I'm curious and wondering how many dancers actually file taxes. I feel confident that all those who own a house would be filing taxes but I'm not sure about all the others.
Only with a couple that I knew fairly well, and it was in the context of other things. I have gotten the whole gamut of responses: Yes, and I honestly account for my income (unsually from the single moms), yes, but I shave down my reported income (usually from the more savvy, street-smart types), to "no", usually from girls who are so ditzy that they wouldn't file income taxes if they worked at Wal-Mart. The girls who are honest about it usually explain that they realize that they need tax returns to get a mortgage or a loan on a decent car. One dancer told me that she was aware of that requirement, but that they guy she shacked with made enough that they could,jointly, qualify for a mortgage on any house they would want, just based on his income.
I can only speak of two I knew or know well. One was married and they filed, but the cash income was not reported. The other is single and she is and was a wise dancer. She saved her cash, but as to reporting it, not very much. I know, at one time, I helped her fill out some forms for low cost housing, and then shortly after that, helped her pick out a brand new vehicle. She wouldn't pay cash since she was afraid someone would check into where she got the cash. Dancing is always cash income and easy to hide.
I only know of 1 for sure. She and her husband bought a house for 175K two years ago. To qualify for the loan, she had to claim 60K a year from strip club earnings and now must pay taxes on that. She is not too happy about that. Since I am in the 32% tax bracket, I can not feel sorry for her.
Based on discussions with a few dancers who I've known well, my guess is that most dancers don't file taxes at all, especially those who are young and don't expect to make a career of it. And those who do file taxes grossly underestimate their earnings. Just like other people who get a significant portion of their income in tips (eg. waitresses) do. To me it's one of the major reasons why we should eliminate the income tax, it's grossly unfair to people who are paid by check.
Amen!!! Bring on the federal consumption tax! I know when I owned my restaurant, I claimed about 45%. Of course this is not true, MR. IRS man. I paid on 100%!!
clubber- You owned a resturant?!?!? cool!!! Thats where all my dancing money is goin (at least I hope so) to buy our own cafe. So yes I do have to claim my earnings but all well.
Yes, I owned a pizza shop with a small eat in area. Mostly we did delivery or take out. My wife is Italian and did the cooking of Italian foods. We also sold subs and I made and cooked the pizzas. We bought it when I was still working, but when I retired at 55, it became a full time job, and I do mean FULL TIME! That is one reason I sold it. I was working more than I did before I retired for a lot less money, ergo, not enough reward for the effort. My advice, be damn sure that is what you wish to do, and it is easier to purchased an established business verses starting from scratch.
I've known a couple who admit to it. One lady went into great detail about everything she has to do and how she can get exemptions and everything. One lady has to because she owns a house. An inexpensive house in the middle of nowhere, but a house all the same. I've also known, or at least known about, one dancer who got screwed over by the IRS for failing to report income. The story the dancer who told me about this said was she owed $40,000.
I have had several dancers bring taxes up on their own. Whenever it happens, I strongly advise them never to discuss taxes with anyone in the club. You never know who you are talking to, who they work for, etc.
imnumnutz makes a good point, but I have discussed taxes with my ATF. She has brought up the subject many times. She has danced for over 9 years, and until she purchased a home 2 years ago, she never filed taxes. But as others have said, when she applied for a mortgage, she had to provide proof of income. Since her BF does not work, she had to start filing taxes. Admittedly, she does not claim every cent she earns. Her club provides the dancers with a yearly statement of their pay-outs (not a W-2 statement since they are independent contractors). Her tax preparer triples the pay-out to arrive at her annual income. (So in effect, she doesn't report any extra tips.) But since she takes deductions for all her business related expenses such as hair, make-up, clothing, tanning and has an exemption as a single mom, she does OK.
And as far a national sales tax goes, I think it seems to be an extremely good idea. Years ago, I saw a lecture on C-SPAN, I think it was given by MIT economist Lester Thurow, and it just seemed to make a lot of sense. Sure, it's a regressive tax, but its simplicity is beautiful. Tax every purchase at 15 percent. We would then collect taxes from citizens - such as strippers and drug dealers in the underground economy who are currenly paying 0 taxes. And tax across the board - no exemptions. When Tiger Woods buys a $20 million mansion in Florida, tax it a 15 percent. When the stripper pays $5000 for a boob job - tax her. We'll eliminate the national debt in no time.
I think the 15 percent trick would actually be worked into the currency. You make $100K a year, that means you receive the bills for $100K but each one is already depreciated to 86.95% (is that the right math?) of its real value. Government and tax-free jobs get the "real" value, everyone else works by means of the "depreciated" (a.k.a. after-tax) value.
This of course only kinda works. Soon enough, citizens start to think of the $100 bill as worth 100 $1s, not 115 of them (and the same about the $1 bills, too!) and start doing their mental math that way. And there ya go, instant deflation! (Or is it inflation?)
Weimar Germany (IIRC) toyed with this procedure -- paper-bill "instant" taxation -- but look where it got them!
The point is that 15% is absolutely, positively nothing to the rich. Regressive taxes hit the poorest of us the hardest, which is why I'm generally opposed to them (sales taxes, property taxes, etc.).
You must be joking, right? If not, I thought liberals were all for "FAIRNESS". So if we all pay the "SAME EQUAL, aka FAIR" 15%, then that becomes "unfair'! Give me a break! The real problem in this country is a COMPLETE lack of economics knowledge! Anyone ever read Walter Williams, or even know of him?
We liberals are for a progressive tax structure...not one that favors the rich over the poor, period. Ah you mean the Right-hack Walter Williams? Larry Kudlow's and Rush's buddy...lol...come on now.
I'd like to think that, some day, I'll be rich enough to support the act of bilking the poor, too, because then I'll have the world-view of successful people the world over, in which taking advantage of others in order to line my pockets is viewed (somehow? I haven't figured out how, yet) as a moral good rather than a moral evil.
An excellent idea, PUNISH the successful! Thank God our forefathers were wise, or we would still be living in the "stone age", as do many in third world countries. Of course, that is exactly what many on the left wish. Funny how you use the word "progressive" as a synonym for "repressive".
In any case, as we talked about in here some time ago, this discussion as ZERO to do with the SC scene, and therefore, I will end MY participation. I apologize for not ending it sooner.
clubber -- but it does, to some extent, has to do with the SC scene. As I noted in my post, by replacing the federal income tax with a 15% (or more) national sales tax, the citizens that are part of the underground/cash economy - which includes strippers - will start paying taxes. It's not that I want strippers to start giving some of their money back.....but right now, probably many of the younger girls pay zero income tax, but if we start taxing their purchase of cars, CD's, jewely, clothes....they will start to pay at least a little in taxes. There is probably no "fair" tax.....but I believe if these girls are going to make $1500-2000 per week stripping, they do deserve to pay a little.
It's not about "punishing" anyone. A progressive tax is a tax imposed so that the effective tax rate increases as the economic well-being increases, where people with more disposable income pay a higher percentage of that income in tax than do those with less income. Progressive taxes attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with a higher ability-to-pay. For a lot of liberals, it's simply about basing taxes fairly on one's ability-to-pay, period.
Darn it, I hate it when I agree with MisterGuy. He's such an earnest fellow that he's a regular target of my mockery, but unfortunately his political views are usually correct.
A sales tax is regressive to the core, as any economist will tell you. It's net impact will be to tax poorer and working class people at a higher effective tax rate. Unless you are Rush Limbaugh (and, yes, I know one of you probably IS Rush Limbaugh), you would have to agree it is idiotic to tax people with less money at a higher tax rate.
A sales tax is also bad economics, because it disrupts and skews economic choices made by consumers, and thus interferes with the proper working of the market. Even the most hardline neoclassical economist should agree that's a bad idea. The sales tax gets kudos from people on the right only because - well, precisely because -- it shifts the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class.
Unfortunately, as it is we already have a regressive tax structure in this country, because payroll taxes are regressive; we already have regressive sales taxes everywhere; property taxes are regressive (because they only tax one narrow form of wealth, that is, housing, which is commonly owned by ordinary people); and the income tax system is so riddled with holes that it is effectively flat.
There was a time in our history when we had a really progressive tax system. It was right after WWII, and it happened to be the period of greatest sustained economic growth with low inflation, and the greatest across the board increases in everyone's standard of living. The experience of my parents' generation -- where large segments of the population went from being poor to being very comfortably middle class -- is the proof that "liberal" economics work. We've had supply side economics since the 70s, and the effects have been disastrous. Slow/low growth rates; stagnant wages (for most working people, real wages have been frozen for 30 years, even with the large increase in two income households and many people working multiple jobs); and an entire economy (at the consumer, business and government levels) groaning under an enormous burden of debt. We have seen American businesses crushed, and American workers whipped. The only people who have benefited from this regime have been the super rich and, of course, banks, who have been raping our economy for decades while we all pay for this debt load.
A flat tax, or replacing the income tax with a sales tax, will only make matters worse. It will starve both workers and governments for cash (and thus will eventually harm businesses, because fewer consumer dollars will be in circulation), and force everyone to borrow more money. Once again banks and the super rich will be the only winners.
In response to parodyman, I don't think it's rude to post a thread discussion on the internet. Anyone is free to answer or not, that's not rude in my opinion.
I was doing my taxes the other day and thought this might be a good topic of interest to some.
By the way help spread the word if you know of any retirees, vets, or others that might have at least $3,000 in income they can go to irs.gov and see if they qualify for a tax rebate. They will need to file some basic tax information though to get the rebate. A number of tax preparers might be able to help as well.
That is true and the a tax levied that way would be fair to all and certainly would do away with those that (I did) bypass the system buy receiving cash. However that has to do with ANYONE receiving cash, not just dancers. Therefore, I do not consider it a SC topic.
Truth be told, it will not happen in my life time. Most all the power, inside the beltway, would be gone without the tax code as is is today, or even more convoluted!
29 comments
Latest
Amen!!! Bring on the federal consumption tax! I know when I owned my restaurant, I claimed about 45%. Of course this is not true, MR. IRS man. I paid on 100%!!
Yes, I owned a pizza shop with a small eat in area. Mostly we did delivery or take out. My wife is Italian and did the cooking of Italian foods. We also sold subs and I made and cooked the pizzas. We bought it when I was still working, but when I retired at 55, it became a full time job, and I do mean FULL TIME! That is one reason I sold it. I was working more than I did before I retired for a lot less money, ergo, not enough reward for the effort. My advice, be damn sure that is what you wish to do, and it is easier to purchased an established business verses starting from scratch.
Eliminate the federal income tax?? Come on now...a consumption tax is extremely regressive and let's the rich off way, way too easy IMO.
This of course only kinda works. Soon enough, citizens start to think of the $100 bill as worth 100 $1s, not 115 of them (and the same about the $1 bills, too!) and start doing their mental math that way. And there ya go, instant deflation! (Or is it inflation?)
Weimar Germany (IIRC) toyed with this procedure -- paper-bill "instant" taxation -- but look where it got them!
You must be joking, right? If not, I thought liberals were all for "FAIRNESS". So if we all pay the "SAME EQUAL, aka FAIR" 15%, then that becomes "unfair'! Give me a break! The real problem in this country is a COMPLETE lack of economics knowledge! Anyone ever read Walter Williams, or even know of him?
In any case, as we talked about in here some time ago, this discussion as ZERO to do with the SC scene, and therefore, I will end MY participation. I apologize for not ending it sooner.
A sales tax is regressive to the core, as any economist will tell you. It's net impact will be to tax poorer and working class people at a higher effective tax rate. Unless you are Rush Limbaugh (and, yes, I know one of you probably IS Rush Limbaugh), you would have to agree it is idiotic to tax people with less money at a higher tax rate.
A sales tax is also bad economics, because it disrupts and skews economic choices made by consumers, and thus interferes with the proper working of the market. Even the most hardline neoclassical economist should agree that's a bad idea. The sales tax gets kudos from people on the right only because - well, precisely because -- it shifts the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class.
Unfortunately, as it is we already have a regressive tax structure in this country, because payroll taxes are regressive; we already have regressive sales taxes everywhere; property taxes are regressive (because they only tax one narrow form of wealth, that is, housing, which is commonly owned by ordinary people); and the income tax system is so riddled with holes that it is effectively flat.
There was a time in our history when we had a really progressive tax system. It was right after WWII, and it happened to be the period of greatest sustained economic growth with low inflation, and the greatest across the board increases in everyone's standard of living. The experience of my parents' generation -- where large segments of the population went from being poor to being very comfortably middle class -- is the proof that "liberal" economics work. We've had supply side economics since the 70s, and the effects have been disastrous. Slow/low growth rates; stagnant wages (for most working people, real wages have been frozen for 30 years, even with the large increase in two income households and many people working multiple jobs); and an entire economy (at the consumer, business and government levels) groaning under an enormous burden of debt. We have seen American businesses crushed, and American workers whipped. The only people who have benefited from this regime have been the super rich and, of course, banks, who have been raping our economy for decades while we all pay for this debt load.
A flat tax, or replacing the income tax with a sales tax, will only make matters worse. It will starve both workers and governments for cash (and thus will eventually harm businesses, because fewer consumer dollars will be in circulation), and force everyone to borrow more money. Once again banks and the super rich will be the only winners.
I was doing my taxes the other day and thought this might be a good topic of interest to some.
By the way help spread the word if you know of any retirees, vets, or others that might have at least $3,000 in income they can go to irs.gov and see if they qualify for a tax rebate. They will need to file some basic tax information though to get the rebate. A number of tax preparers might be able to help as well.
That is true and the a tax levied that way would be fair to all and certainly would do away with those that (I did) bypass the system buy receiving cash. However that has to do with ANYONE receiving cash, not just dancers. Therefore, I do not consider it a SC topic.
Truth be told, it will not happen in my life time. Most all the power, inside the beltway, would be gone without the tax code as is is today, or even more convoluted!
Enough on this!