hmm (s3.us-west-000.backblazeb2.com)

top 93 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 131 points 8 months ago (32 children)

That is basically why the Standard Deduction exists.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I dunno how it works in the US but in Aus I can't deduct anything unless it's related to work, apparently feeding and housing myself doesn't contribute to that ..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    In a lot of places a part of your income is exempt from taxes (eg brackets where you pay 0-20k @ 0%, 30-60k @ 30%, 60-100k @ 40%, 100k+ @ 50%; then your first 20k is not taxed), i think this is what they are talking about.

    Edit: another possibility would be they do mean actual expenses, just reminded you can (partially) deduct education expenses from your taxes in the Netherlands.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago

    I guess you could argue that that's the reasoning behind the progressive tax regime. Australia's progressive tax lines up with the low end of that but if you were going to claim that the tax free threshold was to cover general living expenses then it's going to need to be a lot larger, 20k bere is not enough to cover rent, food and utilities here, a 3x2 near Perth is like $800/week for rent and I would argue interest on a mortgage is comparable and Perth is on the cheap end of Australian cities. That's like 40k without utilities and food. So either the tax free threshold was poorly implemented without indexation against inflation and cost of living or the driver of it isn't to cover basic cost of living and is more to ease the burden on the poor end of town. I guess you could say it's a little bit of both but arguably indexation should be implemented.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    Standard deduction is slightly different than an exemption. You're deducting a set amount (instead of itemizing it, which only makes sense to do if the total is more than the standard deduction, which it won't be for most professions).

    An exception exemption would be removing a portion of the taxable income before it is taxed.

    Pretty similar outcome for most people, but still an important distinction.

    Edit: fixed autocorrect error

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago (13 children)

    True, and perhaps credible for a married couple with a 31k deduction, but the 15k deduction for an individual might be a bit rough for single folks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    It doesn't really make a difference if both parents are working and make similar amounts. Then that part is no different from filing separately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Point is a couple shares rent. A couple's residence is unlikely to be twice the cost of a single residence, unless you have roommates. So 30k for a couple guess further than 15k living alone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Exactly. It’s to incentivize one person to be a bread winner and one to make less and be a home maker (or something with less hours) so you get the tax benefits. It would be a nice system if expenses weren’t so damn high.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Married couples get the same tax benefits regardless. A raise for the lower earner always means more money for the family, so no, it doesn't incentivize having a breadwinner over having equal pay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Hmmm…

    Let’s do a quick exercise without real numbers. Please let me know if I’m wrong because this is what I thought. If I make 150k and am maxed out on my standard deduction, but then I make 250k and there’s no difference on my standard deduction, I’m not getting more standard deduction. If my wife is a stay at home mom and I make $250k, I am getting more standard deduction now, right?

    This is how married taxes work, right? Am I wrong on that? We get different brackets and different rules. I’ve been marred for 7 years and my first year I got all my taxes back because she didn’t work that year. Am I wrong?

    But what you’re saying: a raise for the lower earner does give more money. But by being a big earner marrying a now or low earner, it incentivizes high earners marrying low earners. Or mixed earners. It was devised in the time when women didnt work but we needed more tax benefits for taking care of women.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    No. You're correct. You would get less money back on your taxes if your wife's income went up. However, the amount your taxes go up is less than the increase to your wife's income, so you still end up ahead as a couple. You get the largest individual tax breaks when you have a breadwinner, but the total financial incentive (after tax returns) is for both partners to make as much money as possible.

    That said, finances are very emotionally charged and how people should approach their finances depends on how they think about this stuff. That's why snowball debt strategies work - not because they are optimal financially, but because they play into the psychology of a human paying off debt. With that in mind, I suppose you could still feel incentivized to have a large difference in incomes because of the tax breaks - it just isn't financially optimal if there is a free opportunity for the lower earner to bring in more money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    It’s complete bullshit. What city can you rent an apartment for 15k/year even with roommates?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Depends on what you define as a city. A quick search of a random city (Saginaw, MI), I see some 2 bedrooms for 985 a month.

    Of course people from LA might not call that a city, but, to people from towns of 800 people, it is huge at about 44k people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Some states allow you to deduct a portion of your property taxes, including renters (a set % of your rent). On top of the standard deduction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    From State tax, but that's still not related to the federal deduction, where it only kicks in you itemize.

    However while you may not be able to deduct your property taxes if you own a house with standard deduction, you do get to if you are a landlord regardless of standard deduction.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    Yes, and businesses do also pay taxes on more than their profits. Payroll tax is a huge one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    Payroll tax is not a tax on business, it's also a tax on workers, it's just business is deducting it automatically, and paying it to government, to reduce the amount of transactions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (10 children)

    Yes and no. You’re right of course that part of pay is withheld and paid as tax, but that isn’t what I was referring to. There is an additional component, beyond what is withheld from employee pay, which is paid directly from the business to the state which the employee never sees. It’s a similar amount.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    Yeah but even that is sort of a tax on employees

    When our business decides how much we can afford to pay someone for a position, the math is always with what that payroll tax is included.

    So without the payroll tax we may be able to afford paying someone $25/hour.

    With it we may only be able to afford to pay them $22/hour.

    It reduces the amount we can afford to pay the employee, even though it's technically never given to them in the first place it's money that could have gone to them.

    I would love to pay more but that tax takes it out of my hands.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    But that doesn't mean it's a tax on the employee. That's like saying sales tax is on the business, when it's actually on the customer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I take it that they mean that it is indirectly a tax on the employee in the sense that it is money the employee could have earned but does not because the company has to pay the tax. Could have earned as in the salary could have been higher without it.

    On the otherhand, that is true for any tax a company has to pay, just not as directly releated.

    (Or I could be wrong and they mean something else.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    that is true for any tax a company has to pay, just not as directly releated

    Not really, salary and automatic tux deduction is the same line of the budget for the company, it's money they spend directly on employer. For them there is absolutely no difference do the money come to employer or to the government, they spend X amount of money so the employer works for them, it's the same chunk of money regardless of what percentage goes where.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    That's, like, completely the opposite of the argument. Saying that payroll tax is a tax on business is like saying sales tax is a tax on business. In both cases, the tax is paid from the money that otherwise could come to a human, it's just business is deducting it automatically.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    In both cases, the tax is paid from the money that otherwise could come to a human, it's just business is deducting it automatically.

    Sales tax is paid by the customer, not the business. I ... don't know why you think it's automatically deducted by the business? Unless you mean B2B purchases

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Do you, a person buying your whatever the fuck, then later sending a separate transfer to the government with sales tax? Or, if you're paying cash, do you later set your sales tax for that purchase aside and send it to the government in a separate envelope?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    If you must twist everything around in order to make it about the government and business screwing the employee, then you must.

    I could just as easily say that the business has to pay employees more to make up for what they’re going to lose to payroll tax deductions so even the employee side tax is a tax on the business!

    Or we could just be adults and admit that the government taxes the employee and the business both.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    Homeowners can write off the interest paid towards their mortgage. Renters can't write off shit.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    If we have enough deductions to justify itemizing instead of taking the standard deduction.

    I haven't had a need to itemize in several years.

    That's not nearly as much of a perk as people make it out to be. It's good for a couple of years when you're mostly paying interest, but it's really not much.

    Remember, a deduction is just removing the expense from your taxable income. It's not like we get that back from taxes...that'd be a credit.

    So if I pay $5000 in interest over the course of the year, im not getting $5k back on my taxes. We just pretend my gross income is $5k less. And most the time, the standard deduction ends up being more anyway.

    Most W2 workers take standard deduction. You aren't missing anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    My primary income is W2, but I have a 1099 side gig (teaching scuba and underwater photography at a university) that usually results in me itemizing mostly because my gear is stupid expensive and I rarely make an actual profit. The write-offs are enough to let me justify spending the money on the gear to help me break even while teaching.

    I do multi-year write-offs on the big-ticket items, because one underwater camera rig (camera, housing, strobes, wet-lenses, etc) costs what I make teaching underwater photography across 4-6 semesters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    I think the last time I itemized was when I was doing some 1099 work, plus changed jobs, changed employment state, sold a house in one state and bought one in another.

    It was a complicated tax year.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    It’s by design, and in theory meant to encourage ownership to put personal stakes in the region. In practice, of course, homes are laughably unaffordable and it’s a free bonus for the rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago

    I've tried writing everything off, but it's always been less than the standard deduction.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago

    My CPA always reminds me, US tax laws are not written for us.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 8 months ago

    Where are you from?
    I can file a lot of the bills for my flat (e.g. things like repairs and facility service) at the tax office, as well as stuff like child care and most of my car's mileage (or my bike's mileage :-) ), to be exempted from income taxing at least (there are still other taxes).
    Rent money would be fully taxed, though, as well as other cost of living like food and clothing.
    Country is Germany.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    That's how it works in many countries.

    Business pays tax on profits (revenue - expenses). Salary has smaller tax for business compared to pure profits, employees don't pay it because it's not profit. So businesses have incentives to keep human employees instead of keeping all the profits for themselves.

    And that applies to all businesses. So if you, for example, bought a carrot for $10, tax is included, you don't pay tax on it.

    • The distributor bought it for $6, spent $1, pays tax on their profit ($3),
    • farmer grew it, used fertilizer, seeds, labor, etc., pays tax on profit (maybe $2),
    • the fertilizer company again pays tax on their profit, and so on

    In US you pay tax on every transaction. You get salary, you pay tax, you buy a thing, you pay tax, you eat something, again tax. This makes you more aware government is taking money, compared to the first scenario. But it also gives government ways to make complicated rules and give different tax benefits to different people. In the first scenario, government help goes to everyone whether they have a job or not. In this case you only get Tax cuts if you already make money.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    This is the first time I hear that there are countries that have company profit tax more than employee tax. What countries are those?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    Interesting, I thought that'd be a normal thing because it makes so much sense.

    I didn't go deeper into it, but I could see several examples in just the first 10 entries here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

    The corporate tax rate starts from high amount, while individual starts from lower amount, and in many case even the top earners don't have as high. It's mostly because top earners are still salaried and that's not "profit", if you have a business you already are paying corporate tax. Many rich people employ their family to pay less tax, but you can't do anything that requires specific qualifications.

    Edit: for individual tax brackets and what is a reasonable salary, would take more research. I might do that later in the month because now I'm interested.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 61 points 8 months ago (18 children)

    I wrote a free spec script for a charity organization, enabling me to write off ~$50k in charitable donations for putting in a few hours of work.

    Everyone should be looking for loopholes and ways to prevent the US government from getting their money.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (13 children)

    I asked a CPA about this idea a couple months ago and was told that it doesn't work that way, and everything I can find on the internet backs that up. Can you provide a source saying otherwise?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    I'm gonna agree with you. If OP gets audited, this will not hold up. OP cannot deduct money for a service that the charity pays nothing for. Only unreimbursed or out of pocket expenses can be deducted this way

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    If OP gets audited, this will not hold up.

    The IRS actually already did look it over. They decided (rather arbitrarily) that the script I donated was worth ~50,000 instead of ~70,000 as I was trying to claim. Definitely not a full audit, but they already reviewed it at some level and it passed muster.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago* (9 children)

    Right because you're donating intellectual property which is property. And that distinction is fucking nonsense but here we are. I doubt a full audit would allow market prices to survive on that though. They'd be like "hey now, this didn't cost you that." But to do a full audit we'd actually have to fund the IRS. Good luck getting that to happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    They’d be like “hey now, this didn’t cost you that.”

    But would not that depend on how OP's time is valued in this case? OP could argue that their expertise costs $14000/hour ($70000 over 5 hours). I am sure that they would argue the hour cost, I have not clue how the IRS handles something like this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (5 children)

    They don't let you deduct the cost of your own labor ever. The property thing is the loophole (but after further research not a real loophole and they will nail you for it).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    They don’t let you deduct the cost of your own labor ever.

    Yes, but ... if you use your own labor to create a product, and then donate the product, you can deduct the value of the product.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (3 children)

    But my point is technically you can deduct the cost of the product. Lets say you knitted an Afghan that you can sell on Etsy and donated it to someone. You can only technically deduct the cost of the yarn, but you're getting away with doing the market value thing. Full audit would nail you for it but the IRS isn't staffed enough to call you in for one of those.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Would the IRS have a problem with writing of the value of the yarn or the "market value" of the product?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The value of the yarn is deductible if you make the product. If you sell the product to someone they can deduct the full value if they donate it while you pay income taxes on the profit. Trying to backdoor your labor as a deduction is what the IRS has a problem with because you're not allowed to do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    As I understand it, technically the "thing of value" is the script itself - because it doesn't have a clearly defined value you can get away with claiming some fairly crazy valuations.

    There's a very similar tax loophole popular with the wealthy where you get a "great deal" on some slightly valuable art, donate it to charity, get it valued by an "expert" you know, who just happens to think it's worth many times what you paid, then write that off on your taxes. Basically free money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Do you know if this expert has to have some kind of credentials? Or could John Smith start a non-profit, Jenny Smithy have James Smithens who is an "expert" say the value (of some object) is more than Jenny owns, have Jenny donate this object to John's non-profit and then tax $0?

    (I know it technically can be done, but do you know if there is some threshold were it will be flagged? Writing of more than you own would be a flag and call for an audit but what about something worth $1000?)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    Things you buy for work are also tax deductible, it’s more noticeable for businesses since they don’t generally make employees pay business expenses.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    Makes more sense than it might seem, since when you pay all those bills, that's usually taxable income to the recipient. So if it isn't a write off, taxes can be paid many times on the same item.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Progressive taxes are kind of supposed to take into account basic necessities and tax you more on estimated expendable income. So if you earn more, you can pay a higher portion of what you earn.

    But also, I agree. Especially with cost of living being radically different depending on where you live. House, car, utilities, and grocery should all be deductible.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    You have to think about why it works that way.

    A profit from a business is money that is taken out of the business. If the activities of the business generate more money than the business is spending, it doesn't have to become profit. It can also be re-invested in hiring more people, buying more equipment, training their workforce, expanding to new locations, even given as raises or bonuses to their employees. In theory, all of the things other than generating a profit are generally things that are good for the community. Employees can get hired, or trained, or raises. The business can expand allowing more people to buy from them, etc.

    A profit is taxed because it's basically what a business does when it doesn't have any other useful ways of spending its money. In that case the excess money is just going to the business owners. The government is basically saying "ok, well if you aren't going to use that money for something that benefits everyone, and are just going to give it to the owners, we'll take our cut now. If the profits go directly to the business owners as income, they're then taxed again as income tax (again, in theory, in practice business owners don't want to pay that as income tax so they'll try to arrange to avoid it).

    Income taxes are a different kind of taxation. They're basically a way for the government to own part of your labour. They go back to the time when peasants worked on the land. In exchange for the soldiers protecting them from bandits, the peasants shared some of their harvest. (I realize it was much more coercive than that, but the idealized theory is that taxes were to support the government which protects you or provides you services.)

    The obvious problem with "after I've paid all my bills and rent" is that "all my bills and rent" is something that someone could always adjust so they had to pay zero taxes. Even if you just limited it to "my housing expenses, food expenses, water bill, and electrical bill" someone might buy a huge house, or buy only the finest groceries, or install lavish fountains, or run up their electrical bills. So, instead you might want to say that someone only gets taxed after reasonable living expenses are deducted... and that's how things work.

    Progressive taxation schemes typically mean that you pay 0 tax on your first X dollars earned per year. X is supposedly set to the minimum of what someone needs to get by. The way it's done on the US is that the lowest tax rate is set at 10%, but the standard deduction is set at $15,750, so the 10% only kicks in once you've passed that. $15,750 is absurdly low. It should really be at least double that, if not triple, but the idea is there. That's the "only after I've paid all my bills and rent" number, if you assume someone is paying the lowest rent possible and their bills are the absolute necessities. But, I don't think anybody could realistically live on their own for $15,750 per year.

    So... yeah, Lisa. Things already work like that. It's just that the numbers are all fucked, there are too many loopholes and exceptions.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)

    I'd say it would be nothing but a boon to the economy. Yes we'd lose a TON of tax revenue from the lower and middle class, but it would be more than made up for by the richest, who's income is nearly entirely spending money, that they choose not to spend. (When not hidden in stocks or options or other assets).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    The rich should pay more, but the rich could also hide their income by spending it -- they'd also have the benefit of consultants and lawyers who could sniff out every loophole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, it could possibly work if the "after bills" portion is super specific. Like rent/mortgage and utilities on primary residence Everything else is taxed. Would be hard to loophole that, but there's a reason I'm not a lawyer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    It would be pretty easy for loopholes there. What's a primary residence? Maybe your primary residence now contains a pub, or a co-working space, or a dance studio. Utilities are included? Well your electrical bill now supports a couple of for-profit electric car charging stations. That's why they went with the standard deduction in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    Here's my opinion, as someone who has zero education in economics. Feel free to voice your disagreement if you know better

    If your personal expenses match your income but those expenses can't be written off, the resulting taxes result in a net loss for that month. This would be the same with a business if expenses could not be written off

    And in my opinion, buying a house should not be written off as a personal expense, and neither should a business buying a warehouse be able to write it off either. If something can be sold, only the permanent loss should be considered an expense -- the remainder should be an asset

    But bills and rent are generally permanent expenses. You don't get anything back after paying them, except the continuation of your services. I think these should be deductible. Similarly, if a business has to pay for a SaaS solution, I'm okay with that being a deductible

    Is my thinking flawed?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    So, instead you might want to say that someone only gets taxed after reasonable living expenses are deducted… and that’s how things work.

    Things already work like that

    Dude. What the fuck are you on?

    Walmart revenue was $681 billion Walmart taxes were $6.8 billion.

    Reinvestment doesn't matter in this comparison. If it did, I could reinvest some money into something that would lower my taxable amount. That's what the meme is about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    There got to be better examples than that. Walmart manages about 4% margin, so 653 billion went toward procuring the stuff for sale. That figure suggests a tax rate of 25%, which is low at that magnitude but not as dramatically low as other companies pull off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    And lots of Walmarts "expenses" that they take out of their profit go into property rental and acquisition, I would venture to say it's one of if not the largest percentage of their expenses, much like my apartment is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    If corporations are people now then why do the get away with not paying the federal income tax?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    That's kind of what the standard deduction is. Horribly out of date and not on pace with inflation, but still.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Surely businesses' investments can't be written off? If they could, that would be a massive flaw in the system

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    They can, and I think it makes a lot of sense.

    Lets say you start a lawncare business and buy a lawnmower for $1000. You don't manage to get that many customers the first year, and only make exactly $1000. You haven't lost money, but didn't make any profit either.

    Should you now have to pay tax on those $1000 dollars of revenue, causing you to have lost money despite your hard work? Where would you even get that money from to pay the tax?


    I think the problem is not the basic system, but that the rules are too complex and have loopholes that allow you to pay less tax if you are an expert on the rules - or have enough money that it's worth it to hire one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Well you still have the lawn mower, which you can sell. But you'll get less than you paid for it (you might get $400) -- and I think that difference ($600) is the only part that should be exempt from taxes

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Heck even if overtime wasn't taxed fully that would be nice

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›