# Ebay is now going to ask for your SS# and send you a 1099-K



## Michael Roe

Well, after finding this out I just sold an amp and was about to go ship it. I cancelled the order and will no longer use Ebay to sell items. The BS govt already got their taxes when an item has sold "NEW".
They can shove this new policy where the sun don't shine!
My city tries this ever year as well. Asking for peeps to list their tax refund from previous year as "Income". Not going to happen!
BTW, anyone looking for a SV20H and can pay cash and pick it up local let me know.









Marshall Studio SV20H - musical instruments - by owner - sale


Mint condition Marshall Studio SV20H 20 Watt amp head. Includes power cable and original shipping box. $1300.00 Amp is available Sun-Fri to check out. No Saturdays or late nights.



dayton.craigslist.org


----------



## StingRay85

Yeah that really sucks. Good luck with the sale


----------



## middy

You only have to report if you make $600 or more in _profit_.

You’ve always owed these taxes. They just changed the reporting requirements.


----------



## Michael Roe

middy said:


> You only have to report if you make $600 or more in _profit_.
> 
> You’ve always owed these taxes. They just changed the reporting requirements.


Uh, this is new!
Never had to do that before.
A 1099 is for INCOME.
How is it that when I use my taxable income to buy an item, then at a later date, I sell that item that it now becomes income.....again???
Profit or loss would be setup as a business. I'm not a business.
This is just more tyrannical double dipping by the cartel known as the IRS and initiated by their thugs AKA the govt.
For instance: Say I make 100 grand last year and buy a bunch of stuff AFTER TAXES with my money. Then this year I lose my job. I sell some of my stuff for say, 30 grand to pay my bills. I already paid taxes on that 30 grand from the previous year. Now, that's considered INCOME?
No, that is THEFT by the IRS and govt!


----------



## middy

Again, only profit is considered income. If you buy an amp for $300 and sell it for $400, your income is $100.


----------



## Bull Rock

Yeah, I think reverb and ebay aren't on my use list anymore. It's trickling into canada as well. Also they are trying to get rid of physical cash too soon. All your bank card and etransfer and PayPal is now monitored. I got a message from paypal about them reporting eveything now. The bosses want more cut. When you get paid, go take out all the cash you can and run on cash.


----------



## Michael Roe

middy said:


> Again, only profit is considered income. If you buy an amp for $300 and sell it for $400, your income is $100.


Businesses make profit, an individual who gets an income is not a business. I know what a business is, I have owned several. Profit from a business is taxable.............income has already been taxed and therefore SHOULD not be considered a Business and taxed AGAIN. Yeah, I know they will do whatever they can to screw us, but the truth is truth......Income is not profit.
If what you are saying is true, then your W-2 box 1 would report your PROFIT but, it reports your wages/income.


----------



## mAx___

This government lowered the threshold for Reverb and eBay to report "income" from $20K to $600 in one single stroke. Say no more.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

while yes, taxes is a political thing, we have to discuss this w/o getting political in partisan fashion.

generic "gov" & such is ok, but naming names & pointing blame towards a group or party not allowed...


----------



## middy

Only profit counts as income.


----------



## Bull Rock

Even that, is none of their business. Good thing classifieds are still around.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

middy said:


> Only profit counts as income.


how do they count profit?

what if I bought a '59 Les Paul used for $500 back in the '60s & now sell it for $500,000?

How would they know what I paid for it, & when? What if it was given to me as a gift?

2nd hand never used to be taxed, until recently, they've been trying to figure out more ways to tax, tax, tax everyone... & then tax you again...

They even want to tax you when you are dead...


----------



## Bull Rock

Lol ridiculous.


----------



## middy

It’s always been taxed. You would probably have been audited if you sold a guitar for $500,000 and didn’t pay taxes. The threshold for reporting used to be like $10,000, now it’s $600. So yeah, it’s a money grab on taxes everyone has been ignoring forever.


----------



## Michael Roe

Anit-government, Anti-IRS and Anti-Taxes
That's not politics.....that's just American


----------



## junk notes

More and more people slowly finding out someone's in their pockets. Starting to annoy people..
(I had posted in "Afterhours")


----------



## middy

Michael Roe said:


> Anit-government, Anti-IRS and Anti-Taxes
> That's not politics.....that's just American


Since that’s how we pay for a 729 billion dollar military budget, does that make you anti military, too?


----------



## Michael Roe

middy said:


> Since that’s how we pay for a 729 billion dollar military budget, does that make you anti military, too?


Yes, but I'm Anti a lot of things.....just not Anti-CHr..........


----------



## DaDoc

They're going to rip you off in every possible way they can..And without sounding partisan, it's been getting bad over the past year or so, and is going to get MUCH worse I'm afraid.

The thing that pisses me off the most is when I see what my tax dollars are going to and paying for, as well the miserable excuses for human beings who are making a damned good living off of them, the same ones who are trying 24/7 to figure out ways of getting more..


----------



## Obi Plexi-nobi

Dogs of Doom said:


> They even want to tax you when you are dead...


I think The Beatles had a song about that..!


----------



## middy

The worst are the welfare pickup princes in Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc. 









						Most & Least Independent States
					






					wallethub.com


----------



## Matthews Guitars

It's not new and it's not eBay doing something they aren't required to do by law. 

Blame the leftist congressmen (and a few on the right as well) who just can't resist stealing money from your pocket. 

I've been in that system for a while now. And...don't ask me why, but they haven't sent me any forms and when I checked it says that I'm not due to get any. 

That doesn't really make any sense, I have all the activity reports on my activitiy for all the many years I've been on ebay. I actually have all my ducks in a row, neatly labelled, and feathers numbered for just such an emergency. Actually figuring my taxes would take minutes. Subtract Exhibits 13 thru 24 from Exhibits 1 thru 12, total them up, do a litttle math, write down a few numbers...easy. 

But if they're not sending me those forms....and say they don't have any for me...then I'm not under any obligation to create my own. I must trust that they know what they are doing.


----------



## Tatzmann

They go down. Amazon strikes.
G-List and euro equivalents will
follow.

You will consume chinese crap!


----------



## Bull Rock

Ahhh the good old days


----------



## MarshallDog

middy said:


> Again, only profit is considered income. If you buy an amp for $300 and sell it for $400, your income is $100.


How are they gonna know this! Most of the time one buys an amp for lets say 1000.00 and then a few years later you sell it for 700.00. Can Sellers report losses??? This is BS!


----------



## MarshallDog

Dogs of Doom said:


> how do they count profit?
> 
> what if I bought a '59 Les Paul used for $500 back in the '60s & now sell it for $500,000?
> 
> How would they know what I paid for it, & when? What if it was given to me as a gift?
> 
> 2nd hand never used to be taxed, until recently, they've been trying to figure out more ways to tax, tax, tax everyone... & then tax you again...
> 
> They even want to tax you when you are dead...


And most of the time if you sell something on eBay you are lucky if you even break even after paying shipping fees, add fees, packaging fees and eBay selling percentages! Seriously!


----------



## Bull Rock

Electronic transactions. Reportable. Trackable. Permanent records. Good times ahead.


----------



## Matthews Guitars

There's a supplemental form you file which declares your profit and loss. In my case I have solid records of my activity. I have two kinds of sales I do, one of my personally owned stuff, and the other is consignment/partnership sales I do with a partner. We have a very detailed accounting procedure set up which makes it easy for me to know exactly whom earned what. I only have to refer to those reports and I know my exact profit/loss status for those. 

For the stuff that's from my own stash, I just run through the list, write down my cost vs. sale price, do a little math, repeat until done. Do it a month at a time so it doesn't get overwhelming. It works out that most of my personally owned things get sold at a loss which offsets rs the profit made off the consignment sales so I end up owing little if anything. Just enough to pay my expenses is typically what I'm left with. This is verified easily enough by looking at my bank statements. 

ebay is a hobby for me that gives me the opportunity to trade gear and earn gas money. Really that's about al I get out of it.


----------



## Springfield Scooter

So if you buy an amplifier for lets say $1000, and sell it 5 years latter for $800, in reality its a $200 loss.....

Are you then able to subtract the $200 loss, from already reported income?


----------



## Michael Roe

MarshallDog said:


> How are they gonna know this! Most of the time one buys an amp for lets say 1000.00 and then a few years later you sell it for 700.00. Can Sellers report losses??? This is BS!


Yes, this is my point. If you consider my income, that was already taxed, as a "Profit" then why can't I consider my income that was taxed a "loss". For instance: Let's say my household bills totaled 30 grand last year. Then, this year BECAUSE of inflation those same bills totaled 40 grand. Why can't I then say that I had a 10 grand loss??? I can do that if I were a business but not as an individual. 
Oh wait, I keep forgetting the rules are...............Heads I win, Tails you lose, BS!


----------



## MarshallDog

Maybe this new form that ebay is doing is just for ebay business/store? I cant see how this could possibly work for an indiviual that sells a few used items every year, like a used guitar, a kitchen faucet, used clothes, etc. How can the government prove what you bought a guitar 2-5 years ago for and what you made BUT most likely lost. I dont think I have ever sold and amp, guitar or pedal for more than I bought it for then subtract ebay fees, PayPal fees and then shipping and packaging cost...its a loss. This is all BS!


----------



## fitz

MarshallDog said:


> How can the government prove what you bought a guitar 2-5 years ago for and what you made BUT most likely lost.


Short answer, they don't - and you only would if audited.
I'm an accountant, but not a CPA.
I've also worked as a 1099 subcontractor consultant in the past.
1099 income is not the same as W-2 wage income.
You DO report costs along with income associated with 1099 earnings.
I used to write-off computers, home office, supplies and travel expenses against the 1099 money I made.
What you report as costs is up to you, but if you have a record of transactions, it shouldn't be too difficult.
I've never paid cash in a parking lot for an amp, so I could look up my GC, Reverb, Ebay, etc. cost and offset probably more than the 1099 sale amount.
It all goes on some sub-schedule form and winds up as a line item +/- on your 1040.
With the new standard deductions, whether you'll owe anything depends on a lot of other factors in how and where you make the rest of your money.
Consult a CPA if you really want to know how this might effect your taxes.

Congratulations, we are all gear merchants now.


----------



## jmp45

I'm betting Craigs will be the place to do deals.


----------



## lespaul339

I'm glad I moved all the gear I wanted to move when I did. I've been done selling on eBay and reverb for a while now. Not going to give my social to either one of them. Things just keep changing for the worse.


----------



## StrummerJoe

What a shit show.


----------



## jmp45

The ultimate goal is you will own nothing and you will be happy.. Heard that somewhere


----------



## lespaul339

We're honestly probably not too far away from everything requiring a facial recognition or finger print scan.


----------



## MarshallDog

fitz288 said:


> Short answer, they don't - and you only would if audited.
> I'm an accountant, but not a CPA.
> I've also worked as a 1099 subcontractor consultant in the past.
> 1099 income is not the same as W-2 wage income.
> You DO report costs along with income associated with 1099 earnings.
> I used to write-off computers, home office, supplies and travel expenses against the 1099 money I made.
> What you report as costs is up to you, but if you have a record of transactions, it shouldn't be too difficult.
> I've never paid cash in a parking lot for an amp, so I could look up my GC, Reverb, Ebay, etc. cost and offset probably more than the 1099 sale amount.
> It all goes on some sub-schedule form and winds up as a line item +/- on your 1040.
> With the new standard deductions, whether you'll owe anything depends on a lot of other factors in how and where you make the rest of your money.
> Consult a CPA if you really want to know how this might effect your taxes.
> 
> Congratulations, we are all gear merchants now.


Thanks for the info!! Well, I cant remember what I paid for most gear, maybe ball parks! So if I sell a guitar or amp on ebay and I bought the guitar on ebay, I would have to search past ebay sales to determine if what I sold it for after fees and shipping and report that IF I made 150.00 bucks?? Now I'm afraid to occasionally sell on the big websites...I HATE this current money grabbing Admin that we have WTF!


----------



## MarshallDog

lespaul339 said:


> We're honestly probably not too far away from everything requiring a facial recognition or finger print scan.


Or a chip being implanted in your arm or neck!


----------



## MarshallDog

Next these SOB's will be going after the occasional annual garage sellers...wtf!!! I starting to be glad I'm 55 and at best got 30 years left, after that, well I just dont care "they" can deal with what "they' made happen and live with it!

And the sad part is that no matter how much "they" bring in in tax dollars, it will never ever be enough and that is just F'd up!


----------



## MarshallDog

One last thought...this BS is going to make sales deals and trade deals at GC look really inviting, who needs the BS!?


----------



## MarshallDog

So I just logged into ebay and spent 10 plus minutes trying to find a list of what I have sold. I have not sold anything in probably at least a year and I couldn't even find any info on items I have sold a year or a year ago...whatever! Cant even find anything I have sold prior to 2020, they dont give you the option.

So if "they" can tax us on profit, can we claim deductions on losses, yeah right, dirty Bast-rds!


----------



## fitz

MarshallDog said:


> Well, I cant remember what I paid for most gear, maybe ball parks!


This brings up an interesting question. (standby for accounting geek mumbo-jumbo)
Part of determining "Cost of Goods Sold" is your inventory valuation method.
Say you bought a guitar in the 60's for $200 and now it's "valued" at $5,000 (assume there is justification for this).
If you sell it for $4,000, is that a $3,800 profit or a $1,000 loss?
If we are all now gear merchants with inventory to sell, how is current inventory value determined if it was unreported last year?
Again, I'd check with a CPA, but this could actually start to bite them in the ass if they think everyone is going to wind up paying income taxes on "profit" from used gear sales.
Just speculation, but this could just as easily be a great tax loophole...


----------



## FennRx

Taxation is theft. The fed printed 80% of all USD from 2020 to today. 

Taxes? Lol


----------



## Bull Rock

How about they stop printing money and giving it away to anything and everything and open up oil and bring the jobs back. They can take a pay cut too, how bout dat.


----------



## fitz

Ok, my accounting brain is on a roll.
Here's a REAL example with some gear I have receipts for - no speculation or valuation voodoo.

I paid $830 for an amp/cab rig about a year and a half ago.
Current value new is $1,760 (holy $#!+...)
Anyway, if GC could sell my trade in for 75% of new that's $1,320.
If they give me 50% of that on a trade in, I'd get $660 - and a 1099-K.
So I report my 1099-K sale for $660 on my Schedule C with a cost of goods sold at $830.
That's a $170 LOSS.

If I make between $41,775 and $89,0875, that puts me in a 22% federal tax bracket.
So my $170 gear merchant loss equates to about $37.40 less net tax I owe, or additional refund I get back on my 1040.


----------



## Bull Rock

I think the gist of it is...you sell something, it's income. They want their cut. So you made 5 grand last month working...and sold some gear for 1000. You made 6000 not 5000...pay the taxes mfs. ?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Bull Rock said:


> I think the gist of it is...you sell something, it's income. They want their cut. So you made 5 grand last month working...and sold some gear for 1000. You made 6000 not 5000...pay the taxes mfs. ?


yep...

in CA, let's say, your Father gives you $500 for a birthday gift. The state wants you to declare that as income, because they count it as "*incoming*" funds. Not earnings, but income...

Any money coming in to your pocket, is income...


----------



## Michael Roe

Well, since we are now individual "businesses", then I can start deducting my miles driven to work., my clothes, work shoes, oh and my occasional taking the boss to lunch (entertainment), my cell phone bill, a % of my utilities, etc, etc.


----------



## Bull Rock

That's messed up. Take a hike


----------



## Bull Rock

Here's the new rules as of Jan 1 2022...


----------



## fitz

Bull Rock said:


> I think the gist of it is...you sell something, it's income. They want their cut. So you made 5 grand last month working...and sold some gear for 1000. You made 6000 not 5000...pay the taxes mfs. ?


(sigh)


Michael Roe said:


> Well, since we are now individual "businesses", then I can start deducting my miles driven to work., my clothes, work shoes, oh and my occasional taking the boss to lunch (entertainment), my cell phone bill, a % of my utilities, etc, etc.


You have ALWAYS been able to do that.
BUT, the new higher standard deduction usually is way more than itemizing.

nevermind....


----------



## Michael Roe

Bull Rock said:


> Here's the new rules as of Jan 1 2022...
> 
> View attachment 105416
> View attachment 105417


Notice the part that says "generally not subject to income tax". 
How will they interpret that?


----------



## Michael Roe

fitz288 said:


> (sigh)
> 
> You have ALWAYS been able to do that.
> BUT, the new higher standard deduction usually is way more than itemizing.
> 
> nevermind....


With a business, there is no standard deduction. Obviously you could itemize but what average employee could ever make that worth their while?
I think maybe the best thing to do is.....if you get a 1099-K....just trash it!
I have a musician friend who is about 48 years old. He has always worked for employers and has NEVER filed taxes of any kind and even pays child support. He has never been audited. Of course, he has never gotten a car or home loan..........
Really makes me wonder if the conspiracy rumors are true.....It really is just voluntary.


----------



## fitz

Michael Roe said:


> I think maybe the best thing to do is.....if you get a 1099-K....just trash it!
> I have a musician friend who is about 48 years old. He has always worked for employers and has NEVER filed taxes of any kind and even pays child support. He has never been audited. Of course, he has never gotten a car or home loan..........
> Really makes me wonder if the conspiracy rumors are true.....It really is just voluntary.


Solid plan. 
Just go with that.


----------



## middy

fitz288 said:


> Ok, my accounting brain is on a roll.
> Here's a REAL example with some gear I have receipts for - no speculation or valuation voodoo.
> 
> I paid $830 for an amp/cab rig about a year and a half ago.
> Current value new is $1,760 (holy $#!+...)
> Anyway, if GC could sell my trade in for 75% of new that's $1,320.
> If they give me 50% of that on a trade in, I'd get $660 - and a 1099-K.
> So I report my 1099-K sale for $660 on my Schedule C with a cost of goods sold at $830.
> That's a $170 LOSS.
> 
> If I make between $41,775 and $89,0875, that puts me in a 22% federal tax bracket.
> So my $170 gear merchant loss equates to about $37.40 less net tax I owe, or additional refund I get back on my 1040.


Wait, wait, wait. How am I supposed to be angry when you keep throwing facts at me?


----------



## Gunner64

Don't them a holes tax the shipping charges too? Shipping should be seperate from any sales tax. They tax shipping, then we pay taxes on shipping again when we pay fedex, or ups to send the item.


----------



## fitz

middy said:


> Wait, wait, wait. How am I supposed to be angry when you keep throwing facts at me?


Wait, wait, wait. You read my posts and comprehended them?


----------



## LPMarshall hack

Guys, how the hell else are we supposed to pay for the Green New Deal?


----------



## Michael Roe

LPMarshall hack said:


> Guys, how the hell else are we supposed to pay for the Green New Deal?


Just tax pot!


----------



## Bull Rock

The green new deal is no deal lol.


----------



## DaDoc

Well folks y'know..

November's only seven months away..Choose wisely.


----------



## DaDoc

Michael Roe said:


> Just tax pot!


 They already do, and they're raking in millions off the taxes on it, but still refuse to change the status and decriminalize it ..What an utterly twisted, hypocritical system we have right now.


----------



## DaDoc

Dogs of Doom said:


> yep...
> 
> in CA, let's say, your Father gives you $500 for a birthday gift. The state wants you to declare that as income, because they count it as "*incoming*" funds. Not earnings, but income...
> 
> Any money coming in to your pocket, is income...



And they wonder why people and businesses are moving away from the golden state in droves..

It's sad really, I can still remember when it was everyone's dream to move there.


----------



## Matthews Guitars

eBay may send you a 1099K but it's up to you to do the math and determine what your actual profit and loss is. Depending on the quality of your documentation you may have quite a lot of leeway to determine that you actually didn't make enough to get taxed on. There is an "honor system" in effect here, essentially. 

I sold one specific item, an amplifier, for 700 bucks....but I remember buying it for 550 and then put 110 bucks in tubes into it and I paid the shipping costs and ebay fees that totalled 97 dollars so I actually lost 7 bucks on it. So I'm not paying taxes on that! 

That's an example. And an honest one. 

And...know what is deductible. All my expenses involved in keeping my shop open at the time were deductible. 


Don't freak out over it. If your expenses are like mine you'll find that when you're done doing all the figures, it'll barely affect your tax status.


----------



## PelliX

Couldn't resist. And yes, I know the original was by the Beatles. And yes, I like the Beatles. Still prefer Stevie's version of this one. 

To the point in question, I believe in taxation, but specific (and sane) taxation in sane amounts. Council tax makes sense to me, presuming that it is spent in a halfways decent manner. Road tax makes sense. VAT on food is debatable, certainly at the levels we pay in Europe. Luxury tax on specific items also makes little sense - people who live with 'luxury items' (take cars here in the Netherlands, for example) are putting that money fairly in the hands of the business selling the items, which is good for the economy. Income tax seems like a reasonable idea on paper at first, but originates from socialism (or feudalism if you go further back in time, etc). That doesn't make the concept invalid, but it's a component intended to be part of a bigger mechanism - you can't just pick what you like and don't like (well, entities do that, but it's not really just, eh). Carbon tax is just a rip-off scheme based on nothing except the wish or some to line their pockets with my (or your) money. 

I'm not an economist, but I sincerely believe that one of the first key steps to getting our economies back 'into shape' is to cut taxation of small and medium size businesses and essential expenditures. This in turn would/should/could reduce unemployment (because it becomes less expensive to hire people and businesses can expect more sales) and slowly the goverment spending could be a reduced a bit - essentially requiring less taxation in the first place. Tax is nothing else than the money the government needs to operate and ensure the services are present that the people have (more or less) agreed on demanding. Think playgrounds, decent roads, a fire brigade, police, etc, etc, etc. 

OK, enough. Just enjoy SRV.


----------



## middy

PelliX said:


> Couldn't resist. And yes, I know the original was by the Beatles. And yes, I like the Beatles. Still prefer Stevie's version of this one.
> 
> To the point in question, I believe in taxation, but specific (and sane) taxation in sane amounts. Council tax makes sense to me, presuming that it is spent in a halfways decent manner. Road tax makes sense. VAT on food is debatable, certainly at the levels we pay in Europe. Luxury tax on specific items also makes little sense - people who live with 'luxury items' (take cars here in the Netherlands, for example) are putting that money fairly in the hands of the business selling the items, which is good for the economy. Income tax seems like a reasonable idea on paper at first, but originates from socialism (or feudalism if you go further back in time, etc). That doesn't make the concept invalid, but it's a component intended to be part of a bigger mechanism - you can't just pick what you like and don't like (well, entities do that, but it's not really just, eh). Carbon tax is just a rip-off scheme based on nothing except the wish or some to line their pockets with my (or your) money.
> 
> I'm not an economist, but I sincerely believe that one of the first key steps to getting our economies back 'into shape' is to cut taxation of small and medium size businesses and essential expenditures. This in turn would/should/could reduce unemployment (because it becomes less expensive to hire people and businesses can expect more sales) and slowly the goverment spending could be a reduced a bit - essentially requiring less taxation in the first place. Tax is nothing else than the money the government needs to operate and ensure the services are present that the people have (more or less) agreed on demanding. Think playgrounds, decent roads, a fire brigade, police, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> OK, enough. Just enjoy SRV.



Unemployment is super low right now.


----------



## Bull Rock

This is from 2010...average household income of 74000...and it kinda did ok. Compare that to today. Ugh

Summed up, the average Canadian family faced a tax bill of $29,913 in 2010 against income of $72,393. That means 41.3 per cent of the familys budget went to paying for government. For perspective, 34.0 per cent of the budget went to paying for the necessities of life (food, clothing, and shelter). Indeed, the total tax bill has grown to the point where families are now paying more in taxes that they do for basic necessities.

But it doesnt end there. Most federal and provincial governments are running budget deficits, meaning that current taxes are not sufficient to cover current government spending. By running substantial budget deficits, Canadian governments of today are putting off tax bills that will inevitably come due. Including deferred taxation (deficits) in the familys total tax bill raises the bills total to $33,275. So, Canadian families are facing a future tax bill of an additional $3,362.


----------



## PelliX

middy said:


> Unemployment is super low right now.



Differs depending on where you live, sure. Creative definitions of unemployment help paint a prettier picture in most places, though. I'm not sure where you're located, but over here just the covid legislation has resulted in mass closure of businesses, unemployment and full-timers being shifted to part-time employment, etc. Note how business owners who had to close shop, full-time-now-part-timers or part-timers-now-without-a-job and so on are not counted as un-/underemployed (at least over here in the general stats).

In addition, if we assume that unemployment is not an issue for argument's sake, lowering tax for small/medium businesses helps to inch the standard of living up for the working classes. The point I'm trying to make is not that "everybody should be well off", but rather that more money in the pockets of the average Joe is an excellent thing for the economy. I'm very happy that there are a lot of people who are a damn sight richer than I am. Would I like to have their bank account's content mirrored on to mine? Let's be honest, who wouldn't - but they keep the economy rolling, too. Just to take a cheesy example, if "spoiled brats" (I said cheesy, right) didn't keep buying expensive gear, that gear would be even more expensive for when "sensible people" or "professionals" wished to purchase it. The more people casually stroll in Joe's Guitar every day and walk out with new gear, the more jobs they are creating and the more profit Joe has. Ideally, Joe's business would grow a bit, and his employees would notice that in a positive way. Maybe Joe is a sadistic stingy bastard, too - can't rule that out, either, I guess.


----------



## Matthews Guitars

I support a national flat tax of exactly 10 percent and everybody pays, without exception, from lowest income level to highest income level.

And I support legislation that would force government to keep a balanced budget and not spend more than its revenue.

Government should be kept on a short leash, and never funded to such an extent that it can spend any money on wasteful and frivolous programs.

Money raised as a consequence of selling personally owned used items, even if you made a profit on them, should always be exempt from taxation.

As for how unemployment is counted, yes that can be the subject of some degree of creativity. Such as only counting those who have filed for unemployment as unemployed. I'm not working for anybody but me so technically I am unemployed, and in reality I'm unemployed, but I'm sure I'm not counted in the unemployment figures because I'm not actively seeking work. Yet I would take a job offer if it's good enough and suits my skills and talents.


----------



## Joesatch

i sell a ton of used gear and always for less than i paid. Ebay's 1099 is going in the trash when they send it


----------



## fitz

Joesatch said:


> i sell a ton of used gear and always for less than i paid. Ebay's 1099 is going in the trash when they send it


Ya know, they send out *2* copies of your 1099.
You get one.
Guess who gets the other one...

Just throw you W-2 in the trash, no one will ever know.


----------



## Matthews Guitars

Yeah, don't trash it. The IRS gets a copy. You just use the Schedule C form. Report your profit as zero and that's that.


----------



## middy

PelliX said:


> In addition, if we assume that unemployment is not an issue for argument's sake, lowering tax for small/medium businesses helps to inch the standard of living up for the working classes.


No, it doesn’t. They’ll continue to pay as little as possible and pocket the difference.


----------



## MarshallDog

middy said:


> Unemployment is super low right now.


Yeah because people can live off hand outs just as good as having a low paying job…the numbers are fake just like many other things in this County! I know a few people that do just this, it’s pathetic!


----------



## middy

MarshallDog said:


> Yeah because people can live off hand outs just as good as having a low paying job…the numbers are fake just like many other things in this County! I know a few people that do just this, it’s pathetic!


Maybe the jobs should pay enough to attract workers. The free market works both ways.
Nobody gets paid for laying around. You have to be actively looking for work and the benefits run out.


----------



## Marshall Stack

Matthews Guitars said:


> I support a national flat tax of exactly 10 percent and everybody pays, without exception, from lowest income level to highest income level.
> 
> And I support legislation that would force government to keep a balanced budget and not spend more than its revenue.
> 
> Government should be kept on a short leash, and never funded to such an extent that it can spend any money on wasteful and frivolous programs.
> 
> Money raised as a consequence of selling personally owned used items, even if you made a profit on them, should always be exempt from taxation.
> 
> As for how unemployment is counted, yes that can be the subject of some degree of creativity. Such as only counting those who have filed for unemployment as unemployed. I'm not working for anybody but me so technically I am unemployed, and in reality I'm unemployed, but I'm sure I'm not counted in the unemployment figures because I'm not actively seeking work. Yet I would take a job offer if it's good enough and suits my skills and talents.


I agree with you on the flat tax but opponents will say it is regressive and charities will not get as much since people can't write it off so there is that..

People keep saying that the rich aren't paying their fair share but the top 1% income earners in 2020 paid 28% of all taxes. The top 20% pay 78% of all taxes. I'm not rich but people really need to think who pays for our highways and aircraft carriers. It isn't the lower income people. 40% of the people don't even pay tax. It doesn't makes sense to me. 









61% of Americans paid no federal income taxes in 2020, Tax Policy Center says


The Tax Policy Center said 107 million households, or 61% of taxpayers, owed no income taxes in 2020. That's up from 76 million, or 44% of taxpayers, in 2019.




www.cnbc.com


----------



## middy

Marshall Stack said:


> I agree with you on the flat tax but opponents will say it is regressive and charities will not get as much since people can't write it off so there is that..
> 
> People keep saying that the rich aren't paying their fair share but the top 1% income earners in 2020 paid 28% of all taxes. The top 20% pay 78% of all taxes. I'm not rich but people really need to think who pays for our highways and aircraft carriers. It isn't the lower income people. 40% of the people don't even pay tax. It doesn't makes sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 61% of Americans paid no federal income taxes in 2020, Tax Policy Center says
> 
> 
> The Tax Policy Center said 107 million households, or 61% of taxpayers, owed no income taxes in 2020. That's up from 76 million, or 44% of taxpayers, in 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


But after all the tax breaks, avoidance schemes, and creative accounting, the top earners often pay a smaller percentage of their earnings than the middle class.
The middle class has been looted since the 70s while the rich get richer.


----------



## RICHIE GRIMES

If you are interested in reading it, I will leave you with a few comments from those who set us on our original course in regards to principles of governing.

*George Washington - Toward the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.*

John Adams - *There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. ... .... The way to secure liberty is to place it in the people's hands, that is, to give them the power at all times to defend it in the legislature and in the courts of justice. .... Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. . ... . ..... A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. 

Thomas Jefferson - I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.. . . .... I, however place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. . . . ... To constrain the brute force of the people, the European governments deem it necessary to keep them down by hard labor, poverty and ignorance, and to take from them, as from bees, so much of their earnings, as that unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a sufficient surplus to sustain a scanty and miserable life. . . . ... I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. . . . ... On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. . . . .... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. . . . . . . . .The path we have to pursue is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature. A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. . . ... . . . .. With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens,—A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. .. . . .When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe. .. . .*
*An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by others.*​
*James Madison - - Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. . . . . 
Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad. . . . . . . Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. . . . . . The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. . . . I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. . . . . . . It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. . . . . The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. . . . . If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction. .. . . . . . The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. . . . . . . With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. . . . . . . Those who proposed the Constitution knew, and those who ratified the Constitution also knew that this is . . . a limited government tied down to specified powers. . . . It was never supposed or suspected that the old Congress could give away the money of the states to encourage agriculture or for any other purpose they pleased. . . . . . ... To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.*


----------



## Matthews Guitars

In any JUST system, once you get above a certain net income, you're going to just keep getting richer and richer unless you're stupid or you are hit with additional taxes that exist only to penalize you for being a better than average player at the game of capitalism. 

Let's play a quick game: Hypothetical scenario: I invest, and always have. I sock away money in mutual funds that consistently outperform the DJIA day after day, month after month, year after year. At some point my investment crosses the magic million dollar valuation line and I'm earning 12 percent average yearly return, based on the last decade's performance. And I'm still working a job and being careful about what I spend and have literally been able to live without needing the money I've been investing. 

But now I've reached retirement age and have to consider using my investments as my retirement income since nobody else is paying my retirement. It's self funded, or there simply is none. 

I've grown used to living on substantially less than 120,000 dollars a year. More like half that. So....while I made a return of 120K off the funds this year, I can live on half that return, and let the other 60K stay in the fund to grow it and increase its value and its earning power. Assuming things hold steady and I am able to continue to earn 12 percent for the foreseeable future, my investment earnings are starting to take off even though my expenses really aren't. 

Let me run a few years' worth of investment income:
Year 1: Starting Valuation: 1 million. Growth of portfolio: 120,000. Take out 60,000 for living expenses. Portfoliio still has a 6 percent increase after expenses taken out.

Year 2: Starting Valuation 1,060,000. Growth: 127,200. New total: 1,187,200. Take out 60K expenses, year end valuation 1,127,200. \

Year 3, growth is 135,264, giving a valuation of 1,262,464, 0r 1,202,464 after expenses. 

Year 4, growth is 144,295. giving a valuation of 1,346,760. Or 1,286,760 after expenses. 

In year 5, growth alone is 154,411, giving a valuation of 1,441,170, 

Beyond this point, assuming a constant average of 12 percent yield, growth in valuation is increasing by MORE than 10,000 dollars per year and getting bigger wtih every passing year. 

If you didn't take out the 60K, it only takes 8 years for the million dollar fund to grow past 2 million dollars. 

Why should anyone be penalized for having good investment growth that only makes him richer? I certainly don't agree with any kind of penalty for being good with your money!


----------



## MarshallDog

middy said:


> Maybe the jobs should pay enough to attract workers. The free market works both ways.
> Nobody gets paid for laying around. You have to be actively looking for work and the benefits run out.


 Nope sorry not really, there are those that figure it out and take advantage of it dearly. I have way to many disgusting stories of scums sucking off the system from tax accounts and customers of mine! This system is messed up!


----------



## PelliX

middy said:


> No, it doesn’t. They’ll continue to pay as little as possible and pocket the difference.



Paying as little as possible is what almost everyone does, or do you buy a burger with a $50 note and say keep the change very often? If 'Joe' has more work on his hands than he can handle and could increase turnover/profit by hiring someone to help him out, chances are that he would. That's a job created right there. The person who takes that job will ideally be paying taxes instead of living off them - thus reducing government expenses (yes, this is over simplified, of course, but you get the gist). Think of the economy as a two-stroke engine. Idling at low revs it's at its least efficient. If the wheels aren't turning, it's a complete waste of energy. Ideally, you want as many people as possible earning and spending money.


----------



## South Park

The great thing about the tax system is it is made to be cheated on . This is what the rich have done forever . The system is hard as it should be it keeps the mutants from making it to the top. when the middle class stops being poor and stupid that’s when things will change


----------



## PelliX

South Park said:


> The great thing about the tax system is it is made to be cheated on . This is what the rich have done forever . The system is hard as it should be it keeps the mutants from making it to the top. when the middle class stops being poor and stupid that’s when things will change



In part I agree, but the tax system does not have to be 'hard'. In fact, the obscurity of its ins and outs has in part evolved to camouflage the abuse certain entities and individuals make of it. Here in the Netherlands the tax office has ads on television (I found this hard to believe, but YT'ed and confirmed). Their slogan, adding insult to injury robbery, is "We can't make it more fun, but we can make it easier". I'll admit that filing taxes is a breeze here, but unless you hire a professional (or happen to by knowledgeable in that area), you're screwing yourself over financially.


----------



## South Park

We have a saying hear in the USA . Honest people don’t make money . It is not easy to understand the tax laws . It is something more people should study . The Tax loop holes are thar because if you can’t get a return on your money then why do it . 


PelliX said:


> In part I agree, but the tax system does not have to be 'hard'. In fact, the obscurity of its ins and outs has in part evolved to camouflage the abuse certain entities and individuals make of it. Here in the Netherlands the tax office has ads on television (I found this hard to believe, but YT'ed and confirmed). Their slogan, adding insult to injury robbery, is "We can't make it more fun, but we can make it easier". I'll admit that filing taxes is a breeze here, but unless you hire a professional (or happen to by knowledgeable in that area), you're screwing yourself over financially.


----------



## PelliX

South Park said:


> We have a saying hear in the USA . Honest people don’t make money . It is not easy to understand the tax laws . It is something more people should study . The Tax loop holes are thar because if you can’t get a return on your money then why do it .



I'd like to modernize that saying; Honest people can make money, but the government is increasingly successful at taking it away from them again.....


----------



## Snedge

I wish I could do math like the government for my personal finances.

W-2 wages are BS. If you get a paycheck, and look at the paystub, you'll see what I mean. If you gross 1100.00 a week, the federal government (FICA) takes a percentage out of 1100.00. Okay fine, but then SS takes their cut from 1100.00, then Medicare takes their cut from 1100.00, then state and local take a cut of 1100.00 My point ? Once the Fed. tax is taken from 1100.00, the next tax entity should not have 1100.00 to take a cut from, they should have to take from what's actually there after.


----------



## Matthews Guitars

What's worse is what happens when you work overtime and expect to get a substantial wage boost by doing so. 

But the system takes more out of overtime wages, a LOT more, than out of regular hourly wages up to the first 40 hours per week.
(In the USA, overtime rates kick in after 40 hours per week.) 

It works out that about 45 percent of overtime wages are taken by the government for one reason or another. 

If you make 20 dollars an hour in straight time, your take-home pay will be just 18 dollars an hour while working overtime. 

Of course, your straight time income is taxed, too, but at a lower rate. You can expect to take home 75 percent of your normal hourly wage.

But you can expect to take home just 55 percent of your overtime wage. 

If that's fair, I'm green!


----------



## MarshallDog

Matthews Guitars said:


> What's worse is what happens when you work overtime and expect to get a substantial wage boost by doing so.
> 
> But the system takes more out of overtime wages, a LOT more, than out of regular hourly wages up to the first 40 hours per week.
> (In the USA, overtime rates kick in after 40 hours per week.)
> 
> It works out that about 45 percent of overtime wages are taken by the government for one reason or another.
> 
> If you make 20 dollars an hour in straight time, your take-home pay will be just 18 dollars an hour while working overtime.
> 
> Of course, your straight time income is taxed, too, but at a lower rate. You can expect to take home 75 percent of your normal hourly wage.
> 
> But you can expect to take home just 55 percent of your overtime wage.
> 
> If that's fair, I'm green!


Yup, experienced that many a times at past jobs...really makes someone want to work overtime...the system is so phucked its unreal!


----------



## MarshallDog

So get this, yesterday I go to have our taxes done. Me and my lovely wife make a good buck combined and I wont even tell you how much we pay in taxes!!! Anyway the tax person is doing his work and I see the amount of taxes we paid and make a negative comment about Americas tax system and he says "well I probably shouldn't mention what I saw last week"?! I said, ""please do share". So he goes on to tell me that some woman late 20's early 30's comes in to have her taxes done. She has 3 kids and is single living in an apt. She only made 14000 last year all through unemployment and obviously paid no tax on it. When he was done with her taxes she walked away getting a 20000.00 refund due to the credits for her kids and whatever else, I did not ask. And, she gets food stamps, her apt and utilities are paid for by the the government/tax payers. 

I said give me her name and number because I'm, going to have her work at my house, cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc because I just more than paid for her return many times over...he laughed and said he was equally disgusted.

How can someone get back way more than they paid in (and becasue she has 3 kids is not a reason)...that is just illegal and unjust! If you cant feed them dont bread them simple!


----------



## South Park

the Problem with tax system is wealth is not taxable . Income is taxable so in California you have people who who have a half million dollars house that is paid for and live on 1300 hounded a month And pay no taxes on the half million in the house this is how the rich work the tax system . That welfare queen that you are talking about is a dead end game you will never build wealth on a government hand out 


MarshallDog said:


> So get this, yesterday I go to have our taxes done. Me and my lovely wife make a good buck combined and I wont even tell you how much we pay in taxes!!! Anyway the tax person is doing his work and I see the amount of taxes we paid and make a negative comment about Americas tax system and he says "well I probably shouldn't mention what I saw last week"?! I said, ""please do share". So he goes on to tell me that some woman late 20's early 30's comes in to have her taxes done. She has 3 kids and is single living in an apt. She only made 14000 last year all through unemployment and obviously paid no tax on it. When he was done with her taxes she walked away getting a 20000.00 refund due to the credits for her kids and whatever else, I did not ask. And, she gets food stamps, her apt and utilities are paid for by the the government/tax payers.
> 
> I said give me her name and number because I'm, going to have her work at my house, cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc because I just more than paid for her return many times over...he laughed and said he was equally disgusted.
> 
> How can someone get back way more than they paid in (and becasue she has 3 kids is not a reason)...that is just illegal and unjust! If you cant feed them dont bread them simple!


----------



## middy

Yeah, poor people are the problem. Keep drinking that kool aid.


----------



## Marshall Stack

MarshallDog said:


> So get this, yesterday I go to have our taxes done. Me and my lovely wife make a good buck combined and I wont even tell you how much we pay in taxes!!! Anyway the tax person is doing his work and I see the amount of taxes we paid and make a negative comment about Americas tax system and he says "well I probably shouldn't mention what I saw last week"?! I said, ""please do share". So he goes on to tell me that some woman late 20's early 30's comes in to have her taxes done. She has 3 kids and is single living in an apt. She only made 14000 last year all through unemployment and obviously paid no tax on it. When he was done with her taxes she walked away getting a 20000.00 refund due to the credits for her kids and whatever else, I did not ask. And, she gets food stamps, her apt and utilities are paid for by the the government/tax payers.
> 
> I said give me her name and number because I'm, going to have her work at my house, cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc because I just more than paid for her return many times over...he laughed and said he was equally disgusted.
> 
> How can someone get back way more than they paid in (and becasue she has 3 kids is not a reason)...that is just illegal and unjust! If you cant feed them dont bread them simple!


Yup. The drummer for my last band does the same thing. He had a mild stroke and they had to put a stint in his arm. He is on full disability although he is fully capable and still plays drums. He had a factory job but doesn't work now. He can but won't. He gets money back in taxes though he never pays into it. I know two other people who do the same and work for cash under the table. Again, 40% of the people in the US don't pay taxes but they are the ones asking for handouts from the government. They bitch and moan that the rich need to be taxed more for them. So many people feel entitled. I couldn't do it. I would have no self respect.


----------



## jamvu

They can tax my ass


----------



## Matthews Guitars

Wealth is not taxable, income is. But it's not a PROBLEM that wealth is not taxable. It WOULD be a problem for government to say "You have 5 million dollars. We're taking half." 

Get your hands out of my pocket. There's nothing in it that belongs to you.


----------



## StrummerJoe

Michael Roe said:


> Just tax pot!


I live in Washington, and the tax money from pot hasn't been making a difference in services at all. Kids still need new books, roads still suck.

It's like those taxes and the promises made for them all magically went up in smoke.

Thank God the dispensaries were deemed essential business during the lockdowns though!


----------



## StrummerJoe

jamvu said:


> They can tax my ass


They already do. Every time you buy TP.


----------



## PelliX

Matthews Guitars said:


> Wealth is not taxable, income is. But it's not a PROBLEM that wealth is not taxable. It WOULD be a problem for government to say "You have 5 million dollars. We're taking half."
> 
> Get your hands out of my pocket. There's nothing in it that belongs to you.



This ^. 

If whatever you have is yours and you have come by it legally and lawfully, that's where it stops. If I mustered up the cash to buy a 50 million [insert currency] guitar once in my life, should I pay tax on that annually? What would the government be contributing towards the upkeep of said guitar? If nothing, then why would I suddenly owe them money (after the transaction with the seller was presumably taxed in the first place)? It seems to me that a lot of people would like to 'improve' the tax system to become more extensive or to penalize specific groups, while I believe one should do the opposite. Simplify it, make it more transparent and I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of flat taxes like others here have suggested...


----------



## MarshallDog

Marshall Stack said:


> Yup. The drummer for my last band does the same thing. He had a mild stroke and they had to put a stint in his arm. He is on full disability although he is fully capable and still plays drums. He had a factory job but doesn't work now. He can but won't. He gets money back in taxes though he never pays into it. I know two other people who do the same and work for cash under the table. Again, 40% of the people in the US don't pay taxes but they are the ones asking for handouts from the government. They bitch and moan that the rich need to be taxed more for them. So many people feel entitled. I couldn't do it. I would have no self respect.



And he can still play drums...he needs to be turned in!


----------



## MarshallDog

middy said:


> Yeah, poor people are the problem. Keep drinking that kool aid.


"Poor" scums that suck off the system are the problems just like the rich that can pay big time Lawyers to take advantage of the tax laws that their Buddy politicians put in place for them are also the problem...soo have a bid gulp or that blue Kool-aid Buddy!


----------



## Marshall Stack

Do you guys have to pay property tax in your state? We do and they keep coming out to assess the value so they can keep raising it. 

Why do we let the government run itself into debt? Why can't they balance the budget? They need to start slashing stuff that isn't necessary for government like PBS, NPR, Endowment for the Arts and all the pork barrel projects. If people really knew what is in the bills they pass they could stop it then. We are giving money for gender studies in Pakistan. I'm not making that up. Why do we send so much aid to countries that hate us?

I also think we should have to write a check for our taxes once a week. Then people would realize how much they are giving and would start questioning the money they give to the government.


----------



## South Park

the reason for government hand outs is the government can collect more then it gives out to fund ether things that don’t show up on the budget . When you see things like gender studies in Pakistan some government worker put that in some budget to see if some one is looking at it the money is thar for it but it is not spent .


----------



## Matthews Guitars

If people were really thinking, we'd only elect people whose first agenda item is to abolish property taxes entirely.

Property taxes are the means by which government can "legally" confiscate land you bought and paid for in full. Just fail to pay the property taxes long enough,
and they kick you off it and sell it to somebody else. 

That alone is adequate justification for revolution and overthrow of every government that uses property taxation.


----------



## MarshallDog

Matthews Guitars said:


> If people were really thinking, we'd only elect people whose first agenda item is to abolish property taxes entirely.
> 
> Property taxes are the means by which government can "legally" confiscate land you bought and paid for in full. Just fail to pay the property taxes long enough,
> and they kick you off it and sell it to somebody else.
> 
> That alone is adequate justification for revolution and overthrow of every government that uses property taxation.


Well, great thinking but that will never happen, people that vote are too stupid, just look at the way the majority votes!!


----------



## MarshallDog

Marshall Stack said:


> Do you guys have to pay property tax in your state? We do and they keep coming out to assess the value so they can keep raising it.
> 
> Why do we let the government run itself into debt? Why can't they balance the budget? They need to start slashing stuff that isn't necessary for government like PBS, NPR, Endowment for the Arts and all the pork barrel projects. If people really knew what is in the bills they pass they could stop it then. We are giving money for gender studies in Pakistan. I'm not making that up. Why do we send so much aid to countries that hate us?
> 
> I also think we should have to write a check for our taxes once a week. Then people would realize how much they are giving and would start questioning the money they give to the government.


Oh I live in NYS and yes we do pay a lot in property tax and the state is still broke and run by retards/idiots...ugh!


----------



## Calebz

You guys want to add a layer of fun to the whole process?

Try being an American citizen, living outside the US, with 100% of your assets and income coming from foreign sources.

You haven't lived until you've tried it.

Oh - and I also pay a fuckload of taxes to the municipality and country I reside in. 

I'm not going to get into how I feel about the actual tax money. This isn't the place. It would trigger entirely too many of you

I will say one thing though. I freaking hate paperwork. Paying taxes in 2 countries is an absolute assload of paperwork.


----------



## Obi Plexi-nobi

Matthews Guitars said:


> If people were really thinking, we'd only elect people whose first agenda item is to abolish property taxes entirely.
> 
> Property taxes are the means by which government can "legally" confiscate land you bought and paid for in full. Just fail to pay the property taxes long enough,
> and they kick you off it and sell it to somebody else.
> 
> That alone is adequate justification for revolution and overthrow of every government that uses property taxation.



Taxation is SLAVERY. We used it during the Empire to weaken planets before subjugating them using arms purchased with their own money taken through taxation.


----------



## MarshallDog

Obi Plexi-nobi said:


> Taxation is SLAVERY. We used it during the Empire to weaken planets before subjugating them using arms purchased with their own money taken through taxation.


And I thought slavery was illegal, unjust and inhumane?


----------



## PelliX

Calebz said:


> You guys want to add a layer of fun to the whole process?
> 
> Try being an American citizen, living outside the US, with 100% of your assets and income coming from foreign sources.
> 
> You haven't lived until you've tried it.
> 
> Oh - and I also pay a fuckload of taxes to the municipality and country I reside in.
> 
> I'm not going to get into how I feel about the actual tax money. This isn't the place. It would trigger entirely too many of you
> 
> I will say one thing though. I freaking hate paperwork. Paying taxes in 2 countries is an absolute assload of paperwork.



I can imagine, I think. Try living in one country and working in another. In my case these were two EU member states, while I'm British (then also an EU member). Now I live and work in the Netherlands. Fine, but I have to pay into a pension plan that I'm not entitled to, when/if that time comes. Kafka would have had a field day...


----------



## Calebz

PelliX said:


> I can imagine, I think. Try living in one country and working in another. In my case these were two EU member states, while I'm British (then also an EU member). Now I live and work in the Netherlands. Fine, but I have to pay into a pension plan that I'm not entitled to, when/if that time comes. Kafka would have had a field day...


I'm actually faced with the living in one EU country and working in another thing currently - but not for me. One of the girls that works for me moved to another EU country a year or two ago. We don't have an office in the country she's in. After a couple years, local and EU regs are making it complicated to keep her working under a legal contract without a massive tax hit to the company (and probably to her too).

Being an expert in EU/international employment contracts/taxes is way outside the scope of my training and experience


----------



## MarshallDog

So regarding ebays BS due to the Governments BS this is what my Accountant said is the best way to handle this.

Lest say I bought a new Gibson Les Paul Standard 6 years ago and it cost me 2500.00 free shipping. Maybe I have the original receipt maybe I dont but it does not matter. I now sell it on ebay for lets say 2000.00 because that is what the market will allow for. Now you have approximately 13% total fees (ebay add fees, ebat percent of sale fee, Paypal cost, shipping cost and even packaging costs along with mileage cost to take it to the shipper). He said keep all this documentation. When tax time comes the fair market value of the guitar was 2000.00 dollars and now we subtract all these other fees totaling lets say about 300.00 bucks. Well, you just lost money and that is what will be reported. So it wont cost you any additional income fees because you lost money right off the top.

Now if you bought some rare guitar or amp years ago and its now worth 10 times what you paid that may be another story especially if there are electronic records of the sale but then again I believe this tax from reporting is mainly for ebays on line stores that are actually making money are a real business and for people like us who sell a guitar, amp, pedals every so often it will just come down to more paperwork at the end of the year.

Its still all Bullshit IMO!


----------



## PelliX

MarshallDog said:


> So regarding ebays BS due to the Governments BS this is what my Accountant said is the best way to handle this.
> 
> Lest say I bought a new Gibson Les Paul Standard 6 years ago and it cost me 2500.00 free shipping. Maybe I have the original receipt maybe I dont but it does not matter. I now sell it on ebay for lets say 2000.00 because that is what the market will allow for. Now you have approximately 13% total fees (ebay add fees, ebat percent of sale fee, Paypal cost, shipping cost and even packaging costs along with mileage cost to take it to the shipper). He said keep all this documentation. When tax time comes the fair market value of the guitar was 2000.00 dollars and now we subtract all these other fees totaling lets say about 300.00 bucks. Well, you just lost money and that is what will be reported. So it wont cost you any additional income fees because you lost money right off the top.
> 
> Now if you bought some rare guitar or amp years ago and its now worth 10 times what you paid that may be another story especially if there are electronic records of the sale but then again I believe this tax from reporting is mainly for ebays on line stores that are actually making money are a real business and for people like us who sell a guitar, amp, pedals every so often it will just come down to more paperwork at the end of the year.
> 
> Its still all Bullshit IMO!



Taxing private transactions, say between you and me for example, is debatable in any scenario. Let's say you have some amp that I would like to buy. You bought the amp new and paid VAT, I dunno, ten years ago. Then I come along, offer you 70% of the 'new in store' price today. How did the government contribute or facilitate the transfer of the amp to me or my money to you? If you don't come up with an answer, that's because there probably isn't one. 

The roads between us for transporting said amp? Nope, road tax. The electricity used to discuss the transaction online before visiting and collecting? Nope, privatised. The banks involved (if we deviate from the cash route)? Private. 

Although taxation is a legitimate method of generating income for the goverment, it's amazing how well the concept is exploited.


----------



## Bull Rock

You pay tax on your pay, income tax, tax on fuel and food and whatever, all the hidden taxes already in stuff, property taxes, tax on cars over and over if being resold....it never ends.


----------



## PelliX

Bull Rock said:


> You pay tax on your pay, income tax, tax on fuel and food and whatever, all the hidden taxes already in stuff, property taxes, tax on cars over and over if being resold....it never ends.



Income tax, as I mentioned earlier, is a solid design in socialism. I'm not an advocate of socialism, but let's leave that out of it. It's debatable in a modern so-called capitalist system. Fuel tax and VAT make sense to a degree as they relate directly to the purchase in question, not the capital at your disposal - which initially seems a more righteous way of doing it. Pay for what you use, etc. The rest is nuts - property tax is simply changing your purchase into a purchase and renting at the same time, without an option to buy, even.


----------



## middy

Profit is considered income. This is nothing new. This tax was always owed. They just changed the reporting level and created a bunch of new paperwork for everyone.


----------



## PelliX

middy said:


> Profit is considered income. This is nothing new. This tax was always owed.



Profit is income, but the question of income being taxable warrants some deep thought. Let's take the example above a little further: let's say MarshallDog has a ~2K amp. I wish to buy it from him, but he says he wouldn't part with it short of 10K. For some reason I concur and give him the 10K for his 2K amp. Should the government be able to tax that?


----------



## playloud

PelliX said:


> Taxing private transactions, say between you and me for example, is debatable in any scenario. Let's say you have some amp that I would like to buy. You bought the amp new and paid VAT, I dunno, ten years ago. Then I come along, offer you 70% of the 'new in store' price today. How did the government contribute or facilitate the transfer of the amp to me or my money to you? If you don't come up with an answer, that's because there probably isn't one.



I don't really want to get into a political discussion, but there is a simple and serious answer to this which doesn't rely on "socialism" or adjacent ideologies.

There are external costs associated with maintaining the value of an asset, let alone creating an environment in which it is able to appreciate. It is hard to see a guitar amp having much value in a society with no electricity, or real property having much value if capricious warlords may sweep in at any moment, overthrow the local government, and assume control of said property. Technology stocks have little value without schools to educate future workers and even cryptocurrency is worthless without a vast, heavily govt-subsidized and -secured technological infrastructure (including electricity again!)

So the question is, who bears these costs? If not the asset holder, then they are effectively welfare recipients, freeloading off those who do. Of course, most asset holders will already be contributing in some way towards these costs via other means of taxation (sales tax, tax on other income etc.), but it seems a fair principle that they should also pay some tax in exchange for the additional benefit they receive from these costs being born in order to protect/appreciate the value of their individual property. (Of course, if one sees tax as a fundamentally redistributive vehicle - the role of which is to transfer capital from those deemed less deserving to those who are - then you could reject this argument, but I get the sense that this does not describe your personal position, @PelliX?)

Note I am not making any claims about the correct _level_ of taxation on property, or even the basis on which it should be levied (e.g. taxing capital gains at time of sale, which is what is being discussed here). But I think it is clear that personal property is _not_ some mythical entity which exists outside our existing economic commons, and if we are to live in a world in which at least some government revenue is required, the proportion of taxes which are contributed from property should be at least > 0%.

Now back to the issue at hand, taxing profits from peoples' personal guitar amp sales does seem petty and counterproductive!


----------



## junk notes

recruited government collection agencies - that will get a lolly pop for their help?

These entities allowed access to our SSN? They must have Norton 1000 lol


That new fence will be broken down sooner or later.. lots of infiltration help from overseas pushing buttons..


----------



## PelliX

playloud said:


> There are external costs associated with maintaining the value of an asset, let alone creating an environment in which it is able to appreciate. It is hard to see a guitar amp having much value in a society with no electricity, or real property having much value if capricious warlords may sweep in at any moment, overthrow the local government, and assume control of said property. Technology stocks have little value without schools to educate future workers and even cryptocurrency is worthless without a vast, heavily govt-subsidized and -secured technological infrastructure (including electricity again!)



Yes, true, but take electricity. Last time I checked, it's a private company supplying it on a government contract. Would we have electricity if the government didn't "make it a standard"? Yes, we almost certainly would. Capricious warlords roaming and overthrowing local government, etc? Sure, but does the government prevent that? In the case of most Western countries, yes, to a degree. It's not inherent to 'government' as such, though. If such events happen, generally some other government is backing the move.

Please don't see this as an argument, but more a devil's advocate point of view; you outlined that tech stocks and cryptocurrency would not be worth anything if he government did not subsidize tech infra. This is probably quite true, but what are subsidies? Subsisdies are the government selectively "punishing" certain entities or activities less than others. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, I believe in government, but to quote George Washington; "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." We all appreciate the benefits of fire in one form or another, but we generally also like to take some precautionary measures. 



playloud said:


> So the question is, who bears these costs? If not the asset holder, then they are effectively welfare recipients, freeloading off those who do. Of course, most asset holders will already be contributing in some way towards these costs via other means of taxation (sales tax, tax on other income etc.), but it seems a fair principle that they should also pay some tax in exchange for the additional benefit they receive from these costs being born in order to protect/appreciate the value of their individual property.



Well, for new sales, yes - valid points. For 2nd hand private exchanges? I think not, but perhaps we differ of opinion. Are people freeloading by owning a house on a piece of land that they bought? Not if they paid for it. It's not like the government keeps the continent from sinking or prevents natural catastrophes.... 



playloud said:


> (Of course, if one sees tax as a fundamentally redistributive vehicle - the role of which is to transfer capital from those deemed less deserving to those who are - then you could reject this argument, but I get the sense that this does not describe your personal position, @PelliX?)



No, no, certainly not, indeed. I believe in taxation, just I think we use that tool way too often and also often too hard. Like Washington, I believe in goverment, but I also see the dangers if it gets out of control. 



playloud said:


> Note I am not making any claims about the correct _level_ of taxation on property, or even the basis on which it should be levied (e.g. taxing capital gains at time of sale, which is what is being discussed here). But I think it is clear that personal property is _not_ some mythical entity which exists outside our existing economic commons, and if we are to live in a world in which at least some government revenue is required, the proportion of taxes which are contributed from property should be at least > 0%.



I see what you mean, but how is the value of my property (say a guitar, amp, house or car) involved in the economy? It's not until I choose to sell it or use it. If an 'asset' is not on the market, it has no effective value until it is offered. Therefore, I don't see that any tax should be applicable until that moment. 

 Time for a beer, though!


----------



## middy

PelliX said:


> Profit is income, but the question of income being taxable warrants some deep thought. Let's take the example above a little further: let's say MarshallDog has a ~2K amp. I wish to buy it from him, but he says he wouldn't part with it short of 10K. For some reason I concur and give him the 10K for his 2K amp. Should the government be able to tax that?


The government has always considered that taxable income. “Should” doesn’t enter into it.


----------



## PelliX

middy said:


> The government has always considered that taxable income. “Should” doesn’t enter into it.



How deep do you want to go? There's a vague line between ethical improvements to our modern society and preventing downright injustice that would in many cases be illegal, were it not that it was performed by the government themselves. Of course I agree that it is *considered* taxable, but I see little solid basis for that from a logical perspective. 

Less than a mere century ago, women were not allowed to vote in Scotland. Not trying to be 'SJW' here, but just taking a quite recent example of blatant injustice fixed. In another century we might just be laughing at some current forms of tax, like the Dutch now laugh about 'window tax' and 'carpet tax' that used to exist here in the Netherlands. No, I'm not kidding, you can look them up.


----------



## middy

A vendor with goods for sale is selling his private property. Where do you draw the line between what is taxable income and what is not?


----------



## playloud

PelliX said:


> I believe in taxation, just I think we use that tool way too often and also often too hard. Like Washington, I believe in goverment, but I also see the dangers if it gets out of control.



This is a completely reasonable point of view. I thought you were possibly arguing something more extreme, hence my screed! 

Regarding your other points, I'll only respond to one....



PelliX said:


> I see what you mean, but how is the value of my property (say a guitar, amp, house or car) involved in the economy? It's not until I choose to sell it or use it. If an 'asset' is not on the market, it has no effective value until it is offered. Therefore, I don't see that any tax should be applicable until that moment.



An 'off-market' asset _is_ involved in the market in that it contributes to the 'supply' side of pricing. The choice to sell is almost never independent of external forces. Imagine if JCM 900 prices increased to $1m/unit overnight, for example. I'm sure many reluctant sellers would change their minds.

That said, the 'tax due only at the time of sale' is intended to address precisely this concern. I suspect many governments would like to levy various unrealized capital gains taxes, but are thwarted by practical - rather than ideological - concerns. Imagine the retiree with a moderately-appreciating home, but no real cashflow.




PelliX said:


> Time for a beer, though!



Cheers to that!


----------



## playloud

middy said:


> A vendor with goods for sale is selling his private property. Where do you draw the line between what is taxable income and what is not?



To be fair, most tax regimes distinguish between personal income, capital gains and business income - and tend to set different rates for each. 

Selling goods at a profit would typically be counted as one of the last two (with - in the US at least - generally lower rates of taxation). But here there is potential for unscrupulous ebay users to report the full _revenue_ of the sale as personal income. This seems potentially unfair, regardless of the ethical issues of the tax system overall.


----------



## MarshallDog

PelliX said:


> Taxing private transactions, say between you and me for example, is debatable in any scenario. Let's say you have some amp that I would like to buy. You bought the amp new and paid VAT, I dunno, ten years ago. Then I come along, offer you 70% of the 'new in store' price today. How did the government contribute or facilitate the transfer of the amp to me or my money to you? If you don't come up with an answer, that's because there probably isn't one.
> 
> The roads between us for transporting said amp? Nope, road tax. The electricity used to discuss the transaction online before visiting and collecting? Nope, privatised. The banks involved (if we deviate from the cash route)? Private.
> 
> Although taxation is a legitimate method of generating income for the goverment, it's amazing how well the concept is exploited.


I agree 100%, it’s just a way to grab more money so they can spend more money, get big raises, have big benefits, give to the ignorant and lazy slugs out there and give money to illegals that they are bringing into this Country!


----------



## MarshallDog

middy said:


> A vendor with goods for sale is selling his private property. Where do you draw the line between what is taxable income and what is not?


Bottom line is if you buy an amp for 2000.00 new and in 5 years sell it for 1300.00, there is no profit hence no taxable income so then can it be written off as a lose? Hell no it’s a one way street right to those bastards pockets as they stick it to Americans and live like Kings and Queens!


----------



## colchar

Michael Roe said:


> Businesses make profit, an individual who gets an income is not a business.




People make profit too. Buy a house for $200k and sell it for $400k? You made a profit.


----------



## fitz

Just sold an amp on Reverb.
That's #2, got one more for sale, and might sell yet another.
I'll get a 1099-K for sure.
Of the 2 sold, what I get after fees and shipping will be a few bucks less than what I paid.
Between the 2, I'm in the hole $33 net.
In my tax bracket, I'll get another $7 back on my federal return.
Better than getting bent by GC...


----------



## MarshallDog

colchar said:


> People make profit too. Buy a house for $200k and sell it for $400k? You made a profit.


So are you saying you are all for paying taxes and you agree! Lets take that 400K house you speak of and include all the taxes paid on it, maintenance cost, upgrade costs, etc and subtract all this from the sale price minus any realtor costs and see what this profit really is as you claim!


----------



## PelliX

middy said:


> A vendor with goods for sale is selling his private property. Where do you draw the line between what is taxable income and what is not?



Well, you said it; 'private property'. If he's selling goods of company XYZ, it's not private property.


----------



## playloud

fitz288 said:


> Just sold an amp on Reverb.
> That's #2, got one more for sale, and might sell yet another.
> I'll get a 1099-K for sure.
> Of the 2 sold, what I get after fees and shipping will be a few bucks less than what I paid.
> Between the 2, I'm in the hole $33 net.
> In my tax bracket, I'll get another $7 back on my federal return.
> Better than getting bent by GC...



The spirit of '77 lives! 

Be sure to get a bag of picks with the proceeds, and inscribe 'thanks IRS' on every one.


----------



## playloud

MarshallDog said:


> So are you saying you are all for paying taxes and you agree! Lets take that 400K house you speak of and include all the taxes paid on it, maintenance cost, upgrade costs, etc and subtract all this from the sale price minus any realtor costs and see what this profit really is as you claim!



That is typically how it works, no? Don't forget mortgage interest paid either.

Still a profit though, most likely.


----------



## colchar

MarshallDog said:


> So are you saying you are all for paying taxes and you agree! Lets take that 400K house you speak of and include all the taxes paid on it, maintenance cost, upgrade costs, etc and subtract all this from the sale price minus any realtor costs and see what this profit really is as you claim!



I never said anything about paying taxes. I'm Canadian, so this has no effect on me.

The profit is on the difference between purchase and sale prices. Cost of use does not enter into that calculation.

You might want to learn some basic economics and accounting before flipping out any further.


----------



## XTRXTR

You have to think outside the box every time they change the shape of the box.

Don't sell an amp, sell the services to transport the amp to a person that wants that amp transported to them as a service. Service is non taxable. You allow the use of the amp how ever they like and as long as they like. And if they wish to allow someone else to use the amp they can provide the same service to who ever they like. And you outsource your transportation costs to UPS or whatever transport service they decide to go with.


----------



## junk notes

_Pick $1.00 - Free Les Paul with purchase - shipping costs $1800.00. Buyer agrees to insane fees._

..well, buyer should have gotten the 3-pack.


----------



## XTRXTR

On a more serious note they will be shoving the poor even further down with this move. There should be some limiting factor to laws like these. How much liberty is being taken away from you to make money for services and products, product prices will go up to make up for the taxes that must be paid. 

Its like we are living in the 70s again, they forgot about what this will do to inflation. That pushes the poor on fixed incomes further down without any relief. We already have the worst homeless problems ever.

Labor and statistics no longer count you as in the work force if you are no longer receiving UI nor actively seeking employment. So the Unemployment rate going down is not always because people are getting jobs. Its also that many eventually stop looking and the UI is not paid any longer and you are no longer in the work force.

Its one of those things no one thinks about until they are in that position, and then its too late, you are not even a statistic anymore.


----------



## middy

MarshallDog said:


> Bottom line is if you buy an amp for 2000.00 new and in 5 years sell it for 1300.00, there is no profit hence no taxable income so then can it be written off as a lose? Hell no it’s a one way street right to those bastards pockets as they stick it to Americans and live like Kings and Queens!


I believe it can offset profit.


----------



## cccc

Very we


XTRXTR said:


> On a more serious note they will be shoving the poor even further down with this move. There should be some limiting factor to laws like these. How much liberty is being taken away from you to make money for services and products, product prices will go up to make up for the taxes that must be paid.
> 
> Its like we are living in the 70s again, they forgot about what this will do to inflation. That pushes the poor on fixed incomes further down without any relief. We already have the worst homeless problems ever.
> 
> Labor and statistics no longer count you as in the work force if you are no longer receiving UI nor actively seeking employment. So the Unemployment rate going down is not always because people are getting jobs. Its also that many eventually stop looking and the UI is not paid any longer and you are no longer in the work force.
> 
> Its one of those things no one thinks about until they are in that position, and then its too late, you are not even a statistic anymore.


Nailed it .


----------



## MarshallDog

colchar said:


> I never said anything about paying taxes. I'm Canadian, so this has no effect on me.
> 
> The profit is on the difference between purchase and sale prices. Cost of use does not enter into that calculation.
> 
> You might want to learn some basic economics and accounting before flipping out any further.


You are sooo intelligent JR


----------



## fitz

MarshallDog said:


> Bottom line is if you buy an amp for 2000.00 new and in 5 years sell it for 1300.00, there is no profit hence no taxable income so then can it be written off as a lose?


Yes.
I sold 3 amps last week and I'll get a 1099-K from Reverb at year end.
I'll report that on my Schedule C along with what I paid for those amps, and the fees and shipping I paid to sell them (cost of goods sold).
Combined net loss of $51.91 at my tax bracket will be about $11.42 less tax I'll owe (or additional refund, if that's the case).
If you buy and flip gear to make money, you will owe tax on the net profit, not the gross income, just like any personal business that's not a corporation, or LLC, or something like that.


----------



## Electricfactory

I hate it but recognize it ( selling gear online) would inevitably move to the current system.


----------



## jageya

Michael Roe said:


> Well, after finding this out I just sold an amp and was about to go ship it. I cancelled the order and will no longer use Ebay to sell items. The BS govt already got their taxes when an item has sold "NEW".
> They can shove this new policy where the sun don't shine!
> My city tries this ever year as well. Asking for peeps to list their tax refund from previous year as "Income". Not going to happen!
> BTW, anyone looking for a SV20H and can pay cash and pick it up local let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marshall Studio SV20H - musical instruments - by owner - sale
> 
> 
> Mint condition Marshall Studio SV20H 20 Watt amp head. Includes power cable and original shipping box. $1300.00 Amp is available Sun-Fri to check out. No Saturdays or late nights.
> 
> 
> 
> dayton.craigslist.org


i stopped selling on ebay when they changed to asking for a bank account....no way will give them that...i sell on poshmark/mercari now..


----------



## The Dog

Dogs of Doom said:


> how do they count profit?
> 
> what if I bought a '59 Les Paul used for $500 back in the '60s & now sell it for $500,000?
> 
> How would they know what I paid for it, & when? What if it was given to me as a gift?
> 
> 2nd hand never used to be taxed, until recently, they've been trying to figure out more ways to tax, tax, tax everyone... & then tax you again...
> 
> They even want to tax you when you are dead...


Of coarse they have to tax the hell out of us, how else can they afford to buy their snot nose kids $500,000. '59 Les Paul's?


----------



## The Dog

Yeah, I won't sell through ebay or Reverb anymore.


----------



## gkelm

Matthews Guitars said:


> I support a national flat tax of exactly 10 percent and everybody pays, without exception, from lowest income level to highest income level.
> 
> And I support legislation that would force government to keep a balanced budget and not spend more than its revenue.
> 
> Government should be kept on a short leash, and never funded to such an extent that it can spend any money on wasteful and frivolous programs.
> 
> Money raised as a consequence of selling personally owned used items, even if you made a profit on them, should always be exempt from taxation.
> 
> As for how unemployment is counted, yes that can be the subject of some degree of creativity. Such as only counting those who have filed for unemployment as unemployed. I'm not working for anybody but me so technically I am unemployed, and in reality I'm unemployed, but I'm sure I'm not counted in the unemployment figures because I'm not actively seeking work. Yet I would take a job offer if it's good enough and suits my skills and talents.



Accepting campaign donations?


----------



## gkelm

I stopped easy and for the most part, Reverb last year when this new hit.



Matthews Guitars said:


> There's a supplemental form you file which declares your profit and loss. In my case I have solid records of my activity. I have two kinds of sales I do, one of my personally owned stuff, and the other is consignment/partnership sales I do with a partner. We have a very detailed accounting procedure set up which makes it easy for me to know exactly whom earned what. I only have to refer to those reports and I know my exact profit/loss status for those.
> 
> For the stuff that's from my own stash, I just run through the list, write down my cost vs. sale price, do a little math, repeat until done. Do it a month at a time so it doesn't get overwhelming. It works out that most of my personally owned things get sold at a loss which offsets rs the profit made off the consignment sales so I end up owing little if anything. Just enough to pay my expenses is typically what I'm left with. This is verified easily enough by looking at my bank statements.
> 
> ebay is a hobby for me that gives me the opportunity to trade gear and earn gas money. Really that's about al I get out of it.



Getting some helpful ideas here. The last couple years I’ve probably bought and sold more dirt bikes than I have guitars. I always end up replacing parts, tires, or whatever… Even just cleaning up the bikes. I can add in a reasonable “shop rate“ for my labor…that oughta even things out!

Same for guitar gear… restringing, polishing, cleaning the fret board, set up.

Add labor cost = no profit.


----------



## SuperFleeky

middy said:


> Again, only profit is considered income. If you buy an amp for $300 and sell it for $400, your income is $100.


It's why people get tax cuts when they take a loss, or have business related expenses.


----------



## Thepartyprogram

well, goverments need to recuperate the cash they loose on all these tax evading companies somewhere...


----------



## Salty Rose

I sell on the Bay and the Verb. Mostly to rotate gear that I'm done with. Bay & Verb are now asking for my tax info. I'm concerned. 
So, recently I wanted to sell some drums, and then roll the money into an amp that I wanted to buy new. In the past, selling drums online hasn't worked out very well for me due to shipping, mostly. And now this tax thing... Then I got an idea.
I took the drums to GC (I know, that's another whole can of worms). And traded the drums in for the amp.

It actually worked out pretty well. GC gave me _*double*_ what I thought they'd give me. I think I actually did better than I would have ifn I tried to just sell the drums outright, online. And (the best part was) with no worries. Maybe this "supply chain" thing is working in favor of doing trades with the retailers? The 'no-worries' thing is a huge plus for me. I didn't have to do the whole dance of taking photos, writing descriptions, answering questions, packing, shipping, worrying about the deal, worrying about scammers, etc... And now having to worry about taxes on top of it all. Trading is something I wouldn't have even considered doing a few years ago. Makes more sense now. At least it did for this deal.


----------



## Norfolk Martin

double post


----------



## Norfolk Martin

Capital gains on personal property sales have been taxable for many many years. The sale price is not "income", only the gain The tax rate on most net capital gain is no higher than 15% for most individuals whose income is less than or equal to $445,850 for a single person . You can also deduct any loss you incurred selling for less than it cost you. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409


----------



## fitz

Norfolk Martin said:


> Capital gains on personal property sales have been taxable for many many years. The sale price is not "income", only the gain The tax rate on most net capital gain is no higher than 15% for most individuals whose income is less than or equal to $445,850 for a single person . You can also deduct any loss you incurred selling for less than it cost you. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409


Musical equipment is not a capital asset, such as a business's property, plant & equipment.
This is not a capital gains issue.
Selling those would get you a 1099-B that you would report on Schedule D.

Form 1099-K is for income from selling items on-line, and is reported on Schedule C.
(sigh)


----------



## Michael Baker

It was a rude shock that after years of selling online, mostly to feed my habit of rebuilding stuff, I got the 1099K's that listed profit. I was told that it comes from the crackdown on collecting sales tax - another loss of the free marketplace.
This year I was able to say it was stuff I already had. But the irony is that if I buy and sell for fun, I now have to keep track of my expenses - usually my costs. So now I have to take a more "business" approach to a hobby.
Now I just have to explain to my wife why I at least can't break even on my hobby - it might just be worth the small amount of taxes I might have to pay to avoid that discussion.


----------



## ib93

Michael Roe said:


> Uh, this is new!
> Never had to do that before.
> A 1099 is for INCOME.
> How is it that when I use my taxable income to buy an item, then at a later date, I sell that item that it now becomes income.....again???
> Profit or loss would be setup as a business. I'm not a business.
> This is just more tyrannical double dipping by the cartel known as the IRS and initiated by their thugs AKA the govt.
> For instance: Say I make 100 grand last year and buy a bunch of stuff AFTER TAXES with my money. Then this year I lose my job. I sell some of my stuff for say, 30 grand to pay my bills. I already paid taxes on that 30 grand from the previous year. Now, that's considered INCOME?
> No, that is THEFT by the IRS and govt!


I agree…..all taxes are theft. Think of cars….buy a car and pay sales tax, sell the car and the new buyer pays sales tax on the same car, they sell the car and sales tax is paid again,….and so on and so on.


----------



## Mrmadd

YES, THIS REALLY SUCKS.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVIN INNOCENT BY IRS. BLOW ME!


----------



## fitz

Ok, I just got back from a meeting with my CPA.
After discussing business matters, I inquired about this subject, so I have some actual professional tax advice on the issue.

If you just want to rant about taxes and government in general, feel free to continue complaining about whatever you want.

If you are flipping gear with the intension of making money, or if you are a professional musician, you need to discuss your situation with your tax advisor.

If you are like me, and do this as a *HOBBY*, here's the deal.
Profit - yes you offset purchase costs, selling fees and shipping expenses - are taxable, but only the amount that's more than your costs.
Loses are not allowed to reduce your tax liability.
See IRS "hobby loss" rules for more info.

So, I can't "write off" my $50 +/- loss.

If I sold an amp for $1,000 that I paid $900 for, I'd owe tax on the $100 difference.
But, if I paid Reverb $80 in fees and spent $120 to ship it, I'd owe nothing, but can't deduct the $100 net loss.


----------



## Mrmadd

Even though a "profit and loss" schedule c will cover this and if correctly done, you will be prsenting IRS with a "loss" statement.
Selling a couple guitat amps and stuff barely can be considred a business. It is a HOBBY.

Non the less, a "Profit Loss form will do it.


----------



## Mrmadd

I think we all should join in and submit to these forms.

Turning away is not an answer.

At the time when taxes are due next year, from reverb and ebay there will be a landslide of extra froms and paperwork for the IRS "irritated red assholes"
to have to sort through.

Lets flood them with it.


----------



## Mrmadd

If done correctly, you can send them a bill for a loss


----------



## Mrmadd

Gas milages, storage, repairs all come off the top


----------



## middy

fitz288 said:


> Ok, I just got back from a meeting with my CPA.
> After discussing business matters, I inquired about this subject, so I have some actual professional tax advice on the issue.
> 
> If you just want to rant about taxes and government in general, feel free to continue complaining about whatever you want.
> 
> If you are flipping gear with the intension of making money, or if you are a professional musician, you need to discuss your situation with your tax advisor.
> 
> If you are like me, and do this as a *HOBBY*, here's the deal.
> Profit - yes you offset purchase costs, selling fees and shipping expenses - are taxable, but only the amount that's more than your costs.
> Loses are not allowed to reduce your tax liability.
> See IRS "hobby loss" rules for more info.
> 
> So, I can't "write off" my $50 +/- loss.
> 
> If I sold an amp for $1,000 that I paid $900 for, I'd owe tax on the $100 difference.
> But, if I paid Reverb $80 in fees and spent $120 to ship it, I'd owe nothing, but can't deduct the $100 net loss.


What if you make $100 profit on one guitar and lose $100 on another? Is that $0 profit for the year?


----------



## fitz

middy said:


> What if you make $100 profit on one guitar and lose $100 on another? Is that $0 profit for the year?


Yes - add them all up.
You just can't use a net loss.
I sold one amp for a profit and 2 (soon to be 3) for a loss.
I'll have a net loss - no tax or refund - for selling my "hobby" amps.


----------



## gkelm

Mrmadd said:


> I think we all should join in and submit to these forms.
> 
> Turning away is not an answer.
> 
> At the time when taxes are due next year, from reverb and ebay there will be a landslide of extra froms and paperwork for the IRS "irritated red assholes"
> to have to sort through.
> 
> Lets flood them with it.



I hear ya… then all of the sudden the IRS needs a bigger budget.


----------



## Derrick111

fitz288 said:


> Ok, I just got back from a meeting with my CPA.
> After discussing business matters, I inquired about this subject, so I have some actual professional tax advice on the issue.
> 
> If you just want to rant about taxes and government in general, feel free to continue complaining about whatever you want.
> 
> If you are flipping gear with the intension of making money, or if you are a professional musician, you need to discuss your situation with your tax advisor.
> 
> If you are like me, and do this as a *HOBBY*, here's the deal.
> Profit - yes you offset purchase costs, selling fees and shipping expenses - are taxable, but only the amount that's more than your costs.
> Loses are not allowed to reduce your tax liability.
> See IRS "hobby loss" rules for more info.
> 
> So, I can't "write off" my $50 +/- loss.
> 
> If I sold an amp for $1,000 that I paid $900 for, I'd owe tax on the $100 difference.
> But, if I paid Reverb $80 in fees and spent $120 to ship it, I'd owe nothing, but can't deduct the $100 net loss.



OK, so here's two points...

(1) Nobody has mentioned this yet, but if I'm not mistaken, the burden is on you to prove what you purchased the item for. Isn't it true that you can't just claim some amount, that it instead has to be proven or else the assumption is full price in the IRS' favor? So if you can't, does that mean that you are on the hook for the full amount of the sale? Like if I buy a Fender Champ used for $200 but sell for $600, I would claim on my form that I had a profit of $400. However I loose the receipt or my purchase is otherwise not traceable (maybe got off Craigslist 3 years ago), and can't prove what I paid, would the government have to assume I got it free to prevent fraud and hold me to a profit of $500? In theory this wouldn't happen unless audited, and I suppose a series of these could trigger an audit.

(2) What about the $600 limit? In that same example, if I buy a Fender Champ used for $200 but sell for $600, I wouldn't have to claim on my form that I had a profit since $400 is under $600 (unless I had other profits that take me over the $600 limit for that year). However I loose the receipt or my purchase is otherwise not traceable (maybe got off Craigslist 3 years ago), and can't prove what I paid, so would the government have to assume I made a profit of $600?


----------



## fitz

Derrick111 said:


> OK, so here's two points...
> 
> (1) Nobody has mentioned this yet, but if I'm not mistaken, the burden is on you to prove what you purchased the item for. Isn't it true that you can't just claim some amount, that it instead has to be proven or else the assumption is full price in the IRS' favor? So if you can't, does that mean that you are on the hook for the full amount of the sale? Like if I buy a Fender Champ used for $200 but sell for $600, I would claim on my form that I had a profit of $400. However I loose the receipt or my purchase is otherwise not traceable (maybe got off Craigslist 3 years ago), and can't prove what I paid, would the government have to assume I got it free to prevent fraud and hold me to a profit of $500? In theory this wouldn't happen unless audited, and I suppose a series of these could trigger an audit.
> 
> (2) What about the $600 limit? In that same example, if I buy a Fender Champ used for $200 but sell for $600, I wouldn't have to claim on my form that I had a profit since $400 is under $600 (unless I had other profits that take me over the $600 limit for that year). However I loose the receipt or my purchase is otherwise not traceable (maybe got off Craigslist 3 years ago), and can't prove what I paid, so would the government have to assume I made a profit of $600?


1) If you don't have proof of purchase price, you may want to ask whomever will represent you at your audit. There are allowable methods of determining valuation, even if it was a gift to you.
I can prove all of my costs on my sales this year, so it's not a concern to me. 
If you'd like to speculate on hypothetical fantasies, have at it.

2) $600 is the 1099-K reporting threshold of the total value of all items sold through an on-line market platform (Ebay / Reverb) during the year - not the profit you may, or may not have made on the sales.
If you get issued a 1099-K, the IRS also gets a copy, so you might want to have a plan that is more substantive than a forum discussion.


----------



## Conghaille

This is basically the same as capital gains tax. Why is this hard to understand?


----------



## Derrick111

fitz288 said:


> 1) If you don't have proof of purchase price, you may want to ask whomever will represent you at your audit. There are allowable methods of determining valuation, even if it was a gift to you.
> I can prove all of my costs on my sales this year, so it's not a concern to me.
> If you'd like to speculate on hypothetical fantasies, have at it.


Who's speculating on hypothetical fantasies? I guarantee most people don't have receipts, someone who can vouch, or some form of traceable sales proof for their many GAS purchases along the way. So this question is very important to most people as they will need to decide what to do when they sell that item they have no receipt for. I know that my friend is always buying off Craigslist and garage sales, finding all kinds of great stuff that he sometimes sells after a while. Just one example of many non-hypothetical  Going fwd we have to have to do better now, but thee are a lot of people who collect and will be selling items they don't have any proof for.


----------



## fitz

Derrick111 said:


> Who's speculating on hypothetical fantasies? I guarantee most people don't have receipts, someone who can vouch, or some form of traceable sales proof for their many GAS purchases along the way. So this question is very important to most people as they will need to decide what to do when they sell that item they have no receipt for. I know that my friend is always buying off Craigslist and garage sales, finding all kinds of great stuff that he sometimes sells after a while. Just one example of many non-hypothetical  Going fwd we have to have to do better now, but thee are a lot of people who collect and will be selling items they don't have any proof for.





fitz288 said:


> If you get issued a 1099-K, the IRS also gets a copy, so you might want to have a plan that is more substantive than a forum discussion.


----------



## Springfield Scooter

Sales tax is another concern.....

Buy new, pay sales tax.... (9.75% here)
Sell it used, and the buyer must once again pay sales tax for a second time......
When he sells it, guess what......It gets taxed again....

WTF?


----------



## Derrick111

@fitz288 No, this is a bigger problem... most people do not have receipts for their past purchases since most either don't keep receipts, didn't think to get one at a local ad purchase, or it was years ago... When you go to sell your item, we don't know how that is handled or how we prove what we paid. A problem because we DO know that typically the IRS puts the burden on you to prove this or be responsible for the full amount.


----------



## fitz

Derrick111 said:


> @fitz288 No, this is a bigger problem... most people do not have receipts for their past purchases since most either don't keep receipts, didn't think to get one at a local ad purchase, or it was years ago... When you go to sell your item, we don't know how that is handled or how we prove what we paid. A problem because we DO know that typically the IRS puts the burden on you to prove this or be responsible for the full amount.


As I said, there are allowable methods of valuation.
If you are expecting a 1099-K from selling gear on-line, and you don't have tangible proof of what you paid,* you should really get in touch with someone who does income taxes for a living.*
There is no one simple solution for everyone unless you have receipts for everything.
Depending on how much gear you sell, and if you make any money from playing, there can be multiple options that may work for you, and the best thing to do is get advice from a tax professional.
If anyone plans on filing their taxes based on what has been discussed in this thread, I wish them luck...


----------



## Conghaille

Springfield Scooter said:


> Sales tax is another concern.....
> 
> Buy new, pay sales tax.... (9.75% here)
> Sell it used, and the buyer must once again pay sales tax for a second time......
> When he sells it, guess what......It gets taxed again....
> 
> WTF?


That’s not accurate. “It gets taxed again” isn’t really correct. The tax we’re talking about here is a tax on earnings you made because of the increase in value of the item since you bought it. So it’s your earnings being taxed, not the item. And the tax applies only to the income. So if you buy a stray for $2000 and sell it for 2200, the taxable amount is $200…the amount that you earned that was never taxed. I’m guessing the complainers here have never sold a house for a profit, because it’s basically the same thing. And it’s been around for as long as I’ve been alive. Oh fyi as I understand it the whole reason for this emphasis is that stores selling millions on eBay and reverb haven’t been paying their taxes. I’ve had these 1099s for the last two years on Reverb and had no troubles.


----------



## Gutch220

it's amazing how I always sell an item for exactly what I paid for it, what are the odds?


----------



## Derrick111

Gutch220 said:


> it's amazing how I always sell an item for exactly what I paid for it, what are the odds?


Hope you can prove that if audited.


----------



## Springfield Scooter

Conghaille said:


> That’s not accurate. “It gets taxed again” isn’t really correct. The tax we’re talking about here is a tax on earnings you made because of the increase in value of the item since you bought it. So it’s your earnings being taxed, not the item. And the tax applies only to the income. So if you buy a stray for $2000 and sell it for 2200, the taxable amount is $200…the amount that you earned that was never taxed. I’m guessing the complainers here have never sold a house for a profit, because it’s basically the same thing. And it’s been around for as long as I’ve been alive. Oh fyi as I understand it the whole reason for this emphasis is that stores selling millions on eBay and reverb haven’t been paying their taxes. I’ve had these 1099s for the last two years on Reverb and had no troubles.


Im refering to SALES TAX, and its 100% accurate and correct.

SALES TAX get collected via EBAY, each and every time an item sells.


----------



## Gutch220

Derrick111 said:


> Hope you can prove that if audited.


I hope they can prove I _didn't_.


----------



## Conghaille

Springfield Scooter said:


> Im refering to SALES TAX, and its 100% accurate and correct.
> 
> SALES TAX get collected via EBAY, each and every time an item sells.


Sorry, you are correct—you were off topic.


----------



## middy

Springfield Scooter said:


> Im refering to SALES TAX, and its 100% accurate and correct.
> 
> SALES TAX get collected via EBAY, each and every time an item sells.


How on earth is the IRS supposed to determine if every single sale is used or new? Unique tracking chips on every single thing?
Treating them differently would open up a whole new avenue for tax fraud and basically make sales tax unenforceable.


----------



## Conghaille

middy said:


> How on earth is the IRS supposed to determine if every single sale is used or new? Unique tracking chips on every single thing?
> Treating them differently would open up a whole new avenue for tax fraud and basically make sales tax unenforceable.


If I know my fellow Americans, I KNOW we all want to expand the size and expense of the IRS. Enormous government agencies are exactly what we desire most!


----------



## MarshallDog

Salty Rose said:


> I sell on the Bay and the Verb. Mostly to rotate gear that I'm done with. Bay & Verb are now asking for my tax info. I'm concerned.
> So, recently I wanted to sell some drums, and then roll the money into an amp that I wanted to buy new. In the past, selling drums online hasn't worked out very well for me due to shipping, mostly. And now this tax thing... Then I got an idea.
> I took the drums to GC (I know, that's another whole can of worms). And traded the drums in for the amp.
> 
> It actually worked out pretty well. GC gave me _*double*_ what I thought they'd give me. I think I actually did better than I would have ifn I tried to just sell the drums outright, online. And (the best part was) with no worries. Maybe this "supply chain" thing is working in favor of doing trades with the retailers? The 'no-worries' thing is a huge plus for me. I didn't have to do the whole dance of taking photos, writing descriptions, answering questions, packing, shipping, worrying about the deal, worrying about scammers, etc... And now having to worry about taxes on top of it all. Trading is something I wouldn't have even considered doing a few years ago. Makes more sense now. At least it did for this deal.


I agree, transactions like this are looking better all the time!


----------



## middy

I trade at GC all the time. It’s usually worth it to avoid the hassle.


----------

