# The latest, for what its worth!



## hvacrsteve (May 25, 2010)

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/21/smallbusiness/1099_deluge/index.htm

This is the latest from the health care bill.
No one wants to take credit for it, I wonder why?
There will be more coming soon!

Can anyone say CASH is KING!

I believe the credit card companies will take a huge hit with this one!

Please everyone, this is not political, it is factual.  If you don't understand that, go educate yourself!


----------



## Conan (May 25, 2010)

Does it surprise you that business people (unlike their employees whose every penny of income is duly reported on Form W-2) don't report all their income? Does it bother you that the new Form 1099-K might make it harder for them to evade?



> The goal of the new regulations is to catch income that is going unreported to the IRS. The federal government loses an estimated $300 billion each year from the "tax gap" between what individuals and businesses owe and what they actually pay.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 25, 2010)

Conan said:


> Does it surprise you that business people (unlike their employees whose every penny of income is duly reported on Form W-2) don't report all their income? Does it bother you that the new Form 1099-K might make it harder for them to evade?



More paperwork and government red tape does bother me.  And how would these forms keep small business owners from evading taxes?


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 25, 2010)

Conan said:


> Does it surprise you that business people (unlike their employees whose every penny of income is duly reported on Form W-2) don't report all their income? Does it bother you that the new Form 1099-K might make it harder for them to evade?



I see it as catching the really small guy that works on the side and doesn't want the additonal income because he is on SS or some other program.

Other than the cost of all the additional paperwork, I don't see it matters that much to other businesses.

It will cost a lot of jobs though, a company will not want to deal with smaller companies because of the additional requirements.

Of course what do I know?

They always go after the small guys, they can least afford to fight and usually don't know how to really fight.


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 25, 2010)

Just remember one thing, people pay taxes, business does not, they pass it through to their customers, if you don't believe it, go read your phone bill, cable bill, gas bill etc.
other companies it is more stealth, so you never really know for sure.

I would much rather see a flat tax, simplicity is the key.

More people follow the rules when the rules are simple to follow and people can understand them.

When you have a tax code so complicated the people in charge can't understand it, how can the average Joe possibly understand.

Not only that, the people in charge have taught us that things are not what they are or what they say they are, therefore the rules don't really apply if you can find or make another rule to change the course of the rules or prempt the rules that would have been in force before the other rule was inacted.

Just find someone from Enron and ask them how that company worked or didn't work.


----------



## Conan (May 25, 2010)

> *An Overview of the "Tax Gap"*
> Compliance corresponds to whether the taxpayer’s activities are subject to withholding and information reporting requirements.  Compliance is approximately 99 percent when taxpayers are subject to withholding and information reporting requirements (e.g., wage earners), approximately 91 percent when taxpayers are subject to information reporting requirements (e.g., independent contractors), and approximately 46 percent when taxpayers are not subject to withholding or information reporting requirements (e.g., self-employed individuals).


 
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=fwps_papers


----------



## Mel (May 25, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> More paperwork and government red tape does bother me.  And how would these forms keep small business owners from evading taxes?


By ensuring the IRS knows about the income they might or might not be reporting.  



hvacrsteve said:


> I see it as catching the really small guy that works on the side and doesn't want the additonal income because he is on SS or some other program.


It shouldn't be a problem for that "really small guy" since the reporting requirements are for 200 or more transactions totalling more than $20,000.  If someone on SS has $20,000 of unreported income (even if there are an equal amount of expenses), I think that's serious business. 





> Other than the cost of all the additional paperwork, I don't see it matters that much to other businesses.
> 
> It will cost a lot of jobs though, a company will not want to deal with smaller companies because of the additional requirements.


Most of these "other businesses" won't have additional paperwork, except a single 1099-K from whoever processes their credit card receipts (OK maybe 3 or 4 for the different types of credit/debit cards).  And I don't see too many jobs lost over this, except perhaps with employers that aren't reporting all of their income, and thus underpaying their taxes.  I hold them in the same regard I hold those who pay employees under the table to avoid paying employment taxes.  Yes, it all untimately gets passed on the the consumers, but I'm sure their competition would be glad to see them pass those taxes on, rather than undercutting those who day pay.


> Of course what do I know?
> 
> They always go after the small guys, they can least afford to fight and usually don't know how to really fight.


Again, this won't hurt the smal guys.  Those who aren't making a profit won't pay any more taxes, and in fact it will help some who can't otherwise prove their income, and can't qualify for loans or other assistance.


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 25, 2010)

Conan said:


> http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=fwps_papers



Nice article, it sums up a lot of the issues well.

The main issue being compliance, with a flat tax, compliance would be simple and more people would comply.
There are just too many people that have very little education that will not comply and don't know how to either.

The other issue is the underground cash economy, it will increase once this is put in place.  They may collect a small amount more, but I don't think it will be what they think it will be.


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 25, 2010)

(It shouldn't be a problem for that "really small guy" since the reporting requirements are for 200 or more transactions totalling more than $20,000. If someone on SS has $20,000 of unreported income (even if there are an equal amount of expenses), I think that's serious business. }

That is just the credit card part, I am speaking of the retired worker that does small jobs in his field and only works a few hours a week.  If he makes over $600.00 in a year he will get a 1099.
I know several people that do that to survive!
They can't afford to live here if they didn't do it.
So they will get squeezed more after working for 50 years because SS isn't enough and is not indexed based on where you live!
They will be forced to move to FL or some other place that is cheap to live.
Quote:
Other than the cost of all the additional paperwork, I don't see it matters that much to other businesses.

It will cost a lot of jobs though, a company will not want to deal with smaller companies because of the additional requirements.  Most of these "other businesses" won't have additional paperwork, except a single 1099-K from whoever processes their credit card receipts (OK maybe 3 or 4 for the different types of credit/debit cards). And I don't see too many jobs lost over this, except perhaps with employers that aren't reporting all of their income, and thus underpaying their taxes. I hold them in the same regard I hold those who pay employees under the table to avoid paying employment taxes. Yes, it all untimately gets passed on the the consumers, but I'm sure their competition would be glad to see them pass those taxes on, rather than undercutting those who day pay.
No, you don't understand the law and all the rules aren't out yet either.  We will be giving out 1099s like candy, we will be sending them to customers and customers sending them to us!

Basically closing the transactions on every item purchased when the total goes over $600.00 per year, all of my customers, and I buy over $600.00 per year, all of my vendors.

An incredible amount of new paperwork!

I will have to add a new line to my invoices to cover the cost.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 25, 2010)

Mel said:


> It shouldn't be a problem for that "really small guy" since the reporting requirements are for 200 or more transactions totalling more than $20,000.  If someone on SS has $20,000 of unreported income (even if there are an equal amount of expenses), I think that's serious business.



Do I meet your criteria to be a "really small guy"? I'm self-employed, have no employees, work out of a spare room in the house.  I gross around $200K per year.

Currently I file from one to four 1099-MISC forms per year, for subcontractors who work with me on projects and are similarly self-employed.

With the new provision it appears that I will now be filing around 100 1099-MISC forms.

If I spend ten minutes per form, that's more than 16 hours of work.  At my billing rates that's more than $2000.

*****

I think I'm a little guy, and effectively the government is going to be taking $2000 out of my pocket.  No my "taxes" won't be higher, but it's going to cost me money - either directly out of revenue or by forcing me to redirect time away from something that does produce revenue.

Of course, those other activities that do produce revenue and now won't get done do ultimately result in more revenue for the government.  There is a revenue cost associated with forcing people to spend time doing things that don't result in producing economic activity.  

But the revenue analyses for proposals such as this never deduct for those hidden costs. The assumption is that resources expended to comply with government mandates are revenue neutral.  But they're not.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 25, 2010)

hvacrsteve said:


> No, you don't understand the law and all the rules aren't out yet either.  We will be giving out 1099s like candy, we will be sending them to customers and customers sending them to us!
> 
> Basically closing the transactions on every item purchased when the total goes over $600.00 per year, all of my customers, and I buy over $600.00 per year, all of my vendors.
> 
> ...



That's right.  And as a practical matter, you can't wait until you're getting near the end of the year to see if you're going to exceed that $600 threshold and start trying to chase down vendors to get their taxpayer ID nos.  I'm going to collect them from everyone at the time services are provided, and add them to my accounting records.

*******

It's also going to force me to spend more time setting up vendor accounts so that I can be sure that I'm tracking purchases correctly.

Right now I just enter a vendor name so I know where the money.  I file the receipts so I can retrieve them as necessary.  But it's not a big deal if one time I enter "Lowes" and another time I enter "Lowe's".  I know it's the same store and that's all that matters.

But now it will matter.  I will have to maintain accounts for vendors and be sure that every vendor has an account established in my accounting records, with a taxpayer ID provided.


----------



## Wonka (May 25, 2010)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Do I meet your criteria to be a "really small guy"? I'm self-employed, have no employees, work out of a spare room in the house.  I gross around $200K per year.
> 
> Currently I file from one to four 1099-MISC forms per year, for subcontractors who work with me on projects and are similarly self-employed.
> 
> ...



I'll assume your 

Let's see...$200,000/$125 = 1600 Billing hours.  That should leave room for 16 hours to prepare the 100 Forms, or you can hire a bookkeeper for $15-$25 hour for a cost of $240 - $400, or $5 per form ($500) and help the employment situation.   Or, there's inexpensive software also available.

You an still earn $100 - $110 per hour, or raise prices 1%.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic...sorry.  On the positive side, I honestly think it's about time the IRS starting looking at unreported income a little closer.  I like the idea of everyone paying their "fair share".  Who knows?  It could help reduce the amount of the next tax increase.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 25, 2010)

I feel sorry for all those folks who will have to file forms.  I feel sorry for every person that has to do what they don't want to do.  Gee, that would be everyone.  I feel sorry for everyone.


----------



## Kal (May 25, 2010)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> ...I will have to maintain accounts for vendors and be sure that every vendor has an account established in my accounting records, with a taxpayer ID provided.


 
How will you handle the U.S. Postal Service as a vendor for postal services?  



T_R_Oglodyte said:


> ...If I spend ten minutes per form, that's more than 16 hours of work. At my billing rates that's more than $2000.


 
You can reduce that cost to $400 by having the work done by a part-time $25/hr bean counter instead of a $xxx/hr high priced bean counter.


----------



## Sea Six (May 25, 2010)

Is this one of those political threads that TUG doesn't want to support?


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 25, 2010)

Sea Six said:


> Is this one of those political threads that TUG doesn't want to support?



Go get your dictionary and study!
This thread is for those with a high level of education that understand beyond the average person.


----------



## Kal (May 25, 2010)

hvacrsteve said:


> Go get your dictionary and study!
> This thread is for those with a high level of education that understand beyond the average person.


 
That criteria clearly eliminates all politicians from the discussion.  A few more adjustments and we're good to go.


----------



## fillde (May 25, 2010)

The bottom is where is all the new tax money going.(Don't tell me new roads). Certainly not to pay down the deficit. Soon 47% will be 51%.


----------



## easyrider (May 25, 2010)

Wonka said:


> I'll assume your
> 
> Let's see...$200,000/$125 = 1600 Billing hours.  That should leave room for 16 hours to prepare the 100 Forms, or you can hire a bookkeeper for $15-$25 hour for a cost of $240 - $400, or $5 per form ($500) and help the employment situation.   Or, there's inexpensive software also available.
> 
> ...



What kind of service are you getting from a book keeper or accountant for $15.00 - $25.00 unless you paid "Under the Table". Our accountanting for the CPA costs is a minumum $75.00 - $125.00 per hour depending on what is being done. 
If you like the idea of everyone paying their fair share of taxes, 1) without loopholds and deductions, 2) being able to make sence of what you pay, 3) everyone paying, it might be a consumption tax that you want.

This regulation will do very little to twart people from hiring people "under the table" as these people will now just pay cash. imo.....

It may catch internet sales used for resale.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (May 25, 2010)

easyrider said:


> It may catch internet sales used for resale.




I assumed that this was the target of the bill. Amazing to me how many people accept PayPal for payments, sell on ebay, work out of their home, etc. 

I am self-employed. I currently have 5 employees. I pay all of my vendors by check rather than by credit card. I have used the same vendors for years. I  have had their tax id numbers for years. It will mean some small changes for me, sending out the 1099s which I only meet the requirement for about 4 vendors (IT guy, accountant, the overflow person that comes in occasionally when we are swamped) now will change to about 8. I will have to add the 4 software licenses that I pay for each year. 

I am unsure of how it will affect the following:
Will I have to send a 1099 to the company I lease my office space from? 
The furniture store where I buy office furniture?
The three different vendors I currenly use for office supplies?

I have never sent, nor even considered sending, 1099s to the places where I purchase office supplies. Will I have to get taxpayer ID numbers from Office Depot? 

elaine


----------



## Ken555 (May 25, 2010)

Well, this appears to be good intentions gone awry. If I have to file a 1099 for every vendor, client and contractor... That will be a substantial amount of work each year. And yes, our prices will have to increase to cover the associated additional administrative expense. For my business, I'm not worried about an impact on our tax obligation, as we report everything now. What worries me is the onerous administrative headache associated with this change. Hopefully, when it gets implemented it will be a bit more tolerable than the article (and this thread) suggests.


----------



## isisdave (May 26, 2010)

I suspect there will be modifications to this before it becomes effective. It just doesn't make sense for  2 million businesses to be sending 1099's to Office Depot. The only thing the IRS could do is add them all up and make sure OD is reporting that much income.  And of course OD will report much more than that, because all of the sales to individuals will make OD's income several times the reported amount.

This is to make sure that small vendors are reporting their sales.  I am sure many are not.

There will probably be a means to upload an Excel file as a means of filing.  And in any case, there will be services that will do so for you for a smaller fee than you can do it yourself. (Maybe I'll be one of them.)

Complaints:  The $600 threshold has been the same since at least the early 1970's when I started being in business.  It should be indexed.

I wish they'd be clearer: everything I've read says "beginning in 2012." Does that mean 2011 purchases reportable in 2012, or 2012 purchases reportable in 2013?

Here's a much worse problem: The state of California wants all businesses grossing over $100,000 per year to report use tax on all purchases on which they didn't pay sales tax.  This means that EACH invoice has to be examined  and coded if sales tax wasn't paid so that the (potentially QUARTERLY) return can be filed. And somehow this has to be made auditable, so that you can prove you paid what you owe ... and somehow that you didn't owe any more.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 26, 2010)

hvacrsteve said:


> Go get your dictionary and study!
> This thread is for those with a high level of education that understand beyond the average person.


 

We all post on the TUG BBS and few of us actually know the other people involved in the conversation.  Sometimes in the heat of debate things are said that are not meant.  I surely hope the above statement falls into that category.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 26, 2010)

fillde said:


> The bottom is where is all the new tax money going.(Don't tell me new roads). Certainly not to pay down the deficit. Soon 47% will be 51%.



It is certainly possible to have balanced budgets and even budget surpluses.  We had it for most of the Clinton Administration.  So, it is actually possible that the money collected will be used for the deficit.  I can't say for sure that it will because I don't have the ability to see into the future.  I can say, however, that history indicates that it could be done.


----------



## Kal (May 26, 2010)

pgnewarkboy said:


> We all post on the TUG BBS and few of us actually know the other people involved in the conversation. Sometimes in the heat of debate things are said that are not meant. I surely hope the above statement falls into that category.


 
Are you suggesting that stupid people can comprehend stuff? Excellent observation.

It's possible that stupid people understand the importance of everyone paying their full tax obligation rather than the blame game.


----------



## Sea Six (May 26, 2010)

pgnewarkboy said:


> We all post on the TUG BBS and few of us actually know the other people involved in the conversation.  Sometimes in the heat of debate things are said that are not meant.  I surely hope the above statement falls into that category.



Me, too. It's a shame that those people with such a high level of education aren't smart enough to realize why they make discussions like this unwanted on TUG.  They just can't seem to make a point without getting crude, rude, and offensive.


----------



## dougp26364 (May 26, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> More paperwork and government red tape does bother me.  And how would these forms keep small business owners from evading taxes?



Almost any transaction, including E-bay sales, will be reported. So for timeshare owners with their own cottage industry of renting out timeshare weeks, that income will now generate a 1099. There are a lot of people who sell items on E-bay or other online forums. Those transactions could now be reported as income to the IRS and generate a 1099. 

I think when they're talking small business, they're talking really small businesses that have been flying under the radar. Unlicensed businesses that are tough to track.


----------



## Kal (May 26, 2010)

dougp26364 said:


> ..I think when they're talking small business, they're talking really small businesses that have been flying under the radar. Unlicensed businesses that are tough to track.


 
What about businesses such as Schedule C SP, or LLC, or LLP? How about Subchapter S Corp which is "licensed" by IRS thought processes?


----------



## Ken555 (May 26, 2010)

Kal said:


> What about businesses such as Schedule C SP, or LLC, or LLP? How about Subchapter S Corp which is "licensed" by IRS thought processes?



Exactly. We're the ones that will be impacted by this law in a significant way. It's already difficult to get paperwork from clients and vendors, and is a time drain. This law just adds to the complexity. While I agree the government needs to collect taxes from those who are trying to fly under the radar, there really should be a method to do so without unduly raising the bureaucratic madness for existing, reporting, small businesses.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 26, 2010)

This thread started with a post that was an article.  As far as I can tell nobody here has read the law, and the necessary IRS reg. that will interpret the law.  I certainly haven't.  What we have now is people speculating based upon an article.   I am sure that tax professionals will be providing expert advice on this law.   Anyone who is concerned that this will impact them should get the advice they need from people who will have the answers.  This is a discussion group and it can be fun to shoot the breeze.  It is also good to remember that nobody here is providing informed guidance on this matter.   If there is a tax professional in the group who can shed more light let them speak up.


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 26, 2010)

Sea Six said:


> Me, too. It's a shame that those people with such a high level of education aren't smart enough to realize why they make discussions like this unwanted on TUG.  They just can't seem to make a point without getting crude, rude, and offensive.



No offense, but to just mention the P word gets a thread closed, or PC for that matter. I would love an educated discussion without P being mentioned.
It does not apply here and to try and get a thread closed is not fair to the rest of us.  Respect us and we will gladly respect your views as well.


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 26, 2010)

pgnewarkboy said:


> This thread started with a post that was an article.  As far as I can tell nobody here has read the law, and the necessary IRS reg. that will interpret the law.  I certainly haven't.  What we have now is people speculating based upon an article.   I am sure that tax professionals will be providing expert advice on this law.   Anyone who is concerned that this will impact them should get the advice they need from people who will have the answers.  This is a discussion group and it can be fun to shoot the breeze.  It is also good to remember that nobody here is providing informed guidance on this matter.   If there is a tax professional in the group who can shed more light let them speak up.



The item which was buried in the HCB is available in that bill to peruse.

The exact regulations as you say, have not been published for our consumption.
From what I have read they will be expensive to comply with.
Personally I currently have 3 full time accountants on staff to comply with the current laws.  I can see this one being an absolute nightmare depending on the Revenue service handles what they get.
My issue with it is the collection of the information and the additional cost.
Why not just up do away with the current system and go with a flat tax.

Simple and easy, this will have a profound effect on small business.
I am not so small anymore, but there are many out there that will get hit like a ton of bricks, all in the name of catching the ones doing stuff illegally.

As usual the ones obeying the laws get hit with the work while the illegals stay illegal and under the radar.

Super Small business will simply demand cash or give no service.

I already see a lot of that now in our area or they give large cash discounts.

Either way, the ones that already play by all the rules get hit the worst.

This is similiar to the illegal alien issue in scope.

They broke the law to get here, now some here want to give them citizenship although there first act to ente rwas illegal.


----------



## easyrider (May 26, 2010)

We use a CPA for all of our tax forms and I'm not sure what other requirement will be placed on us as we already use 1099's and reseller certificates for labor and material purchases.

The new regulation that has made more work and way more paperwork for us is the new "LEAD PAINT RULE". This regulation has made all homes built before 1979 suspect for LEAD PAINT. 
Your home has a 24% chance of toxic lead dust if built from 1960 - 1978, a 69% chance of toxic lead from 1940 - 1960 and a 87 % chance of toxic lead if built before 1940.
Unlike asbestos, lead in paint is found in the dust around a persons home as it breaks away from the paint. Since lead dust its microscopic it can travel through out the home.
In a few years, this may cause the value of a lead tested home to be worth less than it is now. Only the historic homes or older homes in nice neighborhoods will retain value.
This regulation is just one of many that is coming our way. Just like the 1099 regulation and most others it requires the Government to hire more people to go through the paper work and to enforce it.


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 26, 2010)

easyrider said:


> What kind of service are you getting from a book keeper or accountant for $15.00 - $25.00 unless you paid "Under the Table". Our accountanting for the CPA costs is a minumum $75.00 - $125.00 per hour depending on what is being done.
> If you like the idea of everyone paying their fair share of taxes, 1) without loopholds and deductions, 2) being able to make sence of what you pay, 3) everyone paying, it might be a consumption tax that you want.
> 
> This regulation will do very little to twart people from hiring people "under the table" as these people will now just pay cash. imo.....
> ...



Exactly! People skirting the law will just find new ways to do it.

The ones that do it the right way now will just overburdened by more paperwork that must be filed on time or suffer more penalties!

What is fair about that.

We need to enforce the laws we have now!


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 26, 2010)

easyrider said:


> We use a CPA for all of our tax forms and I'm not sure what other requirement will be placed on us as we already use 1099's and reseller certificates for labor and material purchases.
> 
> The new regulation that has made more work and way more paperwork for us is the new "LEAD PAINT RULE". This regulation has made all homes built before 1979 suspect for LEAD PAINT.
> Your home has a 24% chance of toxic lead dust if built from 1960 - 1978, a 69% chance of toxic lead from 1940 - 1960 and a 87 % chance of toxic lead if built before 1940.
> ...





When your plumbers, electricians and HVAC guys start charging $400.00 per hour you will have read it here first!  All these mandates cost money and are requirements put on business.  They will be passed on to you as a hidden fee and you will wonder why, if I currnetly keep 10% of my gross sales I am happy, last year it dropped to 3% becuase I felt I couldn't pass all of this through,this year I have no choice but to raise my prices.


----------



## geekette (May 26, 2010)

hvacrsteve said:


> No offense, but to just mention the P word gets a thread closed, or PC for that matter. I would love an educated discussion without P being mentioned.
> It does not apply here and to try and get a thread closed is not fair to the rest of us.  Respect us and we will gladly respect your views as well.



I think you missed the point.  You insulted a slew of people with "This thread is for those with a high level of education that understand beyond the average person."


----------



## Kal (May 26, 2010)

hvacrsteve said:


> When your plumbers, electricians and HVAC guys start charging $400.00 per hour...this year I have no choice but to raise my prices.


 
Ahhh, this law will provide opportunities for more new small businesses who offer reasonably priced services.  Working stiffs can open their own businesses. :whoopie:


----------



## DeniseM (May 26, 2010)

I'm curious, too. - Steve, what college degrees do you hold?  

Or is this code for something else? - I see where you have used this expression in other threads.


hvacrsteve said:


> Hi Laura!
> I hope is well in the land of higher learning!



***A little googling reveals that this expression refers to people who follow Rush Lindbaugh...


----------



## wilma (May 26, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> I'm curious, too. - Steve, what college degrees do you hold?
> 
> Or is this code for something else? - I see where you have used this expression in other threads.
> 
> ...


it's Limbaugh..

Gee what a surprise...


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 26, 2010)

hvacrsteve said:


> Exactly! People skirting the law will just find new ways to do it.
> 
> The ones that do it the right way now will just overburdened by more paperwork that must be filed on time or suffer more penalties!
> 
> ...



Wherever there is a law there will be people who will try and succeed at breaking it.   Including the laws we have now. I am all in favor of a perfect world.


----------



## Talent312 (May 26, 2010)

I find it rather sad that so many supposedly smart people find it necessary to assail or disparage the education or values of those with whom they disagree, whatever their ideology. Instead of engaging in meaningful discourse, such folk often label others as not a real ---- or lacking an understanding as to how the world works (as if only they do). 

Ironically, I was kind'a like that when I first became involved in politics as a lad (30-40 years ago), eager to cast out all but the true believers. But I grew up. I just wish that we could have some more grownups at play in the field.


----------



## Mel (May 26, 2010)

pgnewarkboy said:


> This thread started with a post that was an article.  As far as I can tell nobody here has read the law, and the necessary IRS reg. that will interpret the law.  I certainly haven't.  What we have now is people speculating based upon an article.   I am sure that tax professionals will be providing expert advice on this law.   Anyone who is concerned that this will impact them should get the advice they need from people who will have the answers.  This is a discussion group and it can be fun to shoot the breeze.  It is also good to remember that nobody here is providing informed guidance on this matter.   If there is a tax professional in the group who can shed more light let them speak up.


The IRS has issued guidelines for the 1099-K, which go into effect for tax year 2011 (returns filed in 2012).  Those guidelines make this less onerous than originally expected.  We can hope once they decide how to implement this, it will be made to be workable.


hvacrsteve said:


> Exactly! People skirting the law will just find new ways to do it.
> 
> The ones that do it the right way now will just overburdened by more paperwork that must be filed on time or suffer more penalties!


We don't know what the new paperwork will be yet.  Yes, there are those who will try to skirt the law, but perhaps this new plan will help form a paper trail.  By tracking transactions, there will be a paper trail.  For many of those flying under the radar, even if they are doing all-cash business, many of their transactions will be tracked by virtue of reporting by their customers or their vendors.  


easyrider said:


> What kind of service are you getting from a book keeper or accountant for $15.00 - $25.00 unless you paid "Under the Table". Our accountanting for the CPA costs is a minumum $75.00 - $125.00 per hour depending on what is being done.
> If you like the idea of everyone paying their fair share of taxes, 1) without loopholds and deductions, 2) being able to make sence of what you pay, 3) everyone paying, it might be a consumption tax that you want.
> 
> This regulation will do very little to twart people from hiring people "under the table" as these people will now just pay cash.


The way to deal with them is through those "employees."  Explain to them how they are being cheated, and they push to have their income reported properly.  Yes, there will always be some employees who want to remain off the radar, and I don't know how we'll find a way to catch them.  But that's not really who this is targeted at.


Ken555 said:


> Well, this appears to be good intentions gone awry. If I have to file a 1099 for every vendor, client and contractor... That will be a substantial amount of work each year. And yes, our prices will have to increase to cover the associated additional administrative expense. For my business, I'm not worried about an impact on our tax obligation, as we report everything now. What worries me is the onerous administrative headache associated with this change. Hopefully, when it gets implemented it will be a bit more tolerable than the article (and this thread) suggests.


  Yes, hopefully the rules will be crafted to make it more tolerable.  But for those who worry about the headach, remember that you probably have competition that is able to undercut your prices because they don't pay their fair share of taxes.  Perhaps if this forces than to file and pay, the playing field will be more level.  We deal with this in our tax prep office  - we have a couple of local "tax preparers" who regularly help clients cheat, and also undercut us on prices, yet when they get caught they come to us (and complain about how much it costs to clean up the mess).  Remember also that if those who haven't been filing start paying, that will mean more revenue which may mean paying down the debt, or room for some tax breaks.  


isisdave said:


> I suspect there will be modifications to this before it becomes effective. It just doesn't make sense for  2 million businesses to be sending 1099's to Office Depot. The only thing the IRS could do is add them all up and make sure OD is reporting that much income.  And of course OD will report much more than that, because all of the sales to individuals will make OD's income several times the reported amount.
> 
> This is to make sure that small vendors are reporting their sales.  I am sure many are not.
> 
> ...


From what I've seen of other legislation, this should mean 2012 purchases, reported in 2013, but I could be wrong.

As for use tax, I would assume it should have been paid all along, and now maybe they're trying to enforce it?  I know we have a line for use tax on CT personal tax returns, but I have yet to have a client admit to owing any use tax.  I know I will next year, and I do plan to report it.


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 26, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> I'm curious, too. - Steve, what college degrees do you hold?
> 
> Or is this code for something else? - I see where you have used this expression in other threads.
> 
> ...



Denise, I am not aware Rush Lindbaugh, there is a Rush Limbaugh whom is a radio show host.
I do not listen to him nor have I ever listened to him, I much prefer to read.

The comment to Laura is between us, and for others to come to their own conclusions.  Just remember Denise, its not what you don't know, its what you don't know that you don't know that catches you by surprise.

As far as degrees, I have 4 masters degrees.

How about you?


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 26, 2010)

geekette said:


> I think you missed the point.  You insulted a slew of people with "This thread is for those with a high level of education that understand beyond the average person."



Not really, some of the most intellect people I know and associate with are also the ones that can't change a light bulb or even have a clue as to how it works.  I even tell them to their faces that they need to get educated, its a big joke because most people excel at some things and are ignorant at others!
Common sense isn't so common!

That is why we have stupid signs all over everything we purchase of dumb things not to do with the item you purchased!

All to prevent lawsuits and liability.


----------



## Wonka (May 26, 2010)

easyrider said:


> What kind of service are you getting from a book keeper or accountant for $15.00 - $25.00 unless you paid "Under the Table". Our accountanting for the CPA costs is a minumum $75.00 - $125.00 per hour depending on what is being done.
> If you like the idea of everyone paying their fair share of taxes, 1) without loopholds and deductions, 2) being able to make sence of what you pay, 3) everyone paying, it might be a consumption tax that you want.
> 
> This regulation will do very little to twart people from hiring people "under the table" as these people will now just pay cash. imo.....
> ...



That's correct...that's why you'd use a bookkeeper, not a CPA to prepare 1099's.  It's easy to find bookkeepers for $25 hour.


----------



## DeniseM (May 26, 2010)

hvacrsteve said:


> Denise, I am not aware Rush Lindbaugh, there is a Rush Limbaugh whom is a radio show host.
> I do not listen to him nor have I ever listened to him, I much prefer to read.



Sorry about the typo - I'm not familiar with him, so I didn't notice the error.  How do you like his books?



> The comment to Laura is between us, and for others to come to their own conclusions.



I guess it is just a coincidence. That's how Limbaugh describes the people he educates with his show and books.  If you prefer to have a private conversation with someone, consider using the private message function.



> As far as degrees, I have 4 masters degrees.
> 
> How about you?



That's admirable, I have a BA and a teaching credential.


----------



## l2trade (May 26, 2010)

hvacrsteve said:


> ...
> As far as degrees, I have 4 masters degrees.
> How about you?



I got 90 degrees, because I can't get my a$$ off the couch.  This thread gives me one more excuse to relax, work less, keep my financial transactions simple and avoid starting my own business.

Not that you asked that question of me.  I just felt like sharing.  Wasn't much else I could safely debate anyways on TUG about this topic.


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 26, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Sorry about the typo -  How do you like his books?



I really am not a fan and I didn't read any of his books.

I generally read more history and people that I admire, he is not one of them.


----------



## hvacrsteve (May 26, 2010)

l2trade said:


> I got 90 degrees, because I can't get my a$$ off the couch.  This thread gives me one more excuse to relax, work less, keep my financial transactions simple and avoid starting my own business.
> 
> Not that you asked that question of me.  I just felt like sharing.  Wasn't much else I could safely debate anyways on TUG about this topic.



Honestly, if I had to do it over, I would have played far more and studied far less.  Honestly, my family was very poor and I was afraid to fail.  I never wanted to go through what we did as kids.  It was humiliating to me.
But it motivated me to succeed, to never accept second place or average.
I was the youngest and most driven because I watched my siblings flounder in their early years, I always had to bail them out.  So that is why I know a lot about bail outs and what happens with them.  I experienced them first hand with me being the banker and no one to bail me out if I were to fail.


----------



## l2trade (May 26, 2010)

hvacrsteve said:


> Honestly, if I had to do it over, I would have played far more and studied far less.  Honestly, my family was very poor and I was afraid to fail.  I never wanted to go through what we did as kids.  It was humiliating to me.
> But it motivated me to succeed, to never accept second place or average.
> I was the youngest and most driven because I watched my siblings flounder in their early years, I always had to bail them out.  So that is why I know a lot about bail outs and what happens with them.  I experienced them first hand with me being the banker and no one to bail me out if I were to fail.



I like to relax and do nothing, much like Peter Gibbons (absent the fractions of a penny scheme).  In no way am I like Lawrence's cousin.  I pay my own bills, nobody give me $.


----------



## easyrider (May 26, 2010)

Wonka said:


> That's correct...that's why you'd use a bookkeeper, not a CPA to prepare 1099's.  It's easy to find bookkeepers for $25 hour.



Honestly, I have been down this road and it leads to problems. Book keeper versus CPA is a big difference in professional service. The educational requirements and testing for a CPA are strict. A person must be licensed to provide this service in WA.

Anyone can be a book keeper.

Bottom line, you get what you pay for.


----------



## Talent312 (May 26, 2010)

Lest anyone missed my last post...
It seems to me that the last few posts are little more than a pi**ing contest.
IMHO, _ad hominem_ comments are or should be out-of-bounds.


----------



## John Cummings (May 27, 2010)

Ken555 said:


> Well, this appears to be good intentions gone awry. If I have to file a 1099 for every vendor, client and contractor... That will be a substantial amount of work each year. And yes, our prices will have to increase to cover the associated additional administrative expense. For my business, I'm not worried about an impact on our tax obligation, as we report everything now. What worries me is the onerous administrative headache associated with this change. Hopefully, when it gets implemented it will be a bit more tolerable than the article (and this thread) suggests.



This is just another example of regulatory laws being written by politicians that have absolutely NO understanding of business.


----------



## l2trade (May 27, 2010)

Talent312 said:


> Lest anyone missed my last post...
> It seems to me that the last few posts are little more than a pi**ing contest.
> IMHO, _ad hominem_ comments are or should be out-of-bounds.



I'll admit that I am lazy at times.  I don't exercise enough.  I consume too many junk foods.  I know that.  Actually, I am trying to improve by eating less junk so I can lose some weight and start feeling better.  It is my challenge and up to me to deal with it.  However, I think it is a bit far and insulting to take my self deprecating, lazy, junk food eating posts and twist them to insinuate that it's little more than a pigging contest.  I'm not trying to win a PRIZE!   I'm just addicted to junk food.

I will also admit my 90 degrees ain't worth a spit of beans compared to DeniseM or hvacrsteve very impressive higher education.  I say congrats to them.   That is awesome!     So, hopefully you understand why I'm not sure what _ad hominem_ comments are?  My 90 degrees don't really help me to understand why such things should be out-of-bounds.  Now, saying I participate in a pigging contest, if anything here, that should be out-of-bounds.

Getting back to the OP.  I agree.  I do not like the mountains of paperwork involved in doing my taxes.  I do less, just so I will have to deal with less at the end of the year.  It is a big de-motivator.  It is my primary motivator for not starting my own business.  I worry that someday government may try to regulate my dietary habits as well.  Pigging contest or not, that is none of their business!


----------



## geekette (May 27, 2010)

easyrider said:


> Honestly, I have been down this road and it leads to problems. Book keeper versus CPA is a big difference in professional service. The educational requirements and testing for a CPA are strict. A person must be licensed to provide this service in WA.
> 
> Anyone can be a book keeper.
> 
> Bottom line, you get what you pay for.



why do you need a cpa to do 1099s???  seems like overkill


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 27, 2010)

Seriously, getting rid of the IRS completely and just paying a national sales tax would take care of everything, without 1099's.  Glenn Beck's idea, not mine, and it's a good one.  I also like Rush Limbaugh, and if you actually listen to what Glenn and Rush say, they make a great deal of sense.  (So I guess Wilma will post a  for me too.)  

I am tired of dealing with our taxes every year.  Can we all agree on that?  We do have a small business, and we rent quite a few timeshares, too, so basically two small businesses. What makes everyone think that more paperwork is good for anyone?  For heaven's sake, the government can look at your spending and your checking accounts, so when they come calling, and your small business deductions don't make sense, they will delve further and find out if you are cheating or not.  We don't cheat, but we do deduct everything we can.  I am just imagining the number of 1099's..... UGH!

The flat tax is such a great idea, because who evades taxes better than the very rich?  But they spend like crazy, and if they paid a national tax on everything, they couldn't evade taxes (they might find a way, I don't know).


----------



## Conan (May 27, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Seriously, getting rid of the IRS completely and just paying a national sales tax would take care of everything, without 1099's. Glenn Beck's idea, not mine, and it's a good one. I also like Rush Limbaugh, and if you actually listen to what Glenn and Rush say, they make a great deal of sense.


 
As the graph below shows, the top 20% of earners pay 80% of the taxes. The balance point (50% on the left hand scale) shows that the top 5% of earners currently pay half of all income taxes. 

So it's easy to see who would benefit from a flat tax (the top 5%) and who would be hurt by it (the bottom 95%). And if your flat tax is going to be a VAT/sales/consumption tax, investment income is going to escape taxation entirely.

Glenn and Rush aren't the sort of people who would push for a flat tax out of self-interest, are they? 





http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/


----------



## Mel (May 27, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Seriously, getting rid of the IRS completely and just paying a national sales tax would take care of everything, without 1099's.  Glenn Beck's idea, not mine, and it's a good one.  I also like Rush Limbaugh, and if you actually listen to what Glenn and Rush say, they make a great deal of sense.  (So I guess Wilma will post a  for me too.)
> 
> I am tired of dealing with our taxes every year.  Can we all agree on that?  We do have a small business, and we rent quite a few timeshares, too, so basically two small businesses. What makes everyone think that more paperwork is good for anyone?  For heaven's sake, the government can look at your spending and your checking accounts, so when they come calling, and your small business deductions don't make sense, they will delve further and find out if you are cheating or not.  We don't cheat, but we do deduct everything we can.  I am just imagining the number of 1099's..... UGH!
> 
> The flat tax is such a great idea, because who evades taxes better than the very rich?  But they spend like crazy, and if they paid a national tax on everything, they couldn't evade taxes (they might find a way, I don't know).


While a flat tax would be simpler, it wouldn't prevent people from evading it.  While the very rich do spend a great deal, they don't spend an equal proportion of their income as compared to the poor - who in some cases spend ALL of their income and then some.

If we go to a flat consumption tax, are you prepared to collect sales & tax on your rentals?  Even sales tax laws are not so straight forward.  I buy something, paying sales tax at purchase.  I then improve the item, and sell it to you.  Do I collect sales tax on the whole value, or on the value of the improvement?  Or am I exempt from sales tax when making my purchase?  

That may be another part of what the might want to track... those with small businesses who use the business to purchase personal items, and avoid paying local sales taxes.  With a national sales tax, it could become and even bigger issue.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 27, 2010)

Yes, I would collect tax on my rentals, because I would not charge as much in the first place, because I would pay less in income tax, so it would be fine by me.  The problem would be how to pay the government.  More paperwork, I guess.  :rofl: 

People who have money do spend a lot of money.  People who are in the bottom 5% also spend all of their money, agreed.  They pay rent, mortages, utilities and the like, but I don't think rent or mortgages would have a tax added.  This is durable goods, and maybe food shouldn't count, either, except at restaurants.  Everyone pays local sales tax already.  

Actually Glenn Beck wants to pay off the 13,000,000,000,000 in national debt, and that is his goal.  

I was shocked at how little some politicians pay in taxes, when numbers were published several years ago.  I know they should have paid more, but they know the loopholes.  I am all for a system without loopholes, but it won't ever exist.  Some politicians owe money to the IRS and don't care about paying.



> Glenn and Rush aren't the sort of people who would push for a flat tax out of self-interest, are they?


Politicians are all about helping the people, I am sure.


----------



## easyrider (May 27, 2010)

geekette said:


> why do you need a cpa to do 1099s???  seems like overkill



We leave all accounting to the CPA. All 1040's, 1099's, payroll tax, sales tax, labor and industries and income tax are in the hands of our CPA. 

I like and feel good about overkill when it comes to our businesses.


----------



## Conan (May 27, 2010)

Actually, you can be sure that members of Congress pay plenty of income tax. Their salaries alone put them in the top 10% and many of them have substantial outside wealth.



> Financial disclosure forms released [in 2003] by the nation's 100 senators show there are at least 40 millionaires among them.
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/


 
*Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.* 
-Daniel Patrick Moynihan


----------



## Wonka (May 27, 2010)

easyrider said:


> Honestly, I have been down this road and it leads to problems. Book keeper versus CPA is a big difference in professional service. The educational requirements and testing for a CPA are strict. A person must be licensed to provide this service in WA.
> 
> Anyone can be a book keeper.
> 
> Bottom line, you get what you pay for.



I'm a CPA.  Trust me, you don't need a CPA to prepare Form 1099's and the transmittal forms.


----------



## Wonka (May 27, 2010)

easyrider said:


> We leave all accounting to the CPA. All 1040's, 1099's, payroll tax, sales tax, labor and industries and income tax are in the hands of our CPA.
> 
> I like and feel good about overkill when it comes to our businesses.



It's a personal choice.  If I were using a CPA to provide my other accounting services, I would also have them prepare the 1099's as a bundled service.  But, if I was a person with a consulting service that prepares their own tax return and records, I'd learn how to prepare and transmit them myself (it's easy...even a caveman could do it), or I'd look for a lower-cost service for such a routine task.


----------



## Mel (May 27, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> People who have money do spend a lot of money.  People who are in the bottom 5% also spend all of their money, agreed.  They pay rent, mortages, utilities and the like, but I don't think rent or mortgages would have a tax added.  This is durable goods, and maybe food shouldn't count, either, except at restaurants.  Everyone pays local sales tax already.


No, not everybody pays sales tax.  Just as some states don't have an income tax, some don't have sales tax.  And local sales tax can vary significantly, with some states having one rate plus some (but not all) localities having a piggy-back tax.  


Conan said:


> Actually, you can be sure that members of Congress pay plenty of income tax. Their salaries alone put them in the top 10% and many of them have substantial outside wealth.


Just because they have significant wealth and a large income doesn't mean they pay a lot of taxes.  They craft many of the tax loopholes, and make good use of them themselves.


Wonka said:


> I'm a CPA.  Trust me, you don't need a CPA to prepare Form 1099's and the transmittal forms.


And in some cases, you don't want your CPA anywhere near your tax return.  And in many cases, your CPA isn't the one who will prepare those forms anyway - some clerk in the office will do it, and the CPA will oversee the clerk's work.


----------



## Conan (May 27, 2010)

> Just because they have significant wealth and a large income doesn't  mean they pay a lot of taxes.  They craft many of the tax loopholes, and  make good use of them themselves.


There are "loopholes" that shelter or defer certain kinds of investment income, carried interests and so forth.  But believe me a Congressperson is no more able to avoid income tax on salary than you are....


----------



## wilma (May 28, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I also like Rush Limbaugh, and if you actually listen to what Glenn and Rush say, they make a great deal of sense.  (So I guess Wilma will post a  for me too.)



Oh no, I love Glenn Beck, he is one the great rodeo clowns on TV, I love his tears and his whole comedy act. I never knew that anyone took him seriously. How could you take him seriously when he says this of the 9-11 families-
Beck: You know, it took me about a year to start hating the 9/11 victims' families. It took me about a year. Um, and I had such compassion for them and I really, you know, I wanted to help them, and I was behind -- let's give them money, let's get them started, and all of this stuff. And I really didn't -- all the 3,000 victims' families, I don't hate all of them, I hate about, probably about ten of them. But when I see 9/11 victim family, you know, on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up.' I'm so sick of them. Because they're always complaining. And we did our best for them. And again, it's only about ten.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 28, 2010)

And in what context would Beck say that?  Because the victims are wanting more $$$.  Who is to blame for the WTC attacks and should be paying?  

Yes, I do take him seriously.


----------



## Mel (May 28, 2010)

Conan said:


> There are "loopholes" that shelter or defer certain kinds of investment income, carried interests and so forth.  But believe me a Congressperson is no more able to avoid income tax on salary than you are....


I wasn't saying they are - I was saying not to expect them to be paying high taxes, because most of them are using those loopholes.  As a tax preparer, I am well aware that those loopholes are available to everybody.  There are also plenty of ways to shelter salary as well - again available to everybody, but much more likely to be used by the wealthy.


----------



## Kal (May 28, 2010)

wilma said:


> Oh no, I love Glenn Beck, he is one the great rodeo clowns on TV, I love his tears and his whole comedy act. I never knew that anyone took him seriously...


 
You have to hand it to the guy, he'll do anything to turn a buck. Just an entertainer, who is driven by $$$$ and ratings. Tears, being an absolute hypocrite, hawking gold to suckers...it just brings in that $300 million annual salary.


----------



## isisdave (May 28, 2010)

easyrider said:


> We leave all accounting to the CPA. All 1040's, 1099's, payroll tax, sales tax, labor and industries and income tax are in the hands of our CPA.
> 
> I like and feel good about overkill when it comes to our businesses.



Unless your CPA is a one-man office, you can be pretty sure that automatic stuff like 1099s is done automatically by software operated by ... his assistant/clerk/secretary/bookkeeper.


----------



## Kal (May 28, 2010)

isisdave said:


> Unless your CPA is a one-man office, you can be pretty sure that automatic stuff like 1099s is done automatically by software operated by ... his assistant/clerk/secretary/bookkeeper.


 
I would question any CPA who wastes his valuable time generating 1099s.  Match the task to the minimal level of talent/experience to perform the task.  Perfect for a clerk or an entry level assistant.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 28, 2010)

*Major tax overhaul is necessary IMO*

I do not in any way support pundits of any political stripe.  To put it simply, I am not interested in their uninformed opinions.  If I want to hear uninformed opinions on virtually any topic I can watch Cheers re-runs and listen to Cliff Claven on any topic of importance.

Based upon non-pundit research and personal observation, it is clear to me that our current tax system is too complicated because of the various loopholes that have been added and changed over all the years to make many interest groups happy on different matters at different times.

A flat tax of some sort is worth considering if it collects currently uncollected revenue, and makes sense to people who pay it.  One of the problems the tax system faces is that it breeds mistrust because it is so difficult to deal with for many.

The main disadvantage of a flat tax is that it will weigh disproportionately on the average american and relieve wealthy americans of tax liability.  There are ways to solve this - one could be a simple tax rebate depending on your income level.

I don't pretend to have all the answers.  Perhpas a VAT tax would work.  I thnk it is worth looking into doing a major overhaul of the tax code to make it simpler and fairer.  I think it can be done and should be done.


----------



## tlwmkw (May 28, 2010)

OK- how about a flat tax rate of 30%?  Would that suit all the flat tax fans?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 28, 2010)

tlwmkw said:


> OK- how about a flat tax rate of 30%?  Would that suit all the flat tax fans?



I think the major issue is all the loopholes.  A graded "flat tax" based on income might work if there simply are NO loopholes or deductions.  No property tax, mortgage interest, dividend, appreciation, depreciation, business credits, corporate investment credits, oil income depletion credits, and more than I could possibly think of.  Thousands of loopholes in the laws and thousands more in the regulations.  You earn income whether an individual, married couple, business, non-profit, religious organization, - you pay taxes on what you earn.  No exceptions, no deductions. for children, college, babysitting, daycare - nothing, nada.  My guess is that there will be overall more tax money available, on less taxes imposed (because it gets collected) and much less pain and distrust.


----------



## wilma (May 28, 2010)

Kal said:


> You have to hand it to the guy, he'll do anything to turn a buck. Just an entertainer, who is driven by $$$$ and ratings. Tears, being an absolute hypocrite, hawking gold to suckers...it just brings in that $300 million annual salary.



Yes I suppose he is well aware there is a market for hate and fear mongering.


----------



## easyrider (May 28, 2010)

Steve Forbes has some interesting ideas on overhauling the tax code. 

Some of you just can't tolerate Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and any other person or thought with opposing views. Your criticism of these people and networks really shows how intolerant and uninformed you really are.

Different viewpoints can be expressed without using terms as hate, fear mongering, hypocrite and other derogatory words. 

I like Steve's ideas but think he would have too many wealthy people and organizations turn the tide against him. 

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Steve_Forbes_Tax_Reform.htm

I don't often listen to Rush Limbaugh, maybe a few times in the last five years, its just not for me.
I have enjoyed Glen Beck at times, especially his show with legal immigrants sharing their thoughts.
I have enjoyed Bill Mahare on HBO at times, especially his program on religion.
Michael Moore has entertained me and some of his thoughts on issues are agreeable with me.

Even though I watch or listen, the bottom line is "I will decide for myself".


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 28, 2010)

IMO the best way to make an informed decision is to pay no attention to anyone pushing a political or ideological agenda or entertainment agenda.  They tend to lie and distort to forward their agenda or to simply get high ratings. There are many intelligent people with interesting things to say about all the issues our nation and the world are facing.  Many of them are highly educated experts in certain fields and others are just highly experienced in certain fields.  I don't have to agree with someone to listen to what they have to say.  I have to, however, respect them for their accomplishments and unbiased approaches. I can be convinced if the evidence is there.  There is usually not just one answer for every problem.  Sometimes there is no apparent answer at all and further study is needed.  Sometimes there are numerous approaches.

IMO the "news' is only interested in name calling, yelling and screaming and not at all interested in calm, thoughtful, intelligent, debate.  I don't care what Al Gore or George Will have to say about global warming or any other environmental issue.  Pick up and readsome issue of Scientific American, MIT Technology, National Geographic and numerous other journals and you will get unbiased information on climate change, alternative energy, and other environmental issues.   If you want information on economics and taxation there are plenty of highly educated people who have studied these matters and have something to offer.   The list of topics is pretty much endless.

The best people on important topics are normally not invited to speak, or even are quoted,  on the sewer we called radio and TV news.  The reason is that their thoughts cannot be caught in a 20 second sound bite and they do not scream at the top of their lungs and insult other people.


----------



## Brett (May 28, 2010)

hvacrsteve said:


> This thread is for those with a high level of education that understand beyond the average person.



good thing TUG is for smart people !


----------



## pjrose (May 28, 2010)

easyrider said:


> . . .
> Some of you just can't tolerate Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and any other person or thought with opposing views. Your criticism of these people and networks really *shows how intolerant and uninformed you really are*.
> 
> Different viewpoints can be expressed without using terms as hate, fear mongering, hypocrite and other derogatory words.
> ...



This thread is about an *issue*, not about other TUGgers.  There is no purpose in labeling or criticizing posters.


----------



## John Cummings (May 28, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> And in what context would Beck say that?  Because the victims are wanting more $$$.  Who is to blame for the WTC attacks and should be paying?
> 
> Yes, I do take him seriously.



I agree 100%.


----------



## easyrider (May 28, 2010)

pjrose said:


> This thread is about an *issue*, not about other TUGgers.  There is no purpose in labeling or criticizing posters.



Yes PJ, I'm am addressing the issue of this thread. Why don't you go ahead and *admonish* all the other posters who are really being mean spirited ? I am not one of those. You take one sentence and turn it into an inssue of itself. I HAVE TO WONDER WHY ?

So, here is a tissue for your issue, with my post.


----------



## Wonka (May 28, 2010)

Mel said:


> And in some cases, you don't want your CPA anywhere near your tax return.  And in many cases, your CPA isn't the one who will prepare those forms anyway - some clerk in the office will do it, and the CPA will oversee the clerk's work.



Mel-

I'm not sure why you've formulated the negative opinion on CPA's and their ability to prepare tax returns. You must have had a very bad experience since you seem to slam CPA's as often as possible.  There are bad apples in every profession that shouldn't be practicing.  I'm sure that includes all types of tax preparers.  Some are good, others aren't.  It's that simple.

I also think Enrolled Agents (EA) are good (but some aren't), and so are some H&R Block agents good (others not), and others without formal training that have studied and understand the tax laws, and research or seek help when they need it can be very good (others aren't).  

 As I've said before, lots of CPA's prepare all kinds of tax returns (just like others) and are very good at their role.  But, not all CPA's practice taxes.   If you choose a CPA tax that specializes in your type of tax problem, you've made a good choice.  If you'd like to pay less, you can often find someone just as good for less without the formal education and training.

Why generalize?


----------



## pjrose (May 28, 2010)

easyrider said:


> Yes PJ, I'm am addressing the issue of this thread. Why don't you go ahead and *admonish* all the other posters who are really being mean spirited ? I am not one of those. You take one sentence and turn it into an inssue of itself. I HAVE TO WONDER WHY ?
> 
> So, here is a tissue for your issue, with my post.



Calling someone "intolerant and uninformed" is not addressing the issue of the thread.  It is rude.


----------



## easyrider (May 28, 2010)

pjrose said:


> Calling someone "intolerant and uninformed" is not addressing the issue of the thread.  It is rude.



Exactly who is being called "intolerant and uninformed" that is the target of this alledged rudeness ? Maybe you just feel antipathetic or obstinate today ?  

You could read the post over, a little bit slower, so you can understand what I meant was not rude or directed at any single person unlike your calling me rude.
BTW... It doesn't bother me a bit if you think I'm rude.


----------



## pjrose (May 28, 2010)

easyrider said:


> . . .
> *Some of you* just can't tolerate Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and any other person or thought with opposing views. *Your criticism* of these people and networks really *shows how intolerant and uninformed you really are.*
> 
> Different viewpoints can be expressed without using terms as hate, fear mongering, hypocrite and other derogatory words.
> . . .





easyrider said:


> Exactly who is being called "intolerant and uninformed" that is the target of this alledged rudeness ? Maybe you just feel antipathetic or obstinate today ?
> 
> You could read the post over, a little bit slower, so you can understand what I meant was not rude or directed at any single person unlike your calling me rude.
> BTW... It doesn't bother me a bit if you think I'm rude.



I never said you were being rude to anyone in particular, nor, in fact, did I say that you were being rude.  What I said was, "It is rude".  Perhaps it seems like a fine distinction, but the difference is that when the word "you" is used, the comment is directed at a person or group of people, and when it is not used, the comment is directed at an action, a behavior, in this case another comment.  

In the first quoted post above, the one with which I took issue, you directed the comment at "some of you....your...you" which is not any particular person.  Nonetheless, it is insulting, in my opinion, to take a discussion about an issue beyond that issue to label the people - named or not - in said discussion as "intolerant and uninformed."

I agree fully with your comment that "Different viewpoints can be expressed without using . .  other derogatory words." I consider "intolerant" and "uninformed" to be derogatory.


----------



## swift (May 29, 2010)

Please play nice.    Be Courteous
As we read and respond to others, disagreements are inevitable. Differing points of view are welcomed, and indeed the bbs would be a dull place without them. All users are expected and required to express their disagreements civilly. Refrain from name calling and behavior lectures. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and repeated offenses could get you banned from the bbs. Lively discussion is what the board is all about, but that is no excuse for boorish behavior or bad manners. We are assumed to all be adults. If you don't like a particular thread, stop reading it!


----------



## Ken555 (May 29, 2010)

FWIW, I have had my accountant prepare my corp 1099's for years. It's never been an issue, and makes it easier for me since I know he reviews everything. I know I pay for this, but it's a minor charge in the big picture and worth it to me. If we do have to file 1099's for almost all vendors, clients, etc then the situation changes since the paperwork requirement is exponentially greater. It's already a burden handling State sales tax issues (sales tax, electronic waste fees (which can't be submitted online for some silly reason), etc). The entry bar to starting a new business has been risen with this new requirement, and will most likely stop some from starting new businesses. We need to make running a business easier, not harder. Unfortunately, I haven't seen either major party suggest and implement anything in all the years I've been alive that has this as a goal.


----------

