a recent form of totalitarianism, just because it is secular does not mean these people are not in principle and practice kings. Always keep an axe handy when a King is around.

    7. Re:Seriously? by node+3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You anti-taxers are amazing. You're all about "hey, this great country, what it really needs is less money, then it would be even greater!"

      What's so troubling about paying your fair share? And yes, your fair share goes up as your income goes up, as those with greater incomes are taking greater advantage of the public infrastructure.

      Actually, in the US, your fair share doesn't actually track your income. The middle-class carries the greatest tax burden. That's why the economy is so screwed--the middle class has been decimated.

      First they destroyed the unions and free college education. Then they raised our taxes. Then they lowered our wages. Then they had us working more hours. Then they shipped our jobs overseas. The final straw was when they had us go into debt so we could maintain our middle class lifestyle for just a little longer so they (the upper class) could take just a little bit more of our money.

      Once the credit ran out, this whole house of cards collapsed. Fuck the rich, it's their avarice that brought this whole thing to pass, and it was the Conservative fiscal ideology (primarily Republicans, but far too many Democrats as well) that placed the Dollar over The People.

      Taxes are not our problem, except when it comes to the rich, where the tax laws are set up to reward fucking over the economy and decimating the middle class.

    8. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Those hard-working people you love so much only have jobs because more business-savvy people are constructing environments in which their hard labor can be turned into something of value, and are directing the efforts of their employees toward appropriate goals.

      Working hard is a very straight-forward proposition that doesn't require your labor to be *worth* anything. But as a result it doesn't guarantee that you will be creating any value - for yourself or others. You come across as a pure "means of production" communist. If you succeed in running your little experiment you will discover that everyone can be working their asses off and still producing jack-shit, if the people who are good at preventing that scenario are held back and the free market is tied up with taxes, regulations, protectionism and government-granted monopolies.

      Your mistake is that you think labor is intrinsically worth something. It's not. Supply in an environment of demand is intrinsically worth something. Pure laborers are just one cog in the production of the supply.

      Entrepreneurs set up the equation to actually produce value and - as a result - wages; and they do so at great risk to their own livelihood. Risks pure laborers are disinclined or outright unwilling to take. Middle managers, while easy to pick on, exist primarily because pure laborers are so unlikely to efficiently produce things of value if left unmanaged, so if you hate them so badly you have only your workers to blame. It's true that they aren't setting up the value environment like the true business leaders, but it's not true that they are unnecessary. They may well be overpaid, but it's not *your* money they are being paid with so you don't have any right to deny it to them.

    9. Re:Seriously? by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Very highly paid people do very little work for each dollar they earn. This is not my opinion, it is simple mathematics. The average CEO "earns" 250 times as much as the average worker. Let's assume the average worker is an overpaid, underworked union slob (as "wealth=merit" types tend to believe) and does only 10 minutes of actual productive work per day. The CEO would still have to work 104 hours per day to work equally for each dollar. Not even Ayn Rand can fail to see that logic. So you need to switch to something else, like "they're smarter and more disciplined than you and I," or, "sitting around in meetings is much harder than backbreaking repetitive labor," or something like that.

    10. Re:Seriously? by scorp1us · · Score: 3, Informative

      You suffer from the "engineers view", or wage-earner's view as being an engineer I once did.

      The fact is there are two ways to earn your money. The first is to go work for someone. You put in 40 hours, and you get a market rate. The work is generally uniform and regular. This is our wage earner. He's paid to assemble widgets.

      The other way to be paid is a percentage. The creation of an opportunity or the avoidance of a catastrophic expense is is another way to provide value. But here, they pay is not steady. There may be no opportunities to make or mistakes to save. The other way is to be a material participant in the creation of a wholly new product. (Generally opportunities are about finding customers)

      When you create a product as part of a team and not earning wages for it, you put in "sweat equity". When the revenue comes in, the profits are distributed in proportion to the sweat equity. This is where you really make money. A $5 slap shop might make millions, and you get your cut.

      I really think engineers (but not so much IT) get the wrong deal. Being that there are so many companies that make or save a substantial amount on software sales, these people should be treated as partners. After all their contributions functions long after they leave. They shouldn't get a wage, just revenues.

      The other part you miss is the responsibility aspect. A lowly engineer writes code to the specs, fixes bugs. Generally all the heavy lifting is already done. The people who wrote the specs and all the way up to creating the market opportunity have a responsibility to make sure what you produce will be right for the market. You are concerned with the how (linux, php, .net) they are concerned with the what (a CRM for our clients...) If they are wrong, the company can lose thousands of dollars paying labor or equipment costs for fixes. If Apple puts a bad chip in the iPhone, then whomever signed off on that has responsibility. Signing the paperwork isn't hard. Putting the signature in the right place is. You can't say that only engineers made the iPhone. Clearly it was a company effort. And all those lazy management people nailed it.

      Then you go on additional taxing higher earners more. Have you ever considered what could be wrought with that additional money? In a worst-case scenario, it sits in a bank and is lent out again. In the best case it is invested to produce future dividends. But by taking higher earners more you take that away, and given the talents outlined above, you really prevent talent from re-entering the economy, creating more economic growth.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    11. Re:Seriously? by vjoel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wish people in the US would realize that the more people in government there is, the exponentially more the burden on private enterprise. Assume 1 government worker in a population of 100 can pay 20% of their salary (say $1000) back. The remaining 80% of that salary comes from private enterprise. Now, imagine 99 government workers and one private enterprise person. We then have a $76,200 bill to be paid by one person. Good luck with that.

      You are ignoring the facts that many private sector jobs depend almost entirely on public financing (defense contractors) and that almost all of the private sector depends to some extent on public expenditures (infrastructure, schools, hospitals, housing).

      --
      What part of `yes no` don't you understand?
    12. Re:Seriously? by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's try 'the work they do is vastly more valuable'. God, you're an idiot.

      Then the CEO should be fired immediately for not getting his thousands of wage slaves to do more valuable work.
      If this 'vastly more valuable work' isn't actually 'harder', then why aren't more people doing it?

      I mean, if its not actually intrinsically harder (and it largely isn't), than supply and demand pressures should put massive downward price pressure on 'vastly more valuable work', as everyone would be stopping harder less valuable work to do this easier and 'vastly more valuable work'.

      God, you're an idiot.

      Look in the mirror.

    13. Re:Seriously? by pugugly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay - first of all, either you don't know the definition of the word exponential, or you're deliberately being stupid. Doubling the number up people in government with salary 'x' does *not* raise your investment by a factor of four, but doubles it. It is therefore not exponential, nor geometric, nor even an increasing level of inefficiency as would be implied by a Fibonacci series, but arithmetic.

      Second - since the investment is simply arithmetic, the important question is 'what is the return on the Investment.' If the ROI > 1, then there is a (debunkable) case for having the government do it - to debunk that case you need merely to establish that private industry can deliver a better return to society (Not to it's shareholders) than the Government. Quite often they can, or can do so sufficiently efficiently that it's not worth the energy lost in arguing about it to have the government do it.

      But measuring the 'size' of the government with an idiotic 'it's *EXPONENTIAL*' argument while ignoring the fact that there is a return on the investment in government services for society as a whole is just incredibly sloppy thinking. Who the fuck modded that 'interesting.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    14. Re:Seriously? by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I don't believe I actually disagree with the policies I think you favor, I still must attack one assumption that you and GGP are making here: that how much you get paid should be a function of how hard you work. That's just counterproductive, because it provides an incentive for working harder, and a disincentive for working smarter. There are countless cases where somebody who works less hard should reap a higher reward per unit of work, because they achieved more per unit of work.

      The big problem here is how to measure the value of somebody's work. This is, in theory, set by supply and demand, and the free-market orthodoxy will proceed to justify CEO vs. worker compensation by saying that the labor market must be correctly pricing the value of the work of the CEO and the average worker. However, when you have a society with a very high concentration of wealth, this just skews the numbers, because this impersonal "market sets the prices" theory boils down topeople get to impose their judgements and interests at different rates, in proportion to their wealth. Or, in other words, if free-market is one dollar, one vote, then enormous wealth disparities mean that 1% of Americans get a third of the vote.

      --

      Are you adequate?

    15. Re:Seriously? by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make a nice salary but you're not really in the category people are talking about. The question is whether CEOS that make 100x times your salary are really hard workers.

    16. Re:Seriously? by aaandre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder if this is less about value and more about power and influence. More powerful positions with more ability to change the behavior of the company carry more responsibility and potentially bring more value to the company.

      That would be the logic from a corporation's standpoint. From a human standpoint, it is absurd to value one's time thousands of times more than another's.

      Unfortunately, we live in a culture where early conditioning in greed and separation result in a belief system that puts money and possessions ahead of life, safety, dignity and health.

    17. Re:Seriously? by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Funny

      And now you know why I pack a chainsaw in the boot of my car for 'emergency use'. It's SO much more satisfying than an axe...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    18. Re:Seriously? by Fjandr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You also have to be on the 50%+1 side who has been promised by their politician of choice that they can be the pimps, while making the 50%-1 the chattel. Participation, even in a large group, is not enough to accurately qualify that statement. You have to participate and be in the largest group.

    19. Re:Seriously? by paving-slab · · Score: 2, Informative

      That can't even provide healthcare and decent education to all of its citizens?

      Yes, keep repeating the lies.

      Education

      Health

  2. "We need to investigate this... closely..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I'd like to volunteer for this job myself."

    1. Re:"We need to investigate this... closely..." by furby076 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The search involves tax officials examining stripper websites, hours upon hours, for completely legitimate purposes.

      Yes, I do this all the time too. I wonder if I can use this line with my boss?

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
  3. Hiring? by natespizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are they hiring?

    1. Re:Hiring? by internerdj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interesting comment, that I'm sure plenty are thinking. So how does this sentiment reflect on those who hunt for child-porn prosecution purposes? What better place for a predator than to have offensive material sent to them as a "necessary" part of their job?

    2. Re:Hiring? by DavidChristopher · · Score: 3, Interesting



      Well, In this case, they're not looking for some kind of morality charged justice to be handed out, they're looking for tax revenue.

      But it remains an Interesting point. You're basically asking "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" When those who are tasked to protect the weak exploit the weak, who will protect us from our protectors?

      --
      http://www.bistolas.net
    3. Re:Hiring? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think most of these sites are self-run. I don't think you need to be hired.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    4. Re:Hiring? by blitzkrieg3 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yeah, not unlike those guys that sign up for the Geek Squad to get free amateur porn, or the stories of the National Security Agency listening in to our men and women overseas having phone sex.

      "Hey, check this out," Faulk says he would be told, "there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy'"

      "But if you have nothing to hide", the security officials say, "then you'll let us listen in to your phone calls!"

      It makes me sick that Obama changed his policy on warrantless wiretapping.

    5. Re:Hiring? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      It makes me sick that Obama changed his policy on warrantless wiretapping.

      He didn't change anything, he just stopped lying about it.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  4. How on earth... by DavidChristopher · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...do these people land these porn watching jobs?

    Mind you, I'd probably look a little disheveled too if I had to watch porn for a living.

    --
    http://www.bistolas.net
  5. Well... by Dracil · · Score: 3, Funny

    "When we investigated the sites manually it worked better," he added.

    What he really meant to say was, there was a lot more motivation and job satisfaction when they investigated it manually.

    1. Re:Well... by dzfoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Overtime!

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    2. Re:Well... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Manually, adverb. "By means of the hand."

      I suspect that there may have been, shall we say, more than one "manual investigation" going on...

  6. Do they even know they need to report it?!? by Samschnooks · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ya know, there's these reports in the news about folks who are "breaking tax laws" and what not. Let me ask you folks this, How many of you check your local tax laws before engaging in a money making activity? I don't. I go ahead and worry about the tax consequences later.

    It's bad for an economy when an entrepreneur has to first take into consideration the taxes before engaging in a business enterprise or even consider them. That's just idiotic.

    Taxes are a necessity for a society, but when they become a burden and retard entrepreneurial activity, then its tax structure needs to be examined.

    Yes, BTW, I think prostitution should be legal.

    1. Re:Do they even know they need to report it?!? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How many of you check your local tax laws before engaging in a money making activity?

      In most countries, as well as the United States, if you are engaging in any legal 'money making activity' you have to claim the income on your taxes, for sufficient values of income. (If the activity is illegal, claming it on your taxes is among the least of your problems. :)

      Of course, lots and lots of income often goes unreported because people either forget to claim it or deliberately don't claim it. Getting caught entails high penalties in many countries. OTOH, if you get paid in cash and neither party reports it ("under the table") getting caught is difficult at best.

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:Do they even know they need to report it?!? by MoellerPlesset2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ya know, there's these reports in the news about folks who are "breaking tax laws" and what not. Let me ask you folks this, How many of you check your local tax laws before engaging in a money making activity? I don't. I go ahead and worry about the tax consequences later.

      Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for violating it. Besides which, it's not as if 'income tax' is something most people have never heard of. And 'worrying about the consequences later' is hardly a good idea in Sweden, for instance, where you're liable to incur a tax penalty for not registering beforehand.

      It's bad for an economy when an entrepreneur has to first take into consideration the taxes before engaging in a business enterprise or even consider them. That's just idiotic.

      No, 'idiotic' would be to start a business without taking taxes into consideration, as well as any other expenditures. Also, any other laws and regulations that might apply to the business you're doing.

      Taxes are a necessity for a society, but when they become a burden and retard entrepreneurial activity, then its tax structure needs to be examined.

      Either your employer withholds tax and pays it for you, or the responsibility is on your head. (Well actually it's always on your head, ultimately) How is that difficult?

    3. Re:Do they even know they need to report it?!? by Tacvek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes. It is always A good idea to report all illegal income on the tax form. There is a special spot for it on the US tax forms, although I believe having a non-zero value for that line is is considered sufficient to issue an arrest/search warrant. (More on that later). Therefore The best course is to add it into the general income. I think that might technically be fraud, but the IRS would be very reluctant to prosecute any fraud that results in a greater amount of tax income.

      Many organized criminals have been very well known, with the police being pretty darn certain about various crimes that have been committed, but lacking enough evidence to obtain warrants. It is often quite possible that with a search warrant They could find enough evidence, but they lack the evidence to get a search warrant, and are rarely ever confident that they would find enough evidence to convict if a search warrant was executed. The last thing they want to do is upset a organized criminal by executing a search warrant, but end up with insufficient evidence to arrest him/her. Often times by the time they have enough evidence for a particular crime, the statute of limitations has made it impossible to prosecute them for it. But if the crime resulted in unlawful income that was not reported on the tax forms, they can still charge them with tax fraud.

      Little of that is probably news to those reading this post. But the important thing to remember is that quite a bit of that also applies to white collar crime. So the best course of action is to report any unlawful income, but not in the designated location, so as to avoid giving the police reason to obtain warrants. Not that I advocate having illegal income, but if you are going to do it, you might as well do it right.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    4. Re:Do they even know they need to report it?!? by dwye · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > (If the activity is illegal, claming it on your taxes is among the least of your problems. :)

      Tell that to Al Capone.

    5. Re:Do they even know they need to report it?!? by vertinox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for violating it.

      I always hated this reasoning simply because it is usually said by people who study or write laws for a living.

      The crux of the matter is that society often has too many laws that it impossible to know them all without consulting a lawyer who even then has paid legal assistants to look up the issue in question.

      I can't find the quote right now, but there was a Roman senator who once said, if they made enough laws, they could simply arrest anyone for any reason at anytime.

      In that regard a government could hold power over its people because the people did not know what laws they had broken when they were in jail. (Which is one of the reasons the US Constitution specifies that the accused to be allowed to face his accusers so to know why he has been arrested)

      In that regard, if a corrupt government made enough laws, they could cherry pick any one of them to arrest someone whom they did not approve of while letting everyone else scott free simply because it would not be practical to arrest everyone who actually did break the law except this particular person who they did not like.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    6. Re:Do they even know they need to report it?!? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Or if you are self employed, you are simply expected to report it directly to the Feds using a very complex system of itemization. "

      It isn't really that hard.

      First thing to do...incorporate yourself. I went the "S" corp route. Out of the companies earnings...I pay myself a 'reasonable' salary. For easy example, let's say I bill out and the company collects $100K annually. Now, I pay myself about $30K salary. I only have to pay employment taxes (SS, medicare, unemployment ins, etc) on that $30K. The remaining $70K falls through at EOY on my personal taxes...and I just pay state and federal income taxes on that (LA has state taxes). Now, I do, throughout the year, keep up with mileage I drive, all expenses..etc., and I write that off as company expenditures....to make as much of that remaining $70K non-taxable. I fully fund an HSA (Health Savings Account) and that is all pre-tax dollars, etc.

      Anyway, not complex, but, it is a bit of paperwork to keep up with. In the long run, though...I get to keep and spend more of my money myself and keep more from uncle sam. All legally. It is sad you have to jump through hoops to do this, but, it works. I'm back on a W2 gig right now, and I hate it....but, I'm still working smaller things on the side, and hope to go back to the self employ in the near future. It is really the ONLY way to keep your hard earned money these days. It is worth the extra paperwork, and a few hours a month on Quickbooks Pro.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  7. Being informed about the rules by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "They are young girls, we can see from the photos. We think that perhaps they are not well informed about the rules," he said.

    People are almost never well informed about the rules. When I left school, I didn't get a book of laws that informed me I'd have to pay tax (and how). The only reason I knew what to do was because I took advice from other self employed family members, so I've paid all my taxes throughout the years, no problems.

    But.. a lot of people sell things at casual sales, barter services, and do things online without paying tax. It's wrong, but I have a little sympathy for them, because this stuff just isn't taught in schools and the authorities don't go to any lengths to inform people about taxation issues. I mean, how many regular folks who barter things pay the tax on those transactions? Most people I know wouldn't even realize they have to!

    1. Re:Being informed about the rules by Deagol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But.. a lot of people sell things at casual sales, barter services, and do things online without paying tax. It's wrong..."

      Yeah, it's *illegal* in the strictest sense, but wrong?!? Taxing barter particularly chaps my hide, as actual currency isn't exchanged. It's not like people who don't pay sales/income taxes for sales of this nature aren't contributing to taxes via sales/VAT taxes further down stream. Sure, the feds won't see any of it, except maybe on gas taxes (at least here in the U.S.), but then again, money spent at retail gets taxed by the feds anyway (taxes of employees and the corporation itself).

      In reality, the money made "under the table" by these women (or any other "underground economy" transaction) always gets taxed downstream anyway. I truly don't see what the big deal is.

      --
      Method of processing duck feet
    2. Re:Being informed about the rules by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or you could phrase it like most people think about it "you only have to pay taxes on barter if you barter what you would otherwise be paid to do and you think the IRS will be able to find out about it and prove a substantial amount of barter".

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Being informed about the rules by Moridin42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't see the big deal?! My god, man! Obviously, two bites at the tax revenue apple is far more tasty than merely one. No one cares that the money will be taxed downstream with a probability nearing 1. We want our revenue now. If you want to understand government, think of it as Veruca Salt. Only.. the bugger just won't jump into the incinerator chute.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
  8. Re:I Volunteer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Vulcan blood is green, you insensitive clod! And close the basement door on the way up!

  9. Actual, direct quote from TFA by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Funny

    "When we investigated the sites manually it worked better," he added.

    I'll bet it did.

  10. losses, ha? by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They estimate that hundreds of Swedish women are dodging the law, resulting in a tax loss of about 40m Swedish kronor (£3.3m) annually.

    - same kinds of losses that RIAA and MPAA and some software firms are complaining about when they are talking about potential sales that were lost.

    I am always against taxes, these taxes are some of the more ridiculous ones.

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
    1. Re:losses, ha? by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am always against taxes, these taxes are some of the more ridiculous ones.

      How do you propose paying for the high standard of living (among the highest in the world) in the Nordic countries? When I moved to Finland, I expected to feel a little irked upon seeing 40% of my income taken in taxes, but one I realized just how good we have it here, I say they could take a little more if they needed. While you personally may disagree with high taxation and wish to remain in the US (or even move somewhere cheaper), the strippers who are making loads of money without paying taxes are probably nonetheless enjoying the fruits of the welfare state, which is hypocritical.

  11. Wait a second... by downix · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tax agents get to do what?  **preps a resume for the IRS**

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  12. Government goons hot on strippers tracks by rumcho · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There you have it folks: your government acting as the racketeer that they are (again?? lol). And what does the government provide, again, that will entitle them to their "fair share"? The webcams? The business model? The internet connectivity? The "office building"? The wires the stream goes through? The security (pathetic arrogant police)? WHAT EXACTLY? Swedes are taxed to death already in order to get some pathetic healthcare and free education. Now, don't tell me their healthcare is good, please! But this is the result of a mindless brain-dead swedish public who cannot fend for themselves and need the nanny-state to lead them on every step. How pathetic is that! However, this piece of news just proves how the state has been allowed to stick its arrogant snively nose everywhere, even people's pants. Swedish government, you are disgusting! BACK OFF!

    1. Re:Government goons hot on strippers tracks by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look at the Nordic countries before the introduction of the welfare state: massive emigration, with people pressed by hunger and poverty to go to some of the most deserted parts of North America. Now look at them after the introduction of the welfare state: economic successes, with high standards of living, a high level of happiness among the populace, and immigration. And this is a bad thing how?

    2. Re:Government goons hot on strippers tracks by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The welfare state isn't just health care and unemployment. It's also free university education, excellent public libraries, excellent support for the arts (e.g. internationally famous orchestras and cheaper tickets to see them).

  13. Re:Cue the Slashdot libertards by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

    At the foundation of the United States, taxation == property taxes. Income taxes were never envisioned, and when they were passed after the Civil War to pay for reconstruction of the South, many commentators thought they were unconstitutional. Many people still think they are unconstitutional.

    --
    My blog
  14. Re:I Volunteer... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably for roughly the same reasons that phone support techs think that users are "idiots" and "losers"...

    Just as working phone support means dealing with the self-selected population of users-who-can't-figure-it-out-for-themselves, being in the sex industry would mean dealing with the self-selected population of men who can't, or don't want to bother, inducing people to see sex with them as something one doesn't need to be compensated for.

  15. I want a full report! by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 4, Funny

    I need a full report immediately. URLs, logins and passwords used for research, all imagery from the sites that will be in the corpus of evidence including videos, names, phone numbers, price structures, everything!

  16. Yeah, right. by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    The search involves tax officials examining stripper websites, hours upon hours, for completely legitimate purposes.

    We have a slightly different enforcement issue in the Seattle area. Illegal activity in a few strip clubs. The police department spends quite a bit of time and money sending undercover officers to buy lap dances from the women looking for violations. With public funds, of course.

    OK guys, what about the activity in the gay clubs? Any volunteers for undercover duty?
    [Sound of crickets.]

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  17. You only have to pay tax if you get caught by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Didn't you know? Ask Timothy Geithner he'll tell you.

     

    --
    Deleted
  18. Started my own site years ago... by RemoWilliams84 · · Score: 3, Funny

    and still haven't had to pay a dime in taxes. I guess when you operate at a loss they nothing to tax.

    Why do these young girls make so much money, while I (the hairy assed nerd), make nothing?

    --
    "I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
  19. The line on this is so thin. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you have a relationship with a girl and she takes her clothes off and you give her thousands of dollars a year, it's not taxable.
    Even if you were in a multiple spouse household, it would still be true (multiple guys supporting her).

    Without the "relationship" (one date? you don't have to be living together in the same house), it's taxable.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  20. Re:Cue the Slashdot libertards by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except you know, they amended the Constitution to make them not unconstitutional. That's why the whole "amendment" procedure was included in the first place. How precisely can something be unconstitutional when a legally passed Amendment to the Constitution explicitly allows it?

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  21. What's the pay? by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 3, Funny

    What's the rate for the job of 'scanning the internet for Swedish strippers'? $8.00 an hour? Heck, if that's all I have to pay ...

    --
    Display some adaptability.
  22. Re:Two Possibilities by IdleTime · · Score: 2, Funny

    One simple requirement!
    You must be able to pronounce, flawlessly the following word: "minoritetsladningsbærerdiffusjonskoeffisientmålingsapparatur"

    --
    If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  23. Re:I Volunteer... by Darth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Strippers or any other woman in the sex industry basically thinks men are "suckers" and "losers". All women in the sex industry are head cases. Stay away from them.

    i have a very good friend who is a stripper. She is not a head case and does not think negatively about men in general. Though she does think poorly of some men, it is for reasons specific to the individuals.
    Through her, i have met a few other strippers who were also charming and friendly people (my interactions with them were not in strip clubs, so there was no potential monetary incentive for their behaviour).

    Some strippers are head cases. Some are junkies. For some, it's a service industry job that pays well and allows them to have a very flexible schedule.

    --
    Darth --
    Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
  24. Re:Queue Idiocracy by xerxesVII · · Score: 5, Funny

    The word you're looking for is "The".

    --
    "We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
  25. Welfare in the hood? by ClosedSource · · Score: 4, Informative

    Given the pitiful percentage we pay for a social safety net in the US compared to most other industrialized democracies, it barely qualifies as a Welfare Hood let alone a Welfare State.

  26. Corporations by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Remember, the whole point of corporations is to avoid personal responsibility while enhancing the owners wealth.

    No the point of corporations is to serve the common or public good. See this.

    Falcon

    --
    Should there be a Law?