Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Why do people get so up in arms when someone is working for cash? I can think of many instances where I don't consider it a big deal. If you babysit a friend's kids and get paid, you're technically working under the table.

I bring in a nice income, untaxed. I don't "work", but I still earn money.

Whoooo cares??

I had a friend go off about me earning money that is not taxed. After bragging about getting back more than she paid in. Ooookkkkkk
by on Apr. 30, 2013 at 8:26 PM
Replies (131-140):
Della529
by Matlock on May. 1, 2013 at 9:41 PM
1 mom liked this

 The federal tax (from the table) is an amount deducted by the employer from the employee's pay.  It is not duplicated or matched by the employer.

The employer would be out of pocket $130 plus whatever the SS, Med, UC, WC totals, but not the $20, as it come strictly from the employee.  

Quoting turtle68:

lets try a scenario and see if I am understanding you :-)

A person gets a job and its minimum wage.  13 dollars an hour.

They work 10 hours and get paid $130 gross

The federal tax table states that he will be taxed 20 dollars for this amount

The employer who have to pay employers tax pays $110 to employee and THEN pays his/her requirements to federal taxes based on that wage amount.  Lets say 10% of the gross wage.

So the employee gets $110 and the employer pays that plus 10% on the 130...Employer is out of pocket $143.00

The Employee wage or money given has not been taxed twice.  The employer has seen to their responsibility as an employer which includes taxes being paid for hiring people.

*edited*

Trimmed

Lucysmom1012
by on May. 1, 2013 at 9:48 PM

It pisses me off that people don't report their income because they received cash! What you are so special that you shouldn't have to pay tax? I had to pay tax on the money I earn and paid you. That is why I always charge my tips to servers or any other tipped employee. Hopefully their employer is now reporting this income on their W-2. 

Della529
by Matlock on May. 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM

 No.  The $19,500 is a combined minimum.  If you file seperately, the minimum drops to $3,800. 

Quoting Jack_Squat:

Does that not mean married persons..as in each married person?


Quoting Della529:

 Yes, for married filing jointly.  19,5 is the minimum income for both incomes.



Working Individuals


In 2012, self-employed individuals netting more than $400 a year must file taxes. Freelancers are considered self-employed. Non-self-employed taxpayers younger than 65 years old must file taxes if they earn more than $9,750 a year.


These minimums are raised to $19,500 for married persons filing jointly and are $3,800 for married persons filing separately. Individuals working for a church falling within IRS tax-exempt rules must file taxes if they earn more than $108.28 a year.


Quoting AMBG825:


 Actually, if she's married filing jointly, she can make up to $19,500 before she has to claim it.


Quoting Della529:


 Hustling pool and cards?


If you make $300 a night and only do it one night a week that's $15,600/year.  The IRS would be concerned.


Quoting Jack_Squat:

When I do my thang, I can usually make up to 300 or more a night, depending on the action available. It's nice for play money. This week I've made 40, but I went out on a monday, and that's the only night I felt like going. Lol



Quoting Della529:


What do you consider to be a "nice income"?



 


 


 


 

Della529
by Matlock on May. 1, 2013 at 9:53 PM

 I don't see how you think the government receives income twice.  The only one that might is SS.

Quoting kailu1835:

I said that it is similar. If two people are paying taxes on the same paycheck, I would call that borderline double dipping, since the government receives "income" twice from the same paycheck, even though it comes from two different people.

Quoting Della529:

If you make $300, you pay SS, Med, Federal taxes.


On the $300 paid to you, your employer pays a matching percentage of the SS and Med, plus UC, and WC taxes.


Two entities paid taxes, but it's not double-dipping. 


Quoting kailu1835:

Let me see if I can explain it better. Say I make 300 bucks. I pay taxes on it. My employer pays taxes on it, but his portion comes out of his pocket, not mine. Two people paid taxes on my 300 bucks. It's not TECHNICALLY double dipping, but it's close.


Quoting Della529:


 There are a number of these employer payroll taxes IE> SS, Medicare, Unemployment, Worker's Comp, but the employer isn't double-taxed.  The only thing "doubled" is SS & MC because both the employer and employee are required to pay into the system. 



Quoting kailu1835:

It's called employer payroll tax, and is not what is taken out of the employees paycheck. It is based on a percentage of the employees gross. It is definitely a form of double dipping, since two people are paying taxes on one person's check.



Quoting turtle68:



I couldnt find a employee tax...are you sure its not an unemployment tax (certain states employ this) or their social security requirements?



an employees money isnt double taxed....its taxed once from what I can see.



An employer has to abide by state and federal guidelines...if that requires paying a certain percentage...then that is the price of living there and having employees.  But it is not considered double dipping.



Double dipping in taxes is what we have in superannuation....it is tax inclusive when it goes into your super account and taxed at max when it is withdrawn.



Quoting kailu1835:

Employers pay an employee tax. When I nannies full time it was all above board, and my employers used on online resource that immediately took out what they owed from their bank account, and took out taxes from my paycheck. I made 16 bucks an hour, but they were paying closer to 18 an hour to employ me.





Quoting turtle68:



how?



Quoting kailu1835:

Did you know that every penny you earn has been double taxed? Your employer pays taxes on what you earn, and so do you.







Quoting AMBG825:



 Because you should be paying taxes on that money.









 


 

 

turtle68
by Mahinaarangi on May. 1, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Fair enough :-)  Our tax/ wage system is half of what you would like to see and half...not LOL

We have employer paid superannuation at 9% of gross wage comparable to SS.  It was instigated in lieu of a pay rise over three years 3% each year.  So its our money they are paying into our retirement.  We can draw on this in times of need or we can get the lump sum at 65.  This was not welcomed by employers as they became tax collectors for the government...the shift of responsibility.  However Im sure they enjoyed not having to pay the extra pay per month (super does not have to paid weekly but must be up to date in the employees account twice a year and fully up to date by the end of the fiscal year)

Medicare.  I believe in the right of the people to have access to healthcare without a dollar sign attached.  This is paid by the employees at tax time based on your taxable income, not the gross.

Employers are responsible IMO for ensuring their obligations are met each week, month and year.  

Quoting kailu1835:

No offense taken :)
I don't believe that the employer should be responsible for my retirement, I believe that I should be responsible for my own retirement care. That includes social security and Medicare. Along those same lines, I don't believe that a business should be held responsible for economic downturn, I believe that I should plan for it. The economic collapse did not come as any great shock, we were well warned, and should have begun preparing immediately. immediately. Most ignored it. It is not their employers responsibility to make sure that they are cared for while out of work. Or rather, it should not be.


Quoting turtle68:

YAY lol

Ok...so my question is, should employers not be responsible for paying these taxes or requirements?

To me these are specific to unemployment, ss, medicare etc.  They are taxes that come as part and parcel for the protection of employees as well as employers.

Should they not pay in and let everyone be responsible for their own?  

For example...if unemployment or redundancy happens, bankruptcy and the company that you have worked for years has no money set aside to be able to pay you out....is that ok?  

SS...well this component is like a savings account for you, a collection of working credit for your retirement.

medicare...IMO a part of societal contribution.

I know this goes off track of the original conversation...Im just being curious / nosey LOL.

Quoting kailu1835:

Yes. That's it exactly. I never meant to imply that the employee was paying twice, or the employer, just that 2 people are paying taxes on one sum of money.






kailu1835
by Ruby Member on May. 1, 2013 at 10:03 PM
I pay taxes on my check and my employer pays taxes on my check.

Quoting Della529:

 I don't see how you think the government receives income twice.  The only one that might is SS.


Quoting kailu1835:

I said that it is similar. If two people are paying taxes on the same paycheck, I would call that borderline double dipping, since the government receives "income" twice from the same paycheck, even though it comes from two different people.


Quoting Della529:


If you make $300, you pay SS, Med, Federal taxes.



On the $300 paid to you, your employer pays a matching percentage of the SS and Med, plus UC, and WC taxes.



Two entities paid taxes, but it's not double-dipping. 



Quoting kailu1835:

Let me see if I can explain it better. Say I make 300 bucks. I pay taxes on it. My employer pays taxes on it, but his portion comes out of his pocket, not mine. Two people paid taxes on my 300 bucks. It's not TECHNICALLY double dipping, but it's close.



Quoting Della529:



 There are a number of these employer payroll taxes IE> SS, Medicare, Unemployment, Worker's Comp, but the employer isn't double-taxed.  The only thing "doubled" is SS & MC because both the employer and employee are required to pay into the system. 




Quoting kailu1835:

It's called employer payroll tax, and is not what is taken out of the employees paycheck. It is based on a percentage of the employees gross. It is definitely a form of double dipping, since two people are paying taxes on one person's check.




Quoting turtle68:




I couldnt find a employee tax...are you sure its not an unemployment tax (certain states employ this) or their social security requirements?




an employees money isnt double taxed....its taxed once from what I can see.




An employer has to abide by state and federal guidelines...if that requires paying a certain percentage...then that is the price of living there and having employees.  But it is not considered double dipping.




Double dipping in taxes is what we have in superannuation....it is tax inclusive when it goes into your super account and taxed at max when it is withdrawn.




Quoting kailu1835:

Employers pay an employee tax. When I nannies full time it was all above board, and my employers used on online resource that immediately took out what they owed from their bank account, and took out taxes from my paycheck. I made 16 bucks an hour, but they were paying closer to 18 an hour to employ me.






Quoting turtle68:




how?




Quoting kailu1835:

Did you know that every penny you earn has been double taxed? Your employer pays taxes on what you earn, and so do you.








Quoting AMBG825:




 Because you should be paying taxes on that money.












 



 


 

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on May. 1, 2013 at 10:06 PM
The problem with ss is that it is not sustainable. People are not getting back what they put in, and the payout has been diminishing. It should never have been their obligation to pay these things in the first place. I agree that since the government has decided it is their obligation, that they have t pay it, you just don't think it's right that it is their obligation in the first place.

Quoting turtle68:Fair enough :-)  Our tax/ wage system is half of what you would like to see and half...not LOLWe have employer paid superannuation at 9% of gross wage comparable to SS.  It was instigated in lieu of a pay rise over three years 3% each year.  So its our money they are paying into our retirement.  We can draw on this in times of need or we can get the lump sum at 65.  This was not welcomed by employers as they became tax collectors for the government...the shift of responsibility.  However Im sure they enjoyed not having to pay the extra pay per month (super does not have to paid weekly but must be up to date in the employees account twice a year and fully up to date by the end of the fiscal year)Medicare.  I believe in the right of the people to have access to healthcare without a dollar sign attached.  This is paid by the employees at tax time based on your taxable income, not the gross.Employers are responsible IMO for ensuring their obligations are met each week, month and year.  Quoting kailu1835:No offense taken :)
I don't believe that the employer should be responsible for my retirement, I believe that I should be responsible for my own retirement care. That includes social security and Medicare. Along those same lines, I don't believe that a business should be held responsible for economic downturn, I believe that I should plan for it. The economic collapse did not come as any great shock, we were well warned, and should have begun preparing immediately. immediately. Most ignored it. It is not their employers responsibility to make sure that they are cared for while out of work. Or rather, it should not be.

Quoting turtle68:YAY lolOk...so my question is, should employers not be responsible for paying these taxes or requirements?To me these are specific to unemployment, ss, medicare etc.  They are taxes that come as part and parcel for the protection of employees as well as employers.Should they not pay in and let everyone be responsible for their own?  For example...if unemployment or redundancy happens, bankruptcy and the company that you have worked for years has no money set aside to be able to pay you out....is that ok?  SS...well this component is like a savings account for you, a collection of working credit for your retirement.medicare...IMO a part of societal contribution.I know this goes off track of the original conversation...Im just being curious / nosey LOL.Quoting kailu1835:Yes. That's it exactly. I never meant to imply that the employee was paying twice, or the employer, just that 2 people are paying taxes on one sum of money.





Della529
by Matlock on May. 1, 2013 at 10:20 PM

 But, not the same taxes (except SS/Med).  :-)

Quoting kailu1835:

I pay taxes on my check and my employer pays taxes on my check.

Quoting Della529:

 I don't see how you think the government receives income twice.  The only one that might is SS.


Quoting kailu1835:

I said that it is similar. If two people are paying taxes on the same paycheck, I would call that borderline double dipping, since the government receives "income" twice from the same paycheck, even though it comes from two different people.


Quoting Della529:


If you make $300, you pay SS, Med, Federal taxes.



On the $300 paid to you, your employer pays a matching percentage of the SS and Med, plus UC, and WC taxes.



Two entities paid taxes, but it's not double-dipping. 



Quoting kailu1835:

Let me see if I can explain it better. Say I make 300 bucks. I pay taxes on it. My employer pays taxes on it, but his portion comes out of his pocket, not mine. Two people paid taxes on my 300 bucks. It's not TECHNICALLY double dipping, but it's close.



Quoting Della529:



 There are a number of these employer payroll taxes IE> SS, Medicare, Unemployment, Worker's Comp, but the employer isn't double-taxed.  The only thing "doubled" is SS & MC because both the employer and employee are required to pay into the system. 




Quoting kailu1835:

It's called employer payroll tax, and is not what is taken out of the employees paycheck. It is based on a percentage of the employees gross. It is definitely a form of double dipping, since two people are paying taxes on one person's check.




Quoting turtle68:




I couldnt find a employee tax...are you sure its not an unemployment tax (certain states employ this) or their social security requirements?




an employees money isnt double taxed....its taxed once from what I can see.




An employer has to abide by state and federal guidelines...if that requires paying a certain percentage...then that is the price of living there and having employees.  But it is not considered double dipping.




Double dipping in taxes is what we have in superannuation....it is tax inclusive when it goes into your super account and taxed at max when it is withdrawn.




Quoting kailu1835:

Employers pay an employee tax. When I nannies full time it was all above board, and my employers used on online resource that immediately took out what they owed from their bank account, and took out taxes from my paycheck. I made 16 bucks an hour, but they were paying closer to 18 an hour to employ me.






Quoting turtle68:




how?




Quoting kailu1835:

Did you know that every penny you earn has been double taxed? Your employer pays taxes on what you earn, and so do you.








Quoting AMBG825:




 Because you should be paying taxes on that money.












 



 


 

 

mermaid13dragon
by Member on May. 1, 2013 at 10:25 PM

I don't know.. I paid a friend several times to work for me on photo shoots, I initially paid her under the table, then later I wished I hadn't, because I could have used the deduction in the wages I paid her on MY taxes but since it was six months later I didn't feel right turning around and sending her a 1099.. though you bet next time, I will be up front and tell her I CANT pay her under the table...   though babysitting between friends I don't see any reason to... 

turtle68
by Mahinaarangi on May. 1, 2013 at 10:59 PM

The government is not allowed to touch our super...we have like superannuation funds, run by independant private companies.  We can shop around for the place that pays the best interest and has the best investments.  We can add to it voluntarily to bolster up our retirement.

The government will grab at taxes when it goes into the account and again when it goes out.  That is it.  They cant borrow on it over the years.  The only way you will get less is if the super fund you go with loses money on its investment and no dividends are paid to clients.  That would be extremely rare though as the government does watch super funds to see if the companies are doing right by its clients before too much money can be lost.

The SS is run, held and utilized at the whim of your government.  that is sad.  IMO unless it was done in lieu of pay rises or some other payment given to employees...then I agree with you, its not an obligation the employers should have to bear.

Quoting kailu1835:

The problem with ss is that it is not sustainable. People are not getting back what they put in, and the payout has been diminishing. It should never have been their obligation to pay these things in the first place. I agree that since the government has decided it is their obligation, that they have t pay it, you just don't think it's right that it is their obligation in the first place.

Quoting turtle68:Fair enough :-)  Our tax/ wage system is half of what you would like to see and half...not LOLWe have employer paid superannuation at 9% of gross wage comparable to SS.  It was instigated in lieu of a pay rise over three years 3% each year.  So its our money they are paying into our retirement.  We can draw on this in times of need or we can get the lump sum at 65.  This was not welcomed by employers as they became tax collectors for the government...the shift of responsibility.  However Im sure they enjoyed not having to pay the extra pay per month (super does not have to paid weekly but must be up to date in the employees account twice a year and fully up to date by the end of the fiscal year)Medicare.  I believe in the right of the people to have access to healthcare without a dollar sign attached.  This is paid by the employees at tax time based on your taxable income, not the gross.Employers are responsible IMO for ensuring their obligations are met each week, month and year.  Quoting kailu1835:No offense taken :)
I don't believe that the employer should be responsible for my retirement, I believe that I should be responsible for my own retirement care. That includes social security and Medicare. Along those same lines, I don't believe that a business should be held responsible for economic downturn, I believe that I should plan for it. The economic collapse did not come as any great shock, we were well warned, and should have begun preparing immediately. immediately. Most ignored it. It is not their employers responsibility to make sure that they are cared for while out of work. Or rather, it should not be.

Quoting turtle68:YAY lolOk...so my question is, should employers not be responsible for paying these taxes or requirements?To me these are specific to unemployment, ss, medicare etc.  They are taxes that come as part and parcel for the protection of employees as well as employers.Should they not pay in and let everyone be responsible for their own?  For example...if unemployment or redundancy happens, bankruptcy and the company that you have worked for years has no money set aside to be able to pay you out....is that ok?  SS...well this component is like a savings account for you, a collection of working credit for your retirement.medicare...IMO a part of societal contribution.I know this goes off track of the original conversation...Im just being curious / nosey LOL.Quoting kailu1835:Yes. That's it exactly. I never meant to imply that the employee was paying twice, or the employer, just that 2 people are paying taxes on one sum of money.






Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured