Jack_Squat
working "under the table"
April 30, 2013 at 8:26 PM
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

Replies

  • futureshock
    May 2, 2013 at 7:53 AM

    You are still supposed to pay taxes.

  • cjsbmom
    by cjsbmom
    May 2, 2013 at 7:54 AM

    Probably true.

    Quoting Mommy_of_Riley:

    I figure SS won't be around when I retire so why bother... LOL!

    Quoting cjsbmom:

    Look at it this way. You're making lots of money now, but because you're not on the books, you aren't earning anything toward social security or medicaid. When you retire some day, you will have nothing unless you start saving some of your "under the table" cash now. Even then, it might not be enough. 


  • futureshock
    May 2, 2013 at 7:55 AM


    Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


    Quoting Jack_Squat:

    I guess it is taboo. I figure the 66,000 we paid in taxes for last year is sufficient. What I make in my hobby is my business. Lol


    Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:

    I think it's a taboo topic. I don't believe that most people claim all of their earnings and pay taxes on every cent. I'm sure SOME do. meh It's one of those things I wouldn't talk about with others.

    I'll tell you what I had a hard time wrapping my mind around...a couple we know completely renovated their home inside and out and then filed for bankruptcy and got to keep their cars and the house but not pay back a cent they charged to 'rebuild' their home.


    We've sold our fair share of unwanted items on craigslist and ebay as well as at tag sales and we've yet to claim any of that as income. I give people who want to bemoan crap like that the 'whoop-dee-doo' finger.


    I don't think you should be taxed on those items because the money you used to buy them was already taxed.

  • kailu1835
    May 2, 2013 at 11:43 AM
    No, I know that. I just feel that it is the governments way of milking the check for all its worth.

    Quoting Della529:

     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.















     




     



     


     

  • kailu1835
    May 2, 2013 at 11:46 AM
    I like your plan :)

    Quoting turtle68:

    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.









  • witchybabymomma
    May 2, 2013 at 12:15 PM

     I have a problem when people get benefits they are not entitled to because they claim to have no income while working for cash. I also have a problem with people who work for cash in order to avoid paying their debts like child support. Other then that it doesn't bother me at all.

  • Jack_Squat
    May 2, 2013 at 12:19 PM
    I was saying between federal and state tax...


    Quoting idunno1234:

     Are you in the US??I don't have the patience to read through all the posts to see if anyone else has questioned this but there is no 45% tax bracket in the US.  Explain please.




    Quoting Jack_Squat:

    I do, too.

    They are called, 'we already pay almost 45% of our income in taxes, and ya ain't gettin' no more' ethics.



    Quoting talia-mom:

    I have ethics.




     


  • Jack_Squat
    May 2, 2013 at 12:21 PM
    I never look at them when I sign them. I just happen to have 2012 because I have to turn it in for opposing counsel for my financial disclosure lol


    Quoting Billiejeens:

     


    Ya gotta read the whole thread, she had no idea, and has only actually seen her return when she signed it.


    Quoting idunno1234:


     Are you in the US??I don't have the patience to read through all the posts to see if anyone else has questioned this but there is no 45% tax bracket in the US.  Explain please.


     


    Quoting Jack_Squat:

    I do, too.

    They are called, 'we already pay almost 45% of our income in taxes, and ya ain't gettin' no more' ethics.



    Quoting talia-mom:

    I have ethics.


     


     




     


  • Billiejeens
    May 2, 2013 at 12:52 PM

     

    You know, I think most people would not be as proud of that as you seem to be.

    Opposing counsel?

    This could be an interesting story,  what's going on?

    Quoting Jack_Squat:

    I never look at them when I sign them. I just happen to have 2012 because I have to turn it in for opposing counsel for my financial disclosure lol


    Quoting Billiejeens:

     


    Ya gotta read the whole thread, she had no idea, and has only actually seen her return when she signed it.


    Quoting idunno1234:


     Are you in the US??I don't have the patience to read through all the posts to see if anyone else has questioned this but there is no 45% tax bracket in the US.  Explain please.


     


    Quoting Jack_Squat:

    I do, too.

    They are called, 'we already pay almost 45% of our income in taxes, and ya ain't gettin' no more' ethics.



    Quoting talia-mom:

    I have ethics.


     


     


     


     



     

  • Jack_Squat
    May 2, 2013 at 12:55 PM
    Proud? Lol

    I just don't understand a bit of it, and looking at a bunch of numbers is like looking at Chinese writing to me.

    Yes, opposing counsel. I just have to turn in a financial disclosure for child support purposes. Nothing too juicy lol.


    Quoting Billiejeens:

     


    You know, I think most people would not be as proud of that as you seem to be.


    Opposing counsel?


    This could be an interesting story,  what's going on?


    Quoting Jack_Squat:

    I never look at them when I sign them. I just happen to have 2012 because I have to turn it in for opposing counsel for my financial disclosure lol



    Quoting Billiejeens:


     



    Ya gotta read the whole thread, she had no idea, and has only actually seen her return when she signed it.



    Quoting idunno1234:



     Are you in the US??I don't have the patience to read through all the posts to see if anyone else has questioned this but there is no 45% tax bracket in the US.  Explain please.



     



    Quoting Jack_Squat:

    I do, too.

    They are called, 'we already pay almost 45% of our income in taxes, and ya ain't gettin' no more' ethics.




    Quoting talia-mom:

    I have ethics.