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.
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.
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
what if the ad's pay for the website costs and $1-$2 is left over each month?
That room doesn't exist in any government building.
Sure it does. It's the door with the "Beware of Leopard" sign on it.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
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)
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.