Slashdot Mirror
Philly Requiring Bloggers To Pay $300
Kurofuneparry writes "Pennsylvania generally and Philadelphia specifically have had a number of budget issues and some bloggers are seeing the results. From the article: '... yes, cash-strapped cities can't very well ignore potential sources of income. But at the same time, there must be some room for discretion and common sense.'"
So she says he runs a blog with ads and profits from, but is surprised that she actually needs to pay taxes and the other usual legistation while running a business? Yes, just like the Google, IGN or other huge sites on the internet that make money by advertising, he is also running a business.
It also looks like she only made like $50 between several years. That comes down to like $1-2 a month. Why not just drop the ads and continue blogging? If you really need a few dollars, just find a few bottles from the street and return them to stores.
Sounds like philly needs to read the 1st amendment and maybe even the 14th Amendment.
That room doesn't exist in any government building.
She can be taxed pro rata based on the money she made, but that's it. Anything else would likely be considered in a court of law as prior restraint on speech.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
If you RTFA, the $300 is the Philadelphia business privelege tax, so she's not being forced to pay for blogging, she's being forced to pay for blogging for money. Which is perhaps ridiculous, but no less ridiculous than it is for any other person in the city who has to pay it.
TFA is a bit confusing on this point -- it mentions something about income on a tax return, but that's about it. I'm deducing that if you bring in any ad revenue from a blog and you report it in your tax return, you're obligated to purchase the $300 business licence. Since US income taxes are limited to state and federal, I'm not sure how a municipality would enforce this. Also, I keep an informal blog that isn't ad supported -- it costs me money to run. If I were a Philly resident, would I be expected to get a business licence for that?
It seems that the state only knows about these bloggers because they reported income made from blogs on their taxes. Seems like the lesson here is to not report small gains on your taxes else your state will fleece you.
This is sad because these people did pay taxes on this tiny amount of income already on their income tax. By trying to be good citizens and play by the rules they are rewarded with a fee that would either put them out of business or make them less honest about their income in the future.
If so, does that count for out of state 'journalists'?
This is a sad thing. If she was an award winning fulltime
journalist, then I might be able to see this as a business license
type of thing. If it is basically a hobby, then each of
the elected officials should pay a tax on their hobby, like golf
or tennis, or fishing , etc. The minimum tax should be , say,
$300.00 per year.
I would prefer they pay double their income to the State as a
privilege tax on being politicians.
So if you post on any forum you need to pay $300?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooo.
Even longer answer: If you make mony with a website or a blog, you'll have to pay taxes (surprise, surprise). If you don't make money, you don't have to pay. Nothing to see here, move along.
The Lesson: Don't file income on small stuff like the $5 you earned blogging because the state does have common sense. If you go ahead and file this income then neither do you.
I'm sure I will get flamed for this..
While I personnaly do not consider people blogging, to be business entities, I do not make up the rules. Whether or not the rule is flawed here is not the point, until said rule is changed people will have to abide by it. I consider a blog by a corporate entity an extension of the business they are running or services they are providing.
That being said, there should be some common sense involved when enforcing it based on the amount of income a blog generates. In the case of those referenced in to article, making them pay seems a little ridiculous.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
So if you post on any forum you need to pay $300?
No, that is not anywhere near what the story was about. You obviously did not read the....
Yes. Yes, it is true. Please send your $300 to me at once:
paiute
33 Whatajolly Street
Bang'er, ME 8679305
or we will have to turn your account over to a collection agency.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Oh wait, I just thought of the name for my new blog.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Since when has PT, $1/month blogging become a business!? While this is insanely stupid, I'm wondering what the impact will be on free speech (now i have to PAY to have the privilege to express my opinions!? Since when has this become a privilege, and not a right anymore?). The ironic part, if you think about it, is that the government is trying to raise revenues to "help the poor" (their usual excuse), yet it's the lower income bloggers (who can't afford the $300 fee) who will have to shut up in favour of those with money who can afford the fees.
Sounds like you need to read the RTFAmendment
what if the ad's pay for the website costs and $1-$2 is left over each month?
Paying taxes isn't at issue. It's whether or not she needs to have a business license for her blog which generated gross profits of $50 over TWO YEARS.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Sounds like you aren't thinking in terms of State and Local law vs Federal law. State law requires a business license (or 'tax') to conduct business, if you are making money doing something as a 'business' and are not employed by someone who already has a business tax paid, you are running a business and have to pay this tax. Its annoying but its the standard across the country.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Since US income taxes are limited to state and federal, I'm not sure how a municipality would enforce this.
Some larger cities also have an income tax. In the case of Philadelphia, they have something called a "wage tax", which they say is not an "income tax" - not sure exactly what the difference is.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
The IRS would consider this to be nothing more than a hobby. They define a business as an entity that is expected to make a profit. This clearly would not be expected to make a profit.
ironically written in Philadelphia...
How much are they paying to keep track of this? I'm sure at least one person out there is in charge of this. THAT sounds like a good place to save some money!
All those ads, Examiner.com payments, "send paypal donation" buttons, etc. have been untaxed income for a long time. All that's happening now is that states are awakening and correcting the balance.
Asking for a business license so that you can publish content and be paid for it is not an unfair thing. In fact, it's fair to those who want to sell hot dogs instead, and also have to get licensed as a result.
Futurist Traditionalism
US income taxes are limited to state and federal
A state can delegate taxation to municipalities.
This kind of result is to be expected once you concede the point that a person requires permission from the government (a license) in order to engage in commerce.
Once you have agreed to be a serf it's hardly surprising when you get treated like one.
Business and government have been making policy and using that word as an excuse not to make exceptions for decades and this is the result .. government agencies that are like retarded automatons, no thinking, no sense common or otherwise, no accountability, just the big machine rolling over people without any regard for justice or right or wrong.
www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
The article says she made $50. But many small business owners will deduct as business expenses almost everything, including computer costs, internet access costs, home office costs, mileage going to/from the local computer store to buy a cable, monthly phone and cell phone costs, books, pizza delivered while blogging, hotel room while "interviewing" someone for the blog - almost anything can be considered a business expense. So maybe she grossed $20,000 last year, and had $19,950 in expenses.
Before King Daley brings this to Chicago. Maybe the bloggers can unionize and get sweetheart contracts with the city on the taxpayers dime instead.
Fuck Ajit Pai
and furthermore...... wouldn't an income of $50 and expenses of $300 + Servercosts result in a net loss that leads to a tax reduction?
bickerdyke
The choice to incorporate is not one that the state can require you to do. It is a matter of liability. Anyone who has studied the history corporations know they are 100% about liability. If she wants to blog and generate income, then she does it with her personal liability on the line (for slander, etc)
However, it is generally a good thing to incorporate. She will be able to deduct from her taxes in full or part, the cost of her internet connection, time blogging, etc as un-reimbursed business expenses. So she'll actually make out better because the corporation pays bills first, then pays taxes. Humans pay taxes first, then pay bills. Meaning that her company money will go farther than her personal money in paying for things. About every rich person I know has at least one fiction (a company) in their name. This means, the state will actually lose money. There is a small discrepancy when the cost of the business ($300) exceeds profits, but she can use the corporation for something else as well. She certainly doesn't live on $11/mo
Standard caveats apply, IANAL, IANAA (accountant) , YMMV, etc. I do however have a corp.
The ancient principle of the Anglo-Saxon common law, and Biblical law, is that everyone has a right to make a living at occupations of common right. So then, what is an occupation of common right? It is the right of all men in common to do any work that men might engage one another to do, and that does not exist as a result of some government act or establishment. Occupations of common right were some of those “inalienable rights” the writers of the Declaration of Independence had in mind. At least, that was the US supreme court’s opinion in Butchers Union v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746:
“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right. It was formulated as such under the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence which commenced with the fundamental proposition that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.”
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
However, since she can prove she loses money, she should ask the city to exempt her from ALL municipal taxes, as she is obviously a non-profit.
After all, she no longer has to prove that she runs a "business". The city has already stipulated that. The only question is, is it for profit or a non-profit. Since revenues will never exceed expenses, hello muni tax rebate!
Since US income taxes are limited to state and federal, I'm not sure how a municipality would enforce this.
Where exactly do you live that you believe only state and federal collect income taxes? The city I live in and the city I work in both collect income taxes as well (thankfully, they have a reciprocal payment agreement, so I completely get back the money from the city I live in, because the city I work in has a higher tax rate); and this has been common in just about every city I've lived in across five states.
Also, I keep an informal blog that isn't ad supported -- it costs me money to run. If I were a Philly resident, would I be expected to get a business licence for that?
Just because everyone on this thread refuses to understand the article - and you even point out the problem with the artcle, why would you think you need a business license for a non-business? The entire article was about a person who claimed business income and was surprised to find out they needed a business license. The article is not about someone who wrote a blog and had to buy a license in order to blog; they had to buy the license in order to generate income (not in order to generate expense, like you are talking about).
Let's change a few words around and see if it makes any difference. I compete in martial arts tournaments and I'm not ad supported -- it costs me money to buy equipment, take lessons, and pay for tournament fees. Should I have to purchase a business license for that? If course not, that's a hobby/recreational activity. Contrast that to: I compete in martial arts tournaments and I've got corporate sponsors who put ads on my uniform/equipment - I claim it as income on my taxes. Should I have to purchase a business license for that? Yes, in this case you would have to purchase a license, because you are running a business (you are performing a service and generating revenue).
The big problem with this story is that it doesn't explain how the income was listed on the taxes. There are specific rules about where income needs to be placed on the tax form to be considered business versus non-business, and what additional forms and schedules are used for each activity. Using the Federal form as an example (I don't know PA tax), if you filed a 1040-MISC, used a Schedule C/C-EZ, E, or F, it is considered business income. The government doesn't particularly care how much you made (except if you consistently claim to lose money on a business, then they'll declare it a hobby which means you can't write off the expenses), only how it was made.
Some larger cities also have an income tax. In the case of Philadelphia, they have something called a "wage tax", which they say is not an "income tax" - not sure exactly what the difference is.
The IRS says wages are income.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I mowed my grandparent's lawn for some cash and a lemonade, does that mean I should have had a $300 business license, since my grandparents didn't have one (thus I'm not an employee)?
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
I say drop the adds and don't pay the fee.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
So politicians shouldn't make money then? Do you have any idea what the implication of that is?
You may not realize it, but pretty much any political position involves a significant investment of time. However misguided or untrustworthy you consider their actions to be, it still represents a significant amount of time on their part.
Enough that a full time job along side it isn't an option. So do you expect everyone who works in politics to work a part time job on the side to cover costs? Do you seriously believe that they would be able to earn a living wage doing this?
No, fact of the matter is, if politicians weren't paid for their positions, it would just mean more bribery, best case. Worst case, the only ones able to actually maintain a political position would need to have a large corporation of some form backing them. We have enough bribery and corporate lobbying going on as is. Do you REALLY want to make it a requirement for all politicians? It's bad enough that so many do it ANYWAY.
It would be one thing if Bess' website were, well, an actual business, or if the amount of money the city wanted didn't outpace her earnings six-fold. Sure, the city has its rules; and yes, cash-strapped cities can't very well ignore potential sources of income.
If the "tax" is six times what her income was, then she's not a "potential source of income" for the city. She's a mark that can be shaken down and robbed of everything she's got. It's legalized thievery, not a "tax".
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
I agree with others, drop the ads. $50 isn't worth the hassle. Better yet, move! Screw Philly. I paid $63 for my license here in Georgia. There are better places to live and states that are more business friendly. Frankly, for $50 I wouldn't even report it as income. It's too small of an amount anyway and given that she probably spent more on her broadband writing it, it's far more than a wash.
If the law bars you (e.g. 'free exercise', as in freedom, not as in beer) from blogging then it it unconstitutional and is therefore null and void under the US Constitution Amendment 1. If your soap-box cost you money to stand on then it would be an illegal tax on the privilege of exercising your freedom to speak. Charging you a 'business tax' is the same thing, and this tax as described does not even take into account the fact that the equipment, services, electricity, etc, likely cost more than any advertising revenue taken in, so there is no profit to tax, only a free speech tax. Charging a 'business tax' on a personal exercise of the US Constitution should be illegal until such time that the individual' NET profits exceeds the taxable amounts allowed by law under the personal income tax regulations. If the taxable amount goes high enough then that individual should file quarterly taxes as any individual would be obligated. Under no circumstances should this individual be considered a business, until the applicable laws force them to do so, or become one. Of course with that said, liability insurance as a protected corporate entity might not be a bad idea in this day and age, and that would likely be a deductible expense.
IANAL, so don't listen to me.
Aside from simply bringing money into the city's coffers, the business tax pays for city staff to keep track of businesses, so when someone calls the city hall to complain about a business, the city can find out exactly who this business is, where they are located, who are the principals responsible, etc. And to say that a business tax should only be paid by businesses making a profit - that's silly, since many businesses routinely don't show a profit and some years they make a profit. But nevertheless, the city needs to index these businesses. And free speech? So you say newspapers, book publishers, radio/tv stations should never pay any taxes???
In the state where I live there are a number of common sense rules that PA seems to be unable to grasp.
A business license is required if you perform any business activity with a GROSS REVENUE of over $1000. Under that it's not worth the paperwork, businesses generally pay sales tax (which you are never exempt from, if you sell something) and property tax. If you're making less than $1000 you probably have no property worth taxing, particularly at a tax rate of approximately $3 per thousand. There is no way this lady would need a business license here.
But even if she did, a business license is $30. Why? It's really misnamed, it should be called "the fee you pay to register so we can send you tax forms". Once a quarter they send you a tax form where you have to list a number of things and return it for the cost of a stamp. If you don't pay any other tax (I had a dormant business which didn't) it's a mere $32 or so a year, plus about 5 minutes of your time, to keep a "legitimate, registered business" open. PA charging $300 just so they can send you tax forms is crazy.
While it doesn't apply in this case, there's also another rule which is quite useful to cover garage sales and the like. It's called the "one time or unusual" sales rules. If you sell items less than 4 days per year you do not need a business license at all, and you get a one time exemption of $500 from sales tax. Have your garage sale and make $200, totally legal, no paperwork required. Come into town with a traveling show and sell your arts and crafts for a weekend and make a grand? No business license or other ongoing paperwork needed, but you need to fill out (the one page) sales tax form and remit your tax.
Seriously, the government is going to spend more money going after this lady than they are ever going to get, succeed only at killing her hobby, and not improve the lives of the citizens. I realize we need to make sure everyone is paying their fair share, but part of that means having some reasonable bottom end limits below which it really doesn't make any sense to try and hunt these folks down.
What excuse is there for Philly to be an economic waste land? If they can not manage their money why grind it out of the innocents' pockets? Does it not occur to anyone that many local governments need to be overthrown? Hell, the next county to me just built a 95 million dollar high school. They are insane. And you can bet that bribes of some sort were in play.
Also, I keep an informal blog that isn't ad supported -- it costs me money to run. If I were a Philly resident, would I be expected to get a business licence for that?
IANAL, but I don't think you'd be required to get a business license for your blog since you're not earning money. Hopefully the people you're paying for your hosting account have a business license, though!
However, since you aren't a business, you won't qualify for any upcoming "Blogger Bailouts" to stimulate the Blogosphere after the upcoming Internet Opinion Recession begins.
She was honest and listed the blog. Now, she's basically being punished for being honest.
Let's say you work as a waiter instead of a blogger. If you report accurately your tips and are taxed on them, are you being punished for being honest?
This is nothing new folks. You tell Uncle Sam "I made X amount of money last year", and Uncle Sam will tax you on X. Surprise surprise.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
would the location of the server that the blog resides on have any bearing on this? if it is in another state, wouldn't that be like working in another state, so you'd have to go by its laws? maybe it would depend if she wrote it locally and uploaded it vs. writing it through some server-side app?
...
$300 for a business license is undoubly much too expensive, but even an unsuccessful business is a business.
Really? Where'd you hear that?
I'm fairly sure the governor of the state I live in (Michigan) would have done something about the capital city (Lansing) charging city taxes by now if that were the case.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
I just want you "the-law-is-the-law" types to say that asking 300$ for a business that makes 50$/2years is unreasonable.
Wage taxes are on income from employment (ie reported on a W-2). Income tax is on all sources of income, including wages, dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.
So now any blog serving up ads is a business? What if you don't personally see any revenue from that? Is it still a business?
No, this isn't a business. This is a hobby that pays (and even at that it only pays very, very little).
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
If your $11 in reveneue is not enough to cover business licensing all you need to do is plaster ads all over your blog site until such time actual content is impossible to find. Once this occurs your next step is to turn the site into an online hidden objects game raking in an additional tree-fiddy in annual income.
(Please note the lochness monster may also demand a cut of the proceeds)
Seriously if you want to make money ask for donations. Its typically much easier to deal with from a tax perspective where "reasonable" limits for non-taxable income of this sort are on the books.
Why do we link to some dude's blog rather than to the actual story, which consequently is better in every way.
I've seen this a LOT lately. Perhaps it is profitable to do so? And perhaps, perhaps such profits occur within a city that has laws about such?
probably.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
I didn't understand the point of Kurofuneparry's submission was since it contains little information. I actually had to click the link... wait for the damn page to load... and read the article. What has Slashdot come to when you can't even make wiseass remarks about an article without reading it first.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
She wasn't making any money until she hit the national news. Until that time, she was a kid who was probably hauling in $5/day an probably totaled $20.
Don't take this the wrong way, but its this way of thinking that is the death of common sense. You always feel the need to control stuff "just in case". You feel like there needs to be a law or regulation when the right thing to do when you see a little kid selling lemonade is to either ignore it or pay a few cents for a cup.
Maybe in your jurisdiction, but NOT in mine! In Canada, capital gains < $1000 for resold items do not need to be reported in your income tax. I can sell all the shit I have and it will all come out at a loss or marginal break-even, so NO income tax.
And in Phyilly, no, I would not require a business license unless I operated a *business*. I would need to have an operation purposely built to turn a profit - eg. reselling books on Amazon, reselling crap on eBay. When you buy stuff for the sole purpose of reselling it, that is a business. When you buy stuff for your own or families consumption and usage, then selling it when you don't want it anymore, that is NOT a business.
In any jurisdiction, a business is an operation that is setup to generate a *profit*. If there is no *goal* to generate a *profit* it is either a non-profit OR not a business. And no, she is not punished for being honest. She is not required to get a license. Either Philly has to *prove* she intends to turn a profit with her operation, or they can fuck themselves. What most likely happened is she wrote in her income as business income instead of commission or whatever non-business category you can select in the US.
So it's a fee, not a tax. Actually, it's a "business privilege" license. Whatever that is.
Simple solution: quit calling your hobby a business and you won't have to pay the fee for being a business. Nobody is restricting what she can/can't do -- we are only restricting how she "categorizes" her activities for the purposes of accounting and tax preparation.
If, on the other hand, she wants to make this into her business then she needs to pay the relevant taxes, fees, and licensing required to be "in business". If you don't like the taxes, fees, and requirements of being "in business" then use your vote to change things.
I am not clear on what the issue is here. All business have this type of bullshit. Why is this one special? Oh wait, I'm not new here --- this must be Web 3.0.
HMRC knows this happens all the time, but it would cost them more to collect the small amount of tax due than they would get back
Governments don't always have a problem with taxes that make them lose revenue in the long run. For example, only 7% of the U.S. federal budget comes from the U.S. corporate income tax. If it were abolished, the feds would make more from the increased revenue from personal income tax and payroll taxes from the more and better jobs that would return to the U.S. But it wouldn't be the populist thing to do, so we'll never see it. Oh well.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
one time!
I'm not familiar with the US definition of a business, but here, more or less everything that generates money is considered a business (at least in the field of taxes and related areas). (And the city of Philadelphia seems to share that definition)
Ridiculous. Everyone knows that all the profits from online advertising goes directly to the advertisers... ie: Google, etc.
The pennies (or less) they send on to the blogger who uses their ad system is minimal enough to be considered $0.
Smarten-up Pennsylvania and specifically Philly...
Tax the ad hosting companies who have the money... don't charge the labor working at sub-minimum wage for them.
Simple solution: don't report your income on federal Schedule C (or the state equivalent) when the amounts involved are that small. Just report it as miscellaneous personal income. Sure you won't be able to deduct expenses, but the amount's small enough it won't make much difference and you'll avoid the tax forms that flag you for inanity like this. If you do insist on reporting it on Schedule C, remember that the business license fee is an expense you can use on next year's forms.
Government is supposed to provide an environment in which citizens can flourish, in exchange for a reasonable amount of taxation. More and more government is looking at citizens as sources of money so that it can continue to run its offices, these are becoming ends in themselves. This is getting all the worse since governements agreed to repay the gambling debts of the banks.
Being from Philly, I have had similar experiences. In my case, my website was registered to a Philly address, so they automatically sent out the "you must have a business license" letter. I was making no money. It's their number one automatic letter. My 3 year old daughter got one, once, even. (we're not sure how, in that case). All a person has to do is call the number on the letter and say "this isn't a business" and they'll put a check-mark in the "not a business" box. They don't care about the miniscule $50 every two months businesses. Just the profitable ones. This is why, when I lived in Philly, I always had a PO box or location outside the limits for business/website purposes. Mostly to avoid the hassle. The current township I live in is MUCH more reasonable, thankfully.
Philadelphia already has a 3.9% city income tax. If you earn money as a blogger, you already pay part as a city income tax. It's not about income, it's about control. Governments don't like critics, particularly anonymous critics. This way, at least in Philly, if you're an anonymous blogger, you're breaking the law.
[Insert pithy quote here]
The internet interprets taxation as damage and routes around it. What Philly is really saying is that if you want to contribute to toe 'net, you should move outside of city limits. Doesn't this type of attitude ultimately shrink their tax base, not grow it?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
So an author who intends to write a book and sell it who happens to live in Philly needs a business license?
What about an inventor?
Politician, they certainly intend to profit from their office...
I live in Houston, and I paid $30 I think for a 10 year license.
Taxing income, from whatever source, is fine. But having a special tax on a blog, just because it's a blog, seems to defy the 1st amendment.
Now, if she gets a new computer to blog with (or anything costing $600 or more), she'll have to provide her social security number so that Dell (or whomever) can properly file their 1099s on her (starting Jan. 1, 2012). Welcome to the world of small business sweetheart.
I think a middle ground would be better. The pay should be low though, like maybe the average pay for an American. Then they might want to make conditions that raise the average American
Somewhere I've seen a study that correlated corruption in a state government to the amount it's representatives, so the higher the pay, the higher the corruption. Of course I have no idea how they quantified the corruption in the given state's governments.
I hate to use a cliche, but it was a different time back in George Washington's day. Washington also had fairly large, lucrative property holdings- tobacco is a lucrative industry today, and in his time the industry wasn't taxed at anywhere close to modern levels.
His co-ownership of something over 10,000 acres of tobacco plantation is basically equivalent to being a majority stockholder in %MAJORCORPORATION% today ANYWAY. Which isn't to say that this was a bad thing at the time, but he wasn't exactly hurting for the cash for his presidency either...
GM posted quarterly losses for over two years. Ditto Chrysler. Ditto Ford (though a little farther back than GM and Chrysler's current bankruptcy issues). Every year -- every day, even, companies lose money. That does not let them stop complying with local, state, and federal laws.
Unfortunately, this particular law doesn't seem to be as clear as others...
Since US income taxes are limited to state and federal, I'm not sure how a municipality would enforce this.
By not making up arbitrary rules like limiting taxes to state and federal levels. Philadelphia imposes this on the employer, so it's invisible to the employees; but if you live in Pittsburgh, for example, you're filling out three forms: the IRS 1040, a PA-40, and a PGH-40.
(I've thankfully moved to a state which doesn't have income tax...)
Are garage sales deemed a business too? How about selling your car? Will Philly get a cut if you trade your pb&j sandwich for a nutty bar at school?
She wasn't blogging as her main source of income! That's the whole entire point that people seem to be missing! Paying or not paying taxes isn't at issue here!
From TFA:
Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she’s made about $50. To [Marilyn] Bess, her website is a hobby.
It's a HOBBY. She isn't trying to make a business at of this. The intent in this case is VERY important.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
The city of Philadelphia can share that view all they want. It's more important what the state of Pennsylvania has to say about this (as municipal law never over-rides that of state law, just like state law cannot pre-empt federal law).
As one poster said, NJ legally defines what is and isn't a business (they have a limit on income for a "hobby that makes money" and a "business that needs a license"). I'm not sure what Pennsylvania's law is, but this woman needs to find out fast.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
This is just Censorship by finance. "Pay us or you don't have the right to speak"
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Where is the free enterprise on which the country is always said to be built, now?