Slashdot Mirror


Kicktaxing: The Crazy Complexity of Paying Tax Correctly On Crowdfunding

eggboard writes "I thought I knew what I was doing when I budgeted for a Kickstarter campaign. I spent weeks sorting out details, set a number ($48,000) that included expenses, Kickstarter fees, and a margin of error. In the end, we raised over $56,000. But my tax planning nearly put a crimp in cash flow, and could have been real problem. It all worked out, but I've written a detailed guide for people for before and after a campaign to avoid my mistakes."

128 comments

  1. Re:Medium by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    They let people run multiuser blogs, with really terrible ajaxy UIs. So, clickbait is the natural use.

  2. Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And spend.

    1. Re:Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

    2. Re:Tax by Livius · · Score: 2

      Better than borrow and spend.

  3. Re:Medium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the info.

  4. Re:Medium by eggboard · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's difficult to claim "clickbait" when there are no ads!

    I wrote the article in this link, and edit a publication called The Magazine. Medium pays us to write new content and post archived material from our publication to their site while they learn about what people read. They're looking at a lot of data (which anyone who uses the site, even as a blog platform, can see in the stats page) to figure out whether people read entire articles, etc.

    I wrote 4,000 words from months of dealing with tax and business issues related to Kickstarter. I didn't realize that would be considered *thrilling clickbait headlines*. Instead, I though Slashdot readers, among others, would be a likely audience working in and around crowdfunding, and might like to get some information before launching one about the tax and accounting side of things.

    The "multiuser blog" is a collection of related articles, some of them run by publications like mine.

    --
    Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
  5. Context by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    You can write the most insightful/thrilling/useful article ever in the history of mankind, but if you place it on a site where people get a lot of ads they will still accuse you of treachery.

    As you say it's not so in this case, but it gives the appearance of being so just because Medium.com has started popping up all over like mushrooms after a rainstorm - so it seems like yet another linkbait site just from the context of where the links to medium are all found, around links to all the sites people have learned to despise.

    I myself will not click a link anymore if it goes to businessinsider or the same sort of place, no matter how good the subject may sound.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Context by eggboard · · Score: 3, Informative

      I completely understand that! But it's difficult to say "clickbait" if you haven't visited the site.

      Medium is no panacea, and this is a period when they're spending money to figure stuff out before they plug in a revenue pipe (see public statements by Ev Williams). However, you're seeing a ton of links to Medium because it's got a great front-end for writing and publishing. I've been working with Web-based content-management systems (CMSes) and sadly wrote a few myself for nearly 18 years, since the first formal ones arose. And Medium is pretty fantastic for writers and publishers.

      I think it's very good for readers, because it doesn't have cruft. It's words, no ads, photos/video well presented. So people have raced to write there if they don't want to use blogging software because it's just the story.

      Yes, there are a lot of SEO marketing types writing stuff at Medium. But there's a lot of good work (not tooting my own horn as I'm about 0.001% of the content of Medium) that's there, too.

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
    2. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can write the most insightful/thrilling/useful article ever in the history of mankind, but if you place it on a site where people get a lot of ads they will still accuse you of treachery.

      What ads? I don't even have an ad block installed, yet I see no ads on the link provided.

    3. Re:Context by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      You can write the most insightful/thrilling/useful article ever in the history of mankind, but if you place it on a site where people get a lot of ads they will still accuse you of treachery.

      Read the first line of the post you are responding to "It's difficult to claim "clickbait" when there are no ads!
      "

    4. Re:Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's words, no ads

      The entire page itself is an advertisement trying to get people to sign up for a subscription to a different site.

      For those who don't want to believe me, make sure you have your script and tracking cookie blockers active, then scroll down to the bottom.

  6. Re:Medium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the creator of the Death Star Kickstarter project I was fairly confident I could re-negotiate my tax burden if it got funding. :D

  7. tl;dr - it's just like a business by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    WTF - you know, every other small business person thinks of this shit BEFORE they start. It's not hard, really. Quit pretending you're running a lemonade stand in your parents driveway.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by TheGavster · · Score: 3, Informative

      I read the article, and he brings up some interesting points that even a business owner might find interesting about crowdfunding. Because your revenues are exponentially larger for a single quarter, your tax situation gets all screwed up and you have to be very careful on your estimated taxes. He also brings up some timing advice: since businesses are allowed to deduct the costs of doing business, you don't want kickstarter to cut your check on December 31st.

      It's really the opposite of most business tax situations. Rather than paying for material, wages, and capital expenditure and then waiting for invoices to come back, you're given a huge amount of revenue and then have to try and get it off the books as fast as possible.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    2. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by The+Cat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Memorandum to the guy who wrote the original story:

      Almost everyone on Slashdot in 2014 is a raging, gangrene-infected, pus-spewing asshole. I don't think there's ever been a more sour, mouth-running bunch of twaddle-shoveling fucks in the same place in human history.

      You posted a good article with some good information for reasonable people who are doing something productive. The people here are only interested in their bong, porn, Xbox and wandering through their mom's kitchen occasionally to grab a handful of potato salad and wipe their ass on the dishtowel.

      Keep writing. The people around here would shit on an orphan's birthday cake.

    3. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by Overzeetop · · Score: 1, Informative

      I read the article as well. I also happen to run a business I started ten years ago from scratch. I'm not a business person, and even I knew that taxes mattered. This really is business 101. There are all types of businesses, and 2 hours with an accountant prior to starting any business, much less one in which you know is going to see 5-6 figures of cash flow in a very short period of time, is the first thing you should do. Mine gave me insight into basically everything in the article.

      Yeah, I was an asshole about it in my gp post. I'm an asshole about a lot of things - you need look no further than my sig for proof. ;-)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    4. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      WTF - you know, every other small business person thinks of this shit BEFORE they start. It's not hard, really. Quit pretending you're running a lemonade stand in your parents driveway.

      Bullshit.

      A lot of the folks running Kickstarters have "business plans" that amount to "distribute sweaters to homeless kittens". Should they realize that has tax implications? Well, perhaps, insofar as you can't fart without the IRS taking a sniff. But to blame people who seriously have a business plan of clothing cats, for not understanding cash-vs-accrual accounting? Seriously, go fuck yourself with your framed MBA, dude.


      We wonder what has gone "wrong" with this country? TFA gives a pretty damned good example. Have a good idea? Have adequate funding? Ready to ship and create one of those new Small Businesses the talking heads always praise? Oops, FOAD friend! You forgot about your quarterly withholding on money that no sane entity would consider anything but a production expense - Silly bear, considering our government "sane"! What will you think of next?


      For anyone seriously wanting to know the "right" answer to this issue - Move to one of America's few remaining unorganized territories (Maine, Florida, and Alaska have a ton of them); that relieves of you 99% of the "bullshit" burden, which rests solely with your most local taxing authority (the city/town/county), and reduces your nightmare to just the state and federal levels. Most states just want a cut of your AGI, so if you have no profit, nothing to report. The feds just want a schedule C and SE, and couldn't care less how else you officially organize your activities.

      Now, if you happen to live in a hellhole like NYC where everyone from the city through your Block Captain to your Landlord to your old roommate from 1976 get to fuck you with taxes - Move, or abandon your dream. Seriously.

    5. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by eggboard · · Score: 1

      It's more like the lottery.

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
    6. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by eggboard · · Score: 1

      Thanks, TheGavster! For me, I had sufficient cash flow and overall income from the main business relative to the size of the Kickstarter that we could have weathered it if we hadn't had a perfect alignment as we did.

      I don't mean to sound totally hapless. I had put a reserve of cash away for taxes and estimated *too high* for the state taxes as it turned out. But I didn't plan as thoroughly as I should have, and I have seen this bite a lot of other people I know, too.

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
    7. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by eggboard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thanks, much! Really, I wrote the article in part as a public service, not to be full of myself, because so many people I know have these questions. I have some answers, lots of questions, and lots of places to point people for planning. The commenters here can be awful at times (some are great, thanks!), but they're dwarfed by the number of people who are reading the article.

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
    8. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by eggboard · · Score: 3, Informative

      I spent many hours and many emails with a good accountant, and he advised me not to launch a Kickstarter late in the year! However, there was no better time, and I had to work around the cash-flow issue, as I describe.

      The state taxation issue was my fault. I had, in fact, budgeted to spend *more* on tax than I actually owed. So I wouldn't have come up short. Based on my communication with the state, I expect that I would pay different rates on parts of the Kickstarter, and potentially pay up to about 5% to the state in tax. In the actual event, it was about 1.5%.

      However, I should have better understand the issue of destination addresses so that I had properly collected that information from everyone. That's something that I've now heard from many other crowdfunding projects about, too.

      Further, at least Washington State requires you pay in-state retail business and occupation tax plus sales tax on all sales for which you cannot account for the destination. That can be a huge tax bill.

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
    9. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Memorandum to the guy who wrote the original story:

      Almost everyone on Slashdot in 2014 is a raging, gangrene-infected, pus-spewing asshole. I don't think there's ever been a more sour, mouth-running bunch of twaddle-shoveling fucks in the same place in human history.

      You posted a good article with some good information for reasonable people who are doing something productive. The people here are only interested in their bong, porn, Xbox and wandering through their mom's kitchen occasionally to grab a handful of potato salad and wipe their ass on the dishtowel.

      Keep writing. The people around here would shit on an orphan's birthday cake.

      This may be the best Slashdot comment ever. It is both insightful and funny.

    10. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I had to laugh at the point where he explained how he found a "loophole" in tax law that allowed him to avoid his cash crunch. Tax law is complicated, because it tries to be fair. His loophole was put there exactly for people like him. It's hard to make the law flexible enough so that people can properly pay what they fairly owe, without letting people sneak out of paying taxes. That complexity worked perfectly for him. His cash crunch was imaginary. Running a business is hard. Taxes are just a small part of that. He'd never been paid in advance before, so he hadn't had to learn how to do that yet. Big deal.

    11. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by Dareth · · Score: 1

      As a relative old timer here, let me say I rather enjoyed the article for its great detail and information. You gave what looked to be an honest account of someone with a fair amount of experience doing something new and learning from the experience. Instead of hoarding that knowledge you attempted to share it. Just wanted to let you know it is appreciated. This is exactly the thing I come to Slashdot hoping to find.

      --

      I only look human.
      My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    12. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am glad that you took the time to write your article, and would like to contribute a bit of information that may prove helpful not only for future writings but your current taxation situation presuming that it is with the Federal Government of the United States of America.

      1) most people never read the tax code, you should. United States Code Title 26 Internal Revenue Code is not law, it is an "Procedure & Administration" document that interprets the various Federal Tax & Revenue Acts which are in fact law.

      2) people unfortunately commit the errors of Assuming & Implying meaning to words. Law is explicit & implicit so you MUST read the definitions of the "DEFINED TERMS" to know what the true meaning of a word is within the scope of a given law or code. Please begin your self education program about Federal Taxation starting with USC Title 26 IRC, Subtitle F -- Procedure and Administration, Chapter 79, Section 7701 Definitions

      3) do not let the use of the word "includes" cause you any confusion. Remember that law / code is explicit & implicit, so when you read " (10) State -- The Term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title. " Do not mistakenly think this means the 50 member States of our Democratic Republic plus Washington DC. The word "Includes / Including is most often used to provide a bizarrely counter intuitive meaning of open ended specificity. That is to say the intention is to specifically state that at this point we the legislative branch is explicitly declaring the term "State" means Washington DC and nothing else but we are leaving it open to include other entities / items / locales that may or may not have existed at this time of writing which do fall under the jurisdictional scope of authority of the Federal Government of the United States of America. You will in fact learn as you read the other portions of USC Title 26 IRC the term "State" is redefined multiple times but it never is anything other than a Federal Territory i.e. Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, American Samoa..., never is a "State" per the defined term one or more of the Sovereign member States of our Democratic Republic. If the Tax Code or Tax & Revenue Acts ever did make such a deceleration it would be a direct conflict with the Constitution of The United States of America Article I Section 9 and render at least that portion of the Tax Code or Tax & Revenue Acts as Unconstitutional.

      4) The 16th Amendment is grossly misunderstood. Most people believe it grants the federal government the authority to tax all Income. This simply isn't true, and there are multiple Supreme Court Case rulings that correct the improper assumptions & implied meanings that most people use. In actuality the 16th Amendment is an over ruling of the Supreme Court decision that dealt with 2 different types of taxes being assessed and one of them not counting as "Income." The 16th Amendment made an adjustment to EXISTING laws effectively declaring that both types of taxes ruled upon by that court are "Income"

      5) Income is NOT everything that comes in. Remember that jurisdiction is key, you don't pay property taxes for the land you own in county X to county y, nor do you pay sales taxes to city X when you purchased items in city y. There are a multitude of Supreme Court cases that address the issue of jurisdiction with regard to Federal taxation, remember it is only the specific activities that fall under Federal jurisdiction that the Federal Taxes may apply towards. Do not allow yourself to confuse the sub-class of "Income" that the Federal Government is lawfully entitled to tax against is the same as the general class of Income to which they have no jurisdiction.

    13. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to help you better understand that you are on the right path, but appear to be lacking in the specifics of why the VAST MAJORITY of all American Citizens and the "Business" are in fact not subject to Federal Taxation and do not need to move to an unorganized territory. Law is explicit & implicit so you MUST read the definitions of the "DEFINED TERMS" to know what the true meaning of a word is within the scope of a given law or code. Please begin your self education program about Federal Taxation starting with USC Title 26 IRC, Subtitle F -- Procedure and Administration, Chapter 79, Section 7701 Definitions.

    14. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Huh? Nobody expects small-scale entrepeneurs to understand the tax laws. That's why they need to talk to somebody who does, and find out the consequences in their particular situation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by julesh · · Score: 1

      He also brings up some timing advice: since businesses are allowed to deduct the costs of doing business, you don't want kickstarter to cut your check on December 31st.

      Here in the UK we're allowed to claim expenses in a tax year if they relate to business conducted in that year even if the expense is paid for in a later period (see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals...). Is this not the case in the US?

    16. Re:tl;dr - it's just like a business by julesh · · Score: 1

      He also brings up some timing advice: since businesses are allowed to deduct the costs of doing business, you don't want kickstarter to cut your check on December 31st.

      Here in the UK we're allowed to claim expenses in a tax year if they relate to business conducted in that year even if the expense is paid for in a later period (see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals...). Is this not the case in the US?

      Plus it's also irrelevant when kickstarter pay you: you pay the tax on the money you receive in the tax bill for the period in which you earn it, which for preorders (which is what kickstarter finance effectively is in most cases) is the period in which the product is dispatched, not the period you receive the money.

  8. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're driving us out
    We're closing up shop
    Lonely is the mom and pop
    Lonely is the mom and pop

    Where are the protesters?
    Where are the slogans and signs?
    This will be a swift decline
    This will be a swift decline

  9. Re:Medium by Enry · · Score: 1

    I'll admit I first thought "well duh" as I have my own small business (nothing as large as most Kickstarter campaigns, but I've hired a CPA or two in my time). But the points you bring up are really important ones and can quickly derail a project if there's not enough advance planning. Along with all of the technical and logistical aspects of a successful campaign, there's also the financial ones.

  10. Re:Medium by OzPeter · · Score: 0

    I wrote the article in this link, and edit a publication called The Magazine.

    And regardless of your motives, the fact that you both wrote and submitted the article can open you up to accusations of self-aggrandizement, of which the Slashthink is very very suspicious.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  11. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who do you think is responsible for setting tax policy and spending tax revenues? Hint- it's not Obama. Did you sleep through 9th grade Social Studies? Or have you not gotten to 9th grade yet?

    Isn't it a weird coincidence that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled since "anti-business" Obama took office?

  12. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama's days are numbered. He will be replaced in 2017.

    Way to go out on a limb there, monkeyboy.

    Don't allow him any revenue.

    Please feel free to hold your breath and turn blue for three more years. I'm quite sure that the next career politician to take the office will be so very VERY different.

  13. That's what government's for... by Spud+Stud · · Score: 2

    ...to get in a man's way.

    1. Re:That's what government's for... by giorgist · · Score: 1

      Get off my road then, build your own if you want to get around

  14. Deferred Revenue? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    If you use accrual basis you can then (in theory) report the kickstarter funds as deferred revenues and also defer the tax until goods/services are delivered. Only a cash based business would need to pay tax prior.

    1. Re:Deferred Revenue? by eggboard · · Score: 2

      I researched this and discussed it with my accountant. My accountant said that switching cash-basis business to accrual for the sole purpose of deferring taxes for something that isn't part of its routine business could be met with scrutiny and penalties —and be disallowed.

      And the IRS rules make it clear that you can't simply align revenue and expenses. It has a number of examples in which it's clear that in a Kickstarter, the revenue couldn't all be deferred, although the expenses might be allowed to be taken in 2013 if contracts were signed and other tests made.

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
    2. Re:Deferred Revenue? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      I would argue you should have started a new corp just for the kickstarter campaign, the cost is pretty low even if you have someone do the paperwork for you. I think the more important point to be made is planning on many levels is essential.

  15. What country are we talking about? by clockwise_music · · Score: 1

    ...Paying Tax Correctly for USA citizens on Crowdfunding

    Fixed that for ya. Remember guys, the internet is WORLDWIDE.

    1. Re:What country are we talking about? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and try to do business in the US without paying US taxes. Heck, try to be a US-based business or citizen and do business overseas. Either way - the IRS will get it's chunk of flesh from you. Even when no other developed country would consider it proper, Uncle Sam will take his cut.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:What country are we talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet belongs to America and eagerly awaits our News.

    3. Re:What country are we talking about? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, Citigroup, Exxon Mobil, ....

      "Only the little people pay taxes." - L. Helmsley

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:What country are we talking about? by j-beda · · Score: 1

      ...Paying Tax Correctly for USA citizens on Crowdfunding

      Fixed that for ya. Remember guys, the internet is WORLDWIDE.

      The USA manages to stick its tax fingers into a whole lot more than just USA citizens. I suspect that if you use any USA based service (such as Kickstarter or any number of payment systems) you may run afoul of USA tax requirements. Hopefully you won't get hit with a net bill (as there are tax agreements between the USA and a lot of other countries that mostly prevent double taxation), but you can still be hit with non-reporting penalties and the like.

      It is not pretty, and it is not limited to USA citizens.

    5. Re:What country are we talking about? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      They all pay US income taxes. In 2012:

      Microsoft: $2.4 billion

      Apple: $8.4 billion

      Google: $2.5 billion

      IBM: $1.5 billion

      CItigroup: $229 million

      ExxonMobil: $2.5 billion

      Seems to me that they all pay income taxes - and quite a bit of it. It's a common fallacy that big companies don't pay taxes. Just take a look at the facts for yourself and find out that they do, in fact, pay income taxes - and a lot of them at that.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:What country are we talking about? by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      But looking at Wikipedia, Microsoft had revenues of 77 billion, so only 3% of the money they made went to taxes. I wish it worked that way for me. Oh, they're only taxed on money they don't spend. Their net income was 21.86 billion, again, only paying 10%. Quite a low tax rate if you ask me. not sure why you mentioned Citigroup, with a net income of 13.9 billion, they only paid 1.6% in taxes on net income. All my numbers are from Wikipedia, using your tax numbers.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:What country are we talking about? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The GP asserted that corporations didn't pay tax. I think we can both agree they did. Now you want to discuss how much they pay; OK, fine. How much should they pay? And how much should the average person pay? Because the vast majority of US citizens pay less than 10% federal income tax. And it's the bottom 80% who pay that rate; the top 20% tend to pay way above 10%.

      So how much would you want the corporations to pay, since we agree they ARE paying? How much should the average US taxpayer pay? And how can, like the GP insinuated, an US citizen or corporation avoid paying any taxes? And should we eliminate deductions - which you apparently want to see happen (want to tax based on revenues, not net income - like taxing you on gross income, not adjusted, not after deductions)?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:What country are we talking about? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Very many people pay more FICA than the more narrowly defined "income" tax, particularly if you include the impact of the deceptively named employer's share. That nullifies a lot of the benefits of the progressiveness of the income tax.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  16. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seeing as Wall Street gave a majority of their contributions to Obama (probably shock number one for you), he made sure to pay them back. That is why he had Bernake print around $3.5 Trillion (not a misprint) and dump it into Wall Street to make sure his donors were taken care of.
    Also Solendra owners donated hundreds of thousands to his campaign.
    He also invested in Brazil oil with 2 Billion because his buddy Soros was involved.
    It goes on and on, but every time Obama has been given a pot of money you can directly and easily trace it going to campaign donors, he doesn't even try and hide it or pretend anymore because those who point it out are called racists now.

    So, no it is not weird that the Dow doubled with Obama in charge, its actually expected and some of us have made out like bandits because of it. Enjoy paying taxes for the rest of your life for the money he gave us free and clear.

  17. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That is why he had Bernake print around $3.5 Trillion (not a misprint) and dump it into Wall Street to make sure his donors were taken care of.

    Oh, and as a small byproduct of that, it kept the US economy functioning.

  18. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't it a weird coincidence that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled since "anti-business" Obama took office?

    Not really, when you consider literally $4 trillion in new dollars (stimulus and QE 1/2/3) pumped into the economy, mainly via Wall Street. That $4 trillion has to go somewhere, and it ended up in the stock market.

    Factor out this extra Governmental spending, and our GDP has barely budged over the last 5 years. The stock market is up because there's a lot more free/easy money to throw/invest, not because the GDP is roaring away.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  19. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you should study economics instead. It doesn't matter where in the government tax policy originates, what matters to small business owners is customer demand. Small business owners are going out of business and staying out of business because customer demand is lacking so long as the customers lack confidence because of Obama. Without demand, supply decreases if the supplier isn't a idiot. Small business owners are waiting for Obama to go away because their customers aren't willing to spend until Obama goes away.

  20. Business with non-calendar tax year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not set up a proper business and then run a non-calendar taxable year? Wouldn't that solve the end of year tax problem?

    1. Re:Business with non-calendar tax year? by TheGavster · · Score: 3, Informative

      He mentions that you can set up a fiscal year which deviates from the calendar year. He was unable to do this because he was already operating under an LLC and changing your fiscal year after you've set it is non-trivial.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  21. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please feel free to hold your breath and turn blue for three more years.

    OK, will do. I'm sure all those empty storefronts will remain empty until three years from now when businesses will be busy opening again.

  22. Re:Medium by eggboard · · Score: 2

    If it's interesting and useful, and I submit it under my name, and it gets posted to the home page by people with full awareness, it seems like you're engaging in meta-moderation within a thread.

    I don't post B.S. to Slashdot; I've been using it since it started (not under this ID at the very beginning). The moderators and other tools prevent useless stuff from rising to the top.

    So.

    --
    Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
  23. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    lack confidence because of Obama

    I lack confidence because I'm making about as much now, as I was a decade ago. Same for everyone else whose wages haven't kept up with inflation for the last 30 or so years. But hey, that's all Obama's fault retroactively back through Reagan's (blessed be his name) administration. Couldn't possibly be because the CEOs collectively dicked themselves in the ass to pad out their quarterly reports and award themselves giant bonuses while letting the question of "where will next year's customers come from?" be someone else's problem. I hear walmart is thinking of increasing "full time" from 37 hours a week (because Obamacare went back in time and stopped them from employing people a full 40 hours a week in the 80's amirite?)

    Don't worry though, the welfare state will be along shortly to bail out capitalism yet again. How about that mincome, folks? Now CEOs won't have to pay workers anything at all, and they'll have plenty of money to spend on being customers!

  24. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 2

    "Small business owners are waiting for Obama to go away because their customers aren't willing to spend until Obama goes away."

    Automation (sometimes via robots) and new technologies and labor strategies are altering the employment landscape.

    This is bigger than any single person, and it will get worse. McDonald's, for example, is pursuing automation strategies.

    Automation and global cheap labor are the new realities --- and with this comes institutional unemployment (fixed unemployment that is difficult or virtually impossible to eliminate) in the lower end of the employment sector.

    Unemployment of those with college degrees is 3% in the USA. Even under your idea that Obama is a job-killer --- maybe / maybe not ---- the sheer job loss in the United States in lower end jobs is a bit too enormous to be attributed alone to one person, especially when many other countries have faced the same.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  25. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    Small business owners are waiting for Obama to go away because their customers aren't willing to spend until Obama goes away.

    So how has the GDP been growing steadily since Obama took office?

  26. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by The+Cat · · Score: 0

    Only if you also consider the $3 billion a day being pumped into Wall Street a coincidence.

  27. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about that mincome, folks? Now CEOs won't have to pay workers anything at all, and they'll have plenty of money to spend on being customers!

    Fine if the mincome comes out of the CEOs pockets via taxes, the CEOs can pretend they're paying the workers nothing at all, while living wages are being paid indirectly.

  28. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. So why was every Democrat screaming in 2009 about how high stock values were a sign that the middle class was being shredded by big business?
     
    Oh, and a direct answer to your question? ObamaCare and the Fed have been causing the stock market to grow. So basically your tax dollars are being injected into the market to keep it alive. This isn't a mystery to anyone paying attention. ObamaCare is a boon to corporations, again, this isn't a mystery to anyone who's been paying attention.

  29. Too complex by asmkm22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a small business owner, I can say that the US tax system really needs to be simplified. I started my business 3 years ago, and had to learn the accounting and tax side myself (I couldn't afford a CPA or book keeper at the time). For a nation that claims to be built on small businesses, it sure is crazy trying to figure out what's needed to run start or run one.

    1. Re:Too complex by ThorGod · · Score: 2

      It's definitely costly to business, and that's one added expense no one (government nor business nor employees) really benefits from having.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    2. Re:Too complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accountants, lawyers, and tax professionals (as well as IRS agents) certainly benefit from a complicated tax code.

      http://watchdog.org/92975/irs-leviathan-expands-to-enforce-obamacare/

    3. Re:Too complex by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

      For a nation that claims to be built on small businesses, it sure is crazy trying to figure out what's needed to run start or run one

      The US Federal tax code now tops 80,000 pages or about 8+ times the length of War and Peace. If you don't think that's nuts then you're probably either a tax attorney or a Washington lobbyist. The politicians like to talk about good paying jobs, but they're killing the very small businesses that might create those jobs with over taxation and regulation. There was a time in the United States when people with a grade school education could start a business and be successful without having to worry about the government shutting them down. Now, you can't turn around without some pissant government bureaucrat standing on your shoes or kicking you in the ass while taking your money for the "privilege" of being allowed to operate.

    4. Re:Too complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thats because its become a system of kickbacks. Congress doesn't want to raise the corporate tax, so they create newer, more specific ones that hit everyone through sheer quantity. But heres the kicker, Congress also knows that corporations (and its largest owners) are their biggest donors, so they give huge subsidies and write-offs to corporations... that can afford accountants/lawyers smart/able/with enough time to find, understand and file all the necessary paperwork before the deadlines.

    5. Re:Too complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a nation that claims to be built on small businesses, it sure is crazy trying to figure out what's needed to run start or run one.

      You forget that CPAs, book-keepers, and tax-preparers are mostly small businesses. Make the law complicated enough and you create an industry around complying with the law. Granted, this is dangerously close to the Broken Window Fallacy, but bureaucrats buy cheeseburgers the same as the rest of us.

    6. Re:Too complex by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's not like you have to read every page though, or at least that is the theory. Only a small part is supposed to apply to a particular small business. My point is that the overall size of the code isn't necessarily the issue.

      We could probably cut it down a lot with a "no bullshit" rule. I bet 75% is trying to close loopholes that people found to dodge tax.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Too complex by caseih · · Score: 1

      The problem is that every time a politician agrees with you about simplifying the tax code, and tries to do something about it, it just gets more complicated. The only solution is to throw the whole tax code out and start over. But that will never ever happen.

  30. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    Automation and global cheap labour have existed for centuries. The pace of change, it's scope, and the impact of communication and shipping technologies are greater than before.

  31. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    Yeah. So why was every Democrat screaming in 2009 about how high stock values were a sign that the middle class was being shredded by big business?

    The DJIA dropped by 50% between 2007 and 2009. Please cite anyone complaining about "high stock values".

  32. Re:Medium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's difficult to claim "clickbait" when there are no ads!

    No it's not. Ads are one reason for trying to generate clicks, but not the only reason.

    Medium pays us to write new content and

    aaaaand I'm guessing your compensation is at least partially based on clicks.

    I wrote 4,000 words from months of dealing with tax and business issues related to Kickstarter.

    That's nice, but you're not a lawyer or a tax attorney so my advice is to stop pretending like you are one before someone in a position of authority takes notice. The only legal advice you should be giving people is "Before you start trying to raise a pile of money you should go talk to a tax attorney to make sure you're in line with whatever laws you have to deal with in whatever country you're in".

  33. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > it kept the US economy functioning.

    The not-so-subtle-but-definitely-biased implication is that it wouldn't function without it. This is a fairytale that you're perpetuating. We're just going to see a worse correction. It will still function, just not to most people's liking.

  34. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 2

    "Automation and global cheap labour have existed for centuries. The pace of change, it's scope, and the impact of communication and shipping technologies are greater than before."

    Disagreeing with what I said by agreeing with it too? Different. But it's cool. I can roll with that.

    But the European Union would like assess a VAT on your post --- you know, a value added tax.

    And those pesky Europeans are having trouble assessing a tax, because you didn't really add much "value".

    To plead your case, you must fill out this form: http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/v... and one of the taxing authorities will get in touch with you and try to sort this all out with you in person.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  35. ADD much? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You may want to read the VERY NEXT FUCKING SENTENCE of my post.

    Damn!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:ADD much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You may want to read Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. It's pretty good.

  36. I'm not even complaining about Medium by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I didn't mean to come off complaining about Medium - I don't mind reading it.

    I just wanted to point out why people might think it was click bait, not discourage you or anyone else from using it.

    I think it's very good for readers, because it doesn't have cruft. It's words, no ads, photos/video well presented.

    Generally I agree but I have two problems with it:

    1) Too large/spread out, I prefer denser text. Perhaps I can use the browser font settings to correct for that, hmm...

    2) The exact same format of giant image followed by text gets boring after just two articles, then I have a lot of trouble bothering to finish reading anything there for a while.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  37. Re:Medium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For what it's worth, I thought it was a good article and very informative on a rather confusing topic. Yes, you link to some of your other work at the bottom *the horror!*, but it's well placed and non-intrusive. The article itself doesn't come across as trying to sell anything, merely informative. I think there's just a bunch of angry people out there that need to go rub one out real quick, they'll feel better.

  38. 5th anniversary of stimilus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today is his 5th anniversy of his $850 Billion to "save the economy". All the experts are saying it kept the economy down. Net job gain from that stimilus to today is -9 Million jobs (Yes that is negative). The GOP has been hammering him all day about it and he or none of his people want to talk about the issue.

    So I'm guessing you are a shill that approves of NSA spying, drone strikes, and keeping Gitmo open along with all the other things Obama does, since you are coming here and making up stories to try and cover for the most corrupt presdent the US has ever had.

    1. Re:5th anniversary of stimilus by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 0

      So I'm guessing you are a shill that approves of NSA spying, drone strikes, and keeping Gitmo open along with all the other things Obama does, since you are coming here and making up stories to try and cover for the most corrupt presdent the US has ever had.

      You got me. I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids.

    2. Re:5th anniversary of stimilus by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, if GOP Governors were not firing so many workers -- we'd have about 6% unemployment right now.

      But yes, it seems like the Dems and Republicans have done a great job keeping down wages, job growth and killing the economy with Austerity. They are STILL printing lots of money -- it's just not going to the people at the bottom so it isn't spurring real growth that might offset the deficit.

      If we had higher taxes at the top, that would force capital investment rather than profit taking -- and it would reduce the budget shortfall by PAYING FOR THINGS.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    3. Re:5th anniversary of stimilus by Bugamn · · Score: 1

      And what about their dog?

    4. Re:5th anniversary of stimilus by DrLang21 · · Score: 2

      All the experts are saying it kept the economy down.

      All of them? Every single one? When you make a blanket statement like that, you're either lieing or you are personally deciding who is an expert and who isn't. We would have been a lot better off if that cash had gone straight to the citizenry. I could have paid down all of my debt and be ready to actually spend serious money.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    5. Re:5th anniversary of stimilus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today is his 5th anniversy of his $850 Billion to "save the economy". All the experts are saying it kept the economy down.

      Yes, some of them by being too small.

      http://theweek.com/article/index/256525/obamas-stimulus-succeeded-mdash-even-if-it-was-too-small

      Net job gain from that stimilus to today is -9 Million jobs (Yes that is negative).

      See above.

      The GOP has been hammering him all day about it and he or none of his people want to talk about the issue.

      This is the same GOP that completely mistook the CBO report as a reduction in jobs, as opposed to not being forced to work out of desperation?

      Then when called on that error, decided to say that maybe people needed to be desperate.

      So I'm guessing you are a shill that approves of NSA spying, drone strikes, and keeping Gitmo open along with all the other things Obama does, since you are coming here and making up stories to try and cover for the most corrupt presdent the US has ever had.

      So I'm guessing you are a shill that approves of GOP lying about spying, IRS investigations, ACA results, and wants to pretend they're not the ones who forced Obama to keep Gitmo open, and making up stories to try and tarnish the current President out of some self-serving interest?

      Hey, how long did you push that whole birther nonsense?

  39. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 0

    Have you seen Japan's GDP growth over the past 20 years? That would be an optimistic scenario for the US if we hadn't printed all of that money.

  40. Cash vs accrual accounting by jonsmirl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He got into these problems with revenue matching because he is running his business on cash basis accounting. In general only very small businesses can be run on cash basis accounting almost all manufacturing oriented businesses use accrual accounting. With accrual accounting you would book the Kickstarter money as a customer deposit and then recognize it as income when the product ships.

    http://www.investopedia.com/te...

    1. Re:Cash vs accrual accounting by eggboard · · Score: 3, Informative

      Absolutely correct in one regard, but some very large business also run on cash if don't make stuff that's inventoried.

      I did research it (and mention it in the article) and discuss it with my accountant. Because the publication doesn't really qualify for accrual accounting, it would have invited scrutiny (or worse) had I switched to accrual to get advantageous accounting rules for a specific project.

      --
      Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
  41. Re:Medium by eggboard · · Score: 1

    "aaaaand I'm guessing your compensation is at least partially based on clicks.": Our compensation is based on producing new content that people want to read; clickbait doesn't get us anywhere, because it doesn't turn into people reading the articles, but clicking and leaving. It also earns us anger, which doesn't help foster regular readers. Also, a 4,000-word article about tax issues is usually *not* traditional clickbait under any reasonable definition...

    "That's nice, but you're not a lawyer or a tax attorney so my advice is to stop pretending like you are one before someone in a position of authority takes notice."

    I love how people who didn't read the article out themselves so clearly!

    --
    Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
  42. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except for that whole "Lost Decade" thing.

  43. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Businesses - those that make stuff - aren't too happy. And they aren't hiring (in case you didn't notice that we've had millions of people drop out of the employment market - due to long-term unemployment). Now, the investors, the financial industry, they don't really care because the Fed's been pumping $85 billion a month into them - and that's made it easy to make money on the stock market. But in general, the business lobbies (outside of the financial and insurance industries - the big winners from the Obama financial moves) aren't happy.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  44. Why is no one talking about this being a donation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can actually fail at funding with kickstarter it has happened in the past. It's basically a donation system. Do donations get taxed? NO! Niether should these...

  45. Re:Medium by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    so... its geocities?

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  46. Re:Medium by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    Im actually interested as im looking into starting a campaign where i hope to get similar numbers. You been here long enough, dont let the trolls get to you. it seems right now everyone is skeptical about everything

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  47. Self Submission by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    The moderators and other tools prevent useless stuff from rising to the top.

    Sometimes.

    (Sorry, couldn't help myself)

    And regardless of your motives, the fact that you both wrote and submitted the article can open you up to accusations of self-aggrandizement, of which the Slashthink is very very suspicious.

    If this is a warning about what others might think, meant as a courtesy, then it's not well worded. If it's a request not to self-submit, then it's a worthless statement. Slashdot is about conversation. If the topic is worthy of conversation among nerds, geeks, techies, etc, then somebody needs to submit it. It doesn't do any good to tell people that they ought to be bashful.

    I, for one, welcome your submission.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  48. Text size by gd2shoe · · Score: 2

    That website is disgusting and the text is ridiculously huge. I'm not reading that.

    Dude, "Ctrl -". How do you survive on the Internet?

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    1. Re: Text size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a better question it's how do you survive in life?

  49. Re:Why is no one talking about this being a donati by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

    The article does talk about gifts not being taxable. The problem arises when you start giving rewards in exchange for those gifts. If you can run a Kickstarter in which people give you money and you don't give them anything back, then you're fine.

  50. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think we could debate the fact that the $3.5 Trillion could have done more for "My economy" had it been spent in public works projects and landed in my pocket.

    Bernanke kept "his economy" going -- and that's stocks and record profits. That's 400 families who have more wealth than over 150 million Americans combined.

    I'm not some moron who can't understand that we need some bank liquidity to keep paychecks going -- but it would be much better to let a few banks go bankrupt and to redistribute this wealth. It's too depressing to look at the lack of any increase in standard of living since the 70's for the vast majority. And rich people trading paper isn't going to create "demand".

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  51. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it a weird coincidence that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled since "anti-business" Obama took office?

    Pretty much, yes.

  52. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how has the GDP been growing steadily since Obama took office?

    Oh yes, quite impressive. Obama likes to say he came in when the economy was "in freefall" from the Bush era. Okay, let's take that as true. Bush came into office at the peak of a huge boom and GDP growth averaged only 1.7% per year. Pretty bad, huh? Well, he was starting from a pretty high bar so it was hard to improve on that. But hey since Bush did such a shitty job from an already tougher to improve starting point it should be easy for Obama, starting from rock bottom, to move things upwards a bit. Hmm, what's that? Growth under Obama has only averaged 1.6%? What's astonishing is that government spending is designed to crank up GDP, yet despite the fact that the already high spending rate under Bush has been jacked up under Obama to rates not seen since the 90's the economy is still tanking faster than the Obama can spend.

    How embarrassing for you. GDP growth probably isn't a number you want to bring up. I mean, unless you include the words "economic failure" in there somewhere. I sure as hell didn't vote for Bush, but even I miss him at this point. Fuck, I miss Jimmy Carter at this point. It's a fucking disaster.

  53. 1099 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, is the point of this whole diatribe to let people know that most of the crowd funding sites except maybe Indiegogo issue a 1099? Why would any money received ever be taxable, unless there's a 1099? While this question might seem trivial or just stupid, I ask this because I attempted to setup a crowd funding topic, and was rebuffed by at least two sites because they wanted a verified Paypal account into which the CONTRIBUTORS would be depositing monies, which I completely couldn't understand because I thought the point of the CF sites was to be the recipient/aggregator of the funds?!?!?! Why on earth would I want to have Paypal skim off their 3% for absolutely no work. I then lose 10% to the CF folks, and another 3% to Paypal, which would then be yet another entity in the line of fire for issuing a 1099.

  54. Long story short by loufoque · · Score: 1

    Guy ended up with more revenue than he spent, so he had to pay taxes.
    He didn't think to consult an accountant which would have been able to make the balance sheet negative without any issue.

  55. Re:Why is no one talking about this being a donati by TheLink · · Score: 1

    What if you take the money and assuming you succeed you make the resulting product available to the whole world for the same price (could be zero or more) - donors don't get any preferential treatment.

    You may get a lower amount of donations but how much less tax would you pay and how much less work would that involve?

    --
  56. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by DrLang21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm fairly certain that if you put that money into the hands of the average citizen, banks would find themselves with a lot of liquidity as people start dumping their debt.

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
  57. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

    McDonald's, for example, is pursuing automation strategies.

    McDonald's is way behind on this front. Burger King has been using an automated broiler for decades, eliminating the grill cook completely.

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
  58. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

    Just don't even bother trying to do any business until after 2017 at the earliest. You don't need to pay any taxes to the corrupt Obama regime if you don't make any money.

    What kind of idiotic business would just give up until 2017? How the hell am I supposed to eat for the next 3 years? Oh, I suppose that $900 a month should be enough to cover my rent, school loans, utilities, and food. Why I wouldn't even need to give up my caviar!

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
  59. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by rea1l1 · · Score: 2

    Instead of giving $3.5 trillion to the banks, he should have given it directly to the people that got screwed in this catastrophe. Obama has rewarded the banks for failing.

    Of course, that mess was directly caused by the Clinton Administration's removal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

  60. Revenue != Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a company has revenues of $10 million and also has expenses of $10 million (let's say it all went to payroll), they have zero profit. Why in the world would they have to pay taxes on revenue? People like you make it impossible to have intelligent discussions about taxation issues.

    1. Re:Revenue != Profit by PPH · · Score: 1

      Because I have revenue of $150K/year and, except for a few deductions the IRS allows* me to take, I pay taxes on the rest of it. I'd love to take my food, housing, medical, transportation and other costs of living off the top and pay taxes on the remainder.

      *Essentially, the IRS determines a 'poverty level' of sustenance and bases the allowance on that. So why don't they tell Google that a brand new corporate HQ isn't an allowable expense? They could easily set up card tables in an abandoned Safeway and run their operation from there.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Revenue != Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. Business are allowed to deduct their expenses from their income. Individuals are not. Even though businesses are people.

    3. Re:Revenue != Profit by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Everybody is allowed to deduct the costs directly involved in making money. They are not allowed to deduct consumption spending, which of course applies much more to individuals than corporations.

      If you made money like these businesses, you'd buy stuff, do stuff, and sell stuff, and you'd file a Schedule D. That allows you to deduct the expenses involved in your business. (It also makes you feel the full weight of FICA, but I digress.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Revenue != Profit by PPH · · Score: 1

      Everybody is allowed to deduct the costs directly involved in making money.

      I've got to feed myself or I won't have the strength to make it to work. And then there's clothing and housing myself. Medical and dental expenses, transportation, etc. And all of the vacation and entertainment necessary to maintain my mental health and work productivity.

      Like I said elsewhere, nobody seems to question a corporation spending hundreds of millions on granite and glass corporate headquarters when card tables in an unfinished warehouse space will do just fine.

      The IRS has determined that the annual cost of me 'maintaining myself' as an income producing asset is $3900 and everything above that is consumption for my own benefit. Fine. So corporations should only get a $3900 per employee per year deduction from revenue when calculating their corporate taxes. Can't find a CEO who will work for that? Tough. Pay him or her whatever they want. But only $3900 goes toward their income producing ability.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Revenue != Profit by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you have to feed yourself whether you're in business or not. A corporation doesn't need a headquarters if it goes out of business. Your food is personal consumption (if it's directly business-related, it's deductible). A corporation needs some sort of headquarters only to make money.

      The tax laws do not require somebody to spend the minimum possible money on deductible expenses. If you have medical expenses high enough to be deductible, nobody at the IRS is going to ask whether you really needed all those days in the hospital. If a doctor orders you to swim daily, and you put a pool in your back yard for that, that's partly deductible (you don't get to raise your home value untaxed, but a pool usually costs more than the increase in property value) even if there's a Y down the street.

      For practical purposes, if you were only taxed for income not spent on yourself or your family, you would be pretty much untaxed. If businesses were taxed according to your suggestion, a very large number of profitable businesses would find themselves taxed out of existence.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  61. #DEFUND THE IRS & FEDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop paying taxes until the US government's abuses of power are reined in.

    Protest in the only way that will actually affect them.

    Starve the beast!

  62. very well done by hurfy · · Score: 1

    Good stuff, don't listen to the losers ;)

    Just a random thought

    Has anyone done a Kickstarter in Idaho? I wonder how you would get around the tax issues there.
    "(One more tip: my accountant says that Washington State requires that I inform customers that sales tax will either be included or added to purchases. Kickstarter doesn’t let you automatically surcharge sales tax, which varies by delivery ZIP code, in any case. I chose to include it. Other states may also have this requirement.)"

    You are not allowed to include the tax in ID! Retailers can't do 'we pay the sales tax" sales there either.

    I had to kludge our accounting system to deal with ID and WA sales tax (plus lack of OR) at the same time in the medical field which has even more exemptions than normal. Some items are taxed depending on WHO (vet vs dr) you sell it to as well as where! Half the items are only taxed in one state but not the SAME state. Ended up with a 1000 line tax code file :( On top of that one of our big customers was the state of Wa who determines what tax to pay (not Olympia nor our rate!?!) on which items no matter what you bill. We survived an audit with a zero bill :)

    oops, more than i planned. Was just supposed to be an attaboy ;)

  63. There's less than 1.0% chance of getting audited. So just get creative with your return.

  64. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Of course, that mess was directly caused by the Clinton Administration's removal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

    You mean the Republican Congress's passing of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (named for 3 promenent Republicans)? Funny how Congress is at fault for everything bad when the president is Republican, and the "administration" is at fault when Congress is majority Republican.

    9/11 would never have happened if Nancy Pelosi wasn't elected, right?

    And the Republicans who passed it at the time stated it couldn't cause the problems it was later blamed for by other Republicans. So where they lying then, or are they lying now? Oh, they are politicians, so it's both. Not that the Democrats are any better, but lying to implicate one and exhonerate the other is evil, and makes you one of the reasons the US is failing.

  65. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by rea1l1 · · Score: 1

    I'm not blaming either side for anything, the entire system is nearly completely corrupt. There is no government, just enforcers. I want people to stop telling themselves that the 90's were a good time under Clinton. He was just as bad as every other president. They're all bad.

  66. Re:stay out of business until 2017 by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    I think we could debate the fact that the $3.5 Trillion could have done more for "My economy" had it been spent in public works projects and landed in my

    Obama proposed doing that, with like $750B. Congress rejected it immediately. So Obama did what he has the authority to do without needing Congress's approval- quantitative easing.

  67. Don't forget self-employment tax! by tmh+-+The+Mad+Hacker · · Score: 1

    For many, self-employment tax is another really good reason to try to steady things and avoid "bouncing revenue", if there's the chance that you could end up taking a loss the next year. Big profit one year? Pay big tax! Loss next year? Sorry, bud, no refund!

    I confess to getting first-hand experience with this, as I'm accounting on an accrual basis, and just paid taxes for a rather large amount of work done that may eventually have to be written off as bad debt, or at the least is going to cost me to collect, since the guys behind the business have disappeared, and I'll likely go into the red next year. Paying >15% tax on money I haven't actually got...ouch!