questions


sorabji.com: I need advice: questions
THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016).

By cyst on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 03:30 pm:

    1. Should I stop putting money into 401k until the market turns around? There's less in there now than what I put in. But it's close. After taxes, it may be a wash. My employer does not contribute, and I feel like I'd rather use that money to pay off my high-interest consumer debt.

    2. How much would you worry about retaliation if you went to recover a few hundred bucks worth of goods that were stolen from you with the cops hiding and waiting?

    3. Is "I was given a choice" a grammatically correct sentence? Explain. Use the term "transitive verb" in your response.


By Jeeves on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 03:51 pm:

    could you clarify 2.?

    3. could you define "grammatically correct"?


By cyst on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 03:58 pm:

    friend had some music equipment stolen. she found an internet ad of someone in the city selling the piece (same serial number). she called the cops, and they agreed to watch her check out the equipment when she meets the seller in a parking lot (where she will refuse to buy it), then stop the guy and just take the item from him.

    the guy has her name from their e-mails. (and people wonder why all my e-mail address have fake names!)

    if I were her, I would worry. but she's all righteous, and the thing is worth like $400. it was stolen at a local club after her band played, and the guy says he bought it at a local music store.

    if I were her, I would worry. but she's too pissed and righteous for that.


By cyst on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 03:59 pm:

    "I was given a choice."

    is that an acceptable rewrite of "a choice was given to me"?


By patrick on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 03:59 pm:

    yeah id like to know about the first one.


    with number 2...id issue a restraining order if you feel you are in danger.


By cyst on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 04:02 pm:

    401k? your money gets put into stock funds or something. apparently I've been picking them badly, but it is also just a bad time in general.

    instead of socking away part of my income into this tax-deferred stock game, for the moment should I just use it all to pay off my debts and go back in when the water's warmer? know what I mean?


By Antigone on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 04:03 pm:

    You should put money into the 401K. Now, when the market is down, is actually the best time. Buy low!

    I'm considering throwing alot of money at a NASDAQ index fund, myself. Maybe if it hits 1600...


By Rhiannon on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 04:16 pm:


By cyst on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 04:20 pm:

    Cute how the explanation they give is grammatically incorrect (though just through a typo): "Presumably a judge sentence the man..."

    thanks, r.


By droopy on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 04:28 pm:

    once long ago my band's crappy equipment was stolen out of the garage we practiced in. we called the cops, itemized a list, and started the paperwork to get our insurance money. a few days later a guy named walt grape, a pawnshop owner we did a lot of business with, called up and said some guys had come in trying to pawn our stuff (he had sold us a lot of it). we didn't call the cops. we took the insurance money and drove to dallas one day and bought better stuff. we went back to walt's to get our old fender tube amp, though. it had a really nasty sound.


By J on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 05:02 pm:

    It breaks my heart that we are going to have to sell some stock to pay Uncle Sam,first time I ever remember not getting money back,and we owe alot,I actually cried when I had to sign the form.


By Div on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 05:41 pm:

    I absolutely agree with every one of you on everything.


By patrick on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 05:45 pm:

    i mean i know what a 401k is...i have one and an IRA.

    recently though, i switched my 401k from tech related stocks to the more reliable type stocks.....including stocks in the healthcare industries which i feel good about.

    you could do some shuffling cyst. also, do you have all your 401k in one facet? I have mine split 3 ways...from high risk, to moderate, to little or now risk.


By cyst on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 05:52 pm:

    oh, I don't know. never mind. stock talk is boring. can't wait to her how my friend's sting operation goes, though.


By J on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 06:05 pm:

    I have stole 3 times in my life,the first was some monster cards in 1st grade,the second time was an eraser that cost a nickle,I got the belt and had to apologize to the store manager,the last time I took anything that wasn't mine was when I was 17 and in L.A. with my friend Mary Makeup and we were out of money and hungry.We were walking buy a Raulf's grocery store,a man got out of the Dolly Madison van and went inside,I jumped hin while he was in the store and took a box of doughnuts. I can't wait to see the pictures of who made three $400 withdrawls from my bank account,I think it was Ryan.


By J on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 06:10 pm:

    walking by.


By pez on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 06:11 pm:

    my employer stole a donut from me. when i wanted to eat it, it wasn't in my bag.

    i've caught people trying to steal several times, and my paycheck was stolen once. some people are just stupid.


By droopy on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 06:32 pm:

    i just remembered another stolen musical equipment story.

    i think the guy's name was tom, sort of a friend of a friend. he had grunge-type band back in '94 or so. kind of a big, broad-shouldered guy with curly hair. one night he rents the upper room at the white elephant saloon on the north side. they'll let a band do that for a private party and if anybody happens to wander up there from the bar, you can charge 'em cover.

    at the end of the night a guy named mark j. - thin, pale guy with real self-esteem problems and no scruples but a pretty good artist - starts helping him carry his equipment back to the van. tom finds a place in the bushes where mark had been stashing amplifiers and microphones and shit. i was there when this happened - tom just walked quietly over to mark and slugs him. mark dropped and tom started kicking him. mark was yelling "peace man! it's cool it's cool!" this lasted about 30 seconds and then somebody went over there to get him to stop. tom just got his stuff out of the bushes and walked off.


By J on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 06:53 pm:

    Now there is a Tom that I like.White elephant, I know what that means now,but I remember being in second grade and my school was having a carnival,they wanted us to collect white elephants to sell at the carnival,I went up and down my block asking my neighbors for white elephants,many people tried to give me all kinds of things,but I'd show them the flyer and pointed out that the school only wanted white elephants.I came home all upset and crying,not one person had a white elephant,when I told my dad,after laughing his ass off,he told me what it meant.


By dave. on Friday, March 23, 2001 - 08:14 pm:

    i recently discovered that i have absolutely no 401k. only a crappy company retirement fund. somebody shoot me if it looks like i'm actually sticking around long enough to collect it.

    now that the dotcom amusement park has closed, i have never been less excited about my future.


By Nate on Saturday, March 24, 2001 - 01:52 pm:

    if you have an S&P fund in your 401K, that's usually a good bet.

    young people should be risk heavy.

    invest heavily.

    god loves capitalism.

    with $1M you can buy jennie mays and get about $60K in interest per year without touching your principle.

    i understand that's plenty of salary in most parts of the country.

    the lottery is a tax on stupid people.

    there is a dog barking outside.

    utilize the ROTH IRA.

    buy real estate.


By patrick on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 12:02 pm:

    "the lottery is a tax on stupid people. "

    There is a talk show host, that, for the most part, I despise...but he's pretty popular in Portland, LA and Seattle...Tom Leykis. He's a little bitch who generalizes thill he's blue in the face and insults the male in me, for the most part. I also realizes he speaks to the lowest common denominator.

    He once said "the lottery is an idiot tax"

    true


By dave. on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 12:49 pm:

    the problem here is that the lottery money was originally intended for schools but quickly found it's way into the general fund. schools still need money.

    leykis used to be interesting and still is on rare occasions. anyone remember when he used to talk about current events and stuff besides men vs. women?

    lionel is the best right now.


By patrick on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 12:58 pm:

    yes i remember vaguely when he was more issue orientated.

    he was sharp as a tack on a lot issues.

    i think CA has remained relatively true to seeing that lottery proceeds go to schools...but thats really based on nothing concrete i've seen or heard.


By Nate on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 01:04 pm:

    yeah, patrick. unfortunately that's wrong.

    schools see very little of the lottery money.


By cyst on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 01:25 pm:

    yeah, and anyway, that's bullshit to condone all sorts of nastiness, like state-run gambling and pepsi commercials in homeroom, just so someone can say, "well, it's going to the schools!"

    that crap just lets legislators off the hook and justifies their underfunding of k-12 education. plus, lottery revenues go up and down. that's no way to fund something as important as schooling.

    I mean, wouldn't it be better if schools weren't held hostage for that sort of grandstanding, and instead, lottery funds went toward, I don't know, legislative staff salaries or something. then we could see what the true public support for the lottery is.


By pez on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 01:43 pm:

    well, it's going to the corporations.

    they are the ones getting the tax breaks, the freebies, the government to listen.

    it's so stupid. i don't want any of my taxes going to support a corporation that pays it's ceo more per month than i've seen in my entire life.


By patrick on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 01:48 pm:

    huh?


By pez on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 01:56 pm:

    tengent. sorry. but it's true.


By patrick on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 02:10 pm:

    what is true?
    that lottery money goes to private corporations? where are your taxes going again?


By Nate on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 02:20 pm:

    to me. the godfather of capitalism.

    suck it up.


By pez on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 07:40 pm:

    i felt like complaining.

    it's the rich and corporations that are getting the support, the tax breaks. boeing is leaving seattle because they think they're missing out.

    it's stupid.


By patrick on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 07:53 pm:

    Boeing is leaving Seattle for better deals I believe. Sound business deceisions. The entertainment industry is slowly leaving Hollywood for Canada for better deals. Sound business decisions.

    the rich have always gotten a break one way or another. They can afford the best. Im sure if I had enough money to bu the best CPA and lawyers i could make it to where I didnt pay any taxes either.



By dave. on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 08:18 pm:

    fuck the rich! death to all fanatics!


By amanda on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 09:42 pm:

    to let you know just how white trash i and my surroundings are...

    winning the lottery in my hometown is when you are fortunate enough to be injured on the job. you play it up as best you can and then you receive a settlement check in the mail nearly half a year later. the other way to win the lottery is to have life insurance for your family.

    my mother won the lottery... $75,000 for a back injury. my mother's friend $20 thousand or so for a foot injury. my brother $10,000 for a steamroller rolling over his feet. my stepfather $50,000 for my mother dying. here we strive for an injury or death... that's all there is to look forward to.


By Czarina on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 10:17 pm:

    Amanda,that is not a lifestyle,but it is a mentality.And not just indiginious to your area.
    You're bright enough to recognize it.Use that foresight.Get out now,before a steamroller traverses your feet.......yooooooowch.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 12:02 am:

    patrick, who do you think pays the bulk of taxes?

    sometimes you don't make any sense.


By J on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 12:19 am:

    I'm paying the bulk of taxes,and I'm not rich.


By pez on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 12:27 am:

    it's resting on the back of the middle class, which i'm going to be in five years unless i do something.

    maybe i'll drop out of college and hang around downtown all the time. that'll show the taxman.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 02:13 am:

    bah. the bulk of the taxes are paid by the top 5%.


By dave. on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 02:40 am:

    not again.

    my current hero is the oregon fella that pilfered millions from the accounts of the very wealthy. that guy rocks.


By patrick on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 11:31 am:

    i don't even know anymore.

    Montgomery Burns pays $3 in taxes a year via loopholes.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 11:37 am:

    sounds like a typical liberal arguement. cartoon character hyperbole.

    so, do you know why ice cubes shrink in your freezer? is it because of greenhouse gasses causing freezer warming?


By patrick on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 12:06 pm:

    ahh fuck man!


    do you really think i base my opinions of society at large off a cartoon?

    it was actually an attempt to avoid going THERE with my cartoon reference...

    I do not KNOW who pays the bulk of taxes in this country. Because you say so, doesnt mean IT IS so. Are we speaking percentage or actual dollar amounts? Wait, don't answer that..I don't care.

    I will tell you, we are married, no children, no house, one car, what we CAN itemize doesnt reach the minimum and every year we pay over 1k in taxes. We make under 70k per year combined. We get fucked every god damn time. Even after advising our employers extra percentage points to take out we owe owe owe.

    You can't tell me corporations of all kinds don't lots spend of money on lawyers to find loopholes, lost of money on lobbyists to advise lawmakers to insert loopholes. They spend huge amounts of money to help their interests. I don't spend huge amounts of money to help me with my taxes, I can't afford to.

    So THAT was the basis for my statement.

    bitch

    look at the dance site and suckle my teat. I m not up for this today.


By dave. on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 12:24 pm:

    one of boeing's arguments for leaving was they need to be in an area that has good public education because that's where their future workforce will come from. now, we all know that big corporations are practically given land tax exempt in order to woo them into staying. boeing also says that they need the cities and states to make it financially feasible for them to stay, basically by not only developing better highways so that they can more efficiently transport their stuff from one place to the other more efficiently but they also want to pay even less tax. i think the politicians need to step up and say that boeing will get no defense contracts unless it behaves itself. then again, boeing can relocate to hell and open up a plant.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 12:54 pm:

    i bet you pay more than $1K in taxes. it sounds like you need some tax law education.

    you write off all your photography stuff, right?



By cyst on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 01:14 pm:

    the top 5 percent may pay the "bulk" (more than 50 percent) of the taxes. but do you have any idea what percentage of the nation's wealth the top 5 percent owns?

    hint 1: it's more than 50 percent.

    hint 2: it's more than 70 percent.

    hint 3: it's more than 80 percent.


By heather on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 01:14 pm:

    1k doesn't really seem like very much


By cyst on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 01:16 pm:

    wait. let me check that. hint 1 is definitely true.


By patrick on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 01:28 pm:

    considering what they take all year long....it is. Consdiering heather, when I was single, I always got upwards of $150-300 back...then all of sudden filing jointly...we get slammed. Nothing changed in our expenses. Im not sure what the dissolution of the marriage penalty will mean for us in terms of dollars, but Im all for it. I should not be penalized becaseu I am married. And if they think I should, then I suppose anyone with a roomate should as well.

    My father in law is a CPA who owns his own firm, he looks after us. I cannot write any of my photography off, because I'm not earning anything from it. What little I did earn this past year, I didn't charge sales tax. I only made about $300 bucks from a wedding I did, and about $50 bucks I charged abother individual and about $100 for headshots. No tax was ever charged. I seriously undersold my value. Something Im trying to work on. Simpyl put, I don't offer my creative services. My photography is not vital to my standard of living, so I can't claim it.

    Until I start earning more bucks from my photography, I cannot write any of it off. I also consulted with an entertainement industry accountant...who specializes in doing taxes for freelance individuals. He also agreed my photgraphy stuff right now, doesn't add up. Right now the gov't would view it as no different than if I had a crochet hobby.

    We are in pretty decent hands when it comes to this stuff ther buddy boy.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 01:38 pm:

    Stats from the IRS, 1996:

    6,137,000 people reported income over $100K, accounting for 5.09% of all reporting.

    This 5.09% paid $338,011,000,000 in taxes, amounting to 51.35% of all taxes paid.

    Total reported income for this 5.09% is $1,410,280,000,000, or 31.09%

    source: IRS document 96indiv.pdf, Figure F.

    http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/tax_stats/soi/ind_hist.html

    file: 96INDTR.EXE


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 01:45 pm:

    you don't have to make money with your photography in order to write off your expenses. you just need to attempt to sell your product.

    businesses operate at a loss all the time.

    i'm suprised a CPA wouldn't know this.

    you pay estimated taxes all year long. what you pay or get back 4/15 is the difference in your actual tax debt and what was estimated.

    the key to reducing your tax is reducing your reported income. a great way to do this is to buy a house.

    you can beat the marriage penalty by having kids. the not-having-kids penalty sucks.


By patrick on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 01:46 pm:

    "Total reported income for this 5.09% is $1,410,280,000,000, or 31.09%"

    31.09% of WHAT?

    If i understand that correctly the total reported income vs. the total taxes paid...is what this 31.09% is.

    So if i understand it correctly, they paid less 1/3 of their income in taxes. I have to look at my forms, but I paid around this as well.

    You can't compare the percentage to the actual $ amount. It's always going to come up seemingly skewed.

    We really should only focus on percentages.

    What would be more telling is what percentage every billionaire in America paid, of their income in taxes.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 01:51 pm:

    that would be 31.09% of all income reported in the us. ie., they made 31% of the money and paid 51% of the taxes.

    from the same source, same figure: people reporting over $1,000,000 paid 30.8% of their income. people reporting in your range, $50-$100K paid 13%.


By patrick on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 01:59 pm:

    my photography is not a business.

    the minute i make it a business, I have to have licenses to collect taxes, and I have to report what I earn. Im not a commercial photographer, and Im not wanting to be one per se. Now when I report for 2001, things may change. I have a month long gallery show coming up in August, and If I sell pieces, considering thegallery is involved, Im going to have to play buy the rules and will have to report that income.


    Im not working at the level that would make it worthy to make it a business.

    both my father in law and the local CPA agreed with this.

    I only spent about 2k in photography crap last year.

    Im not going to have kids to beat the marriage penalty. Thats a ridiculous notion, and further proof the penalty is absurd.

    We realize the benefits of buying a house...in all realms.

    I should also mention that this father-in-law is financing my wife's company Mille Nico. Im not really in a position to ask him to nit pick and grind out reports down as far he possibly can. Considering his services are free....we don't press the issue too much.


By cyst on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 02:03 pm:

    OK. it looks like four years ago, the top 5 percent owned 60% of the nation's wealth. I'm certain that in the last four years, the top 5 percent have gained a larger percentage (probably not to 80 percent, though).

    http://www.texasobserver.org/subjects/columns/11.21.97.mi.html -- Molly Ivins, in a 1997 column:

    "The top 5 percent has an even larger share of the nation's accumulated wealth, holding about 60 percent of all net worth, according to The Nation." (which got its figures from NYU economist Edward Wolff)

    http://www.inequality.org/factsfr.html


By patrick on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 02:04 pm:

    I'll check my papers at home, to see what percentage I'm paying this year.

    According to CNN in regards to the Bush tax proposal...my bracket pays 28%, under the Bush tax plan I will pay 25%.


By cyst on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 02:05 pm:

    nate: I'm not sure if you were responding to what I said, but I want to note that I'm talking about WEALTH, not INCOME.


By dave. on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 02:31 pm:

    i'd be very surprised if anyone earning over 200k actually pays 30% in taxes. they get around it somehow or if they don't they're kinda stupid.

    flat tax rate of 10% for anything over 25k and a salary jump from 24,999 to 27,750 to eliminate any penalty for entering the taxable zone. no loopholes. if the gov can't make it happen with that money, fire 'em and hire someone who can.

    corporate earnings should be taxed similarly but i'm not sure what those exact numbers should be. charitable donations to non-profits might also be deductible up to a certain percent of gross income.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 03:14 pm:

    i realize that now, cyst. when did wealth become immoral?

    are you saying that you believe wealth redistribution is a role of the government?



    patrick:
    (this is not an arguement)

    the progressive tax code works like this (numbers are simplified)

    $0-$10,000 .............. 0%
    $10,001-$20,000 ........ 15%
    $20,001-$30,000 ........ 20%
    $30,001-$100,000 ....... 25%

    say you make $60K. On the first $10K you pay 0%, on the next ~$10K you pay 15%, on the next ~$10K you pay 20% and on the last ~$30K you pay 25%. you're not paying a flat 25%.


    i agree with dave.



By patrick on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 03:34 pm:

    but this is a system we do not use now, nor is it being proposed correct? Bush's plan is not pregressive is it?


By Rhiannon on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 03:35 pm:

    Bear with me, I'm trying to learn. So that $60k-earning guy pays $11k?


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 03:55 pm:

    the progressive tax code is what we have now, and what bush proposes is just a bracket adjustment on our current code (plus adding tax credits for kids, which is shitty, and some other things that i don't recall.)

    yeah, spider... $11K.

    the marriage penalty comes from the adjustments made to the brackets for a married couple. say something like this:

    $0-$15,000 .............. 0%
    $15,001-$25,000 ........ 15%
    $25,001-$35,000 ........ 20%
    $35,001-$105,000 ....... 25%
    $105,001-$200,000 ...... 30%

    if the $60K guy gets married and his wife doesn't work, that's great... his taxes go from $11K to $9.75K. however, if his wife makes $60K also, they'd now pay $25.5K ($120K on the above chart.) at $11K each when single, they're pre-marriage combined tax was $22K.


By Cat on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 04:00 pm:

    I do everything I can to legally minimise my taxes. I formed a limited liability company so I get to offset a heap of expenses...car, home electricity, phone, even dry-cleaning clothes.

    I used to pay around 30% of my income in tax and now I pay around 15%. And it feels great. I assuage my social conscience in other ways.

    People earning middle class wages have a middle class mentality to money, and that holds them back. Think big and your bank balance will follow.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 04:06 pm:

    you could easily do something similar with your photography, patrick... knocking $2000 in photo equipment cost off the top of your income will save you the percentage of your bracket... think of it as a 28% discount on your art supplies.


By cyst on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 04:51 pm:

    "when did wealth become immoral?"

    it's not. I don't remember saying so. is income immoral? is property ownership? are sales?

    "are you saying that you believe wealth redistribution is a role of the government?"

    aren't all taxes a form of wealth redistribution?


By patrick on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 05:05 pm:

    well our taxes are going to be quite different next year seeing as how the wife left her company Feb 1st and started her own business.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 05:08 pm:

    it depends on where you place distinction. if we are the government, and taxes are used for the benefit of the government (and therefore us,) then no. in the same way that paying your water bill is not wealth redistribution. taxes pay for services.

    or should, anyway.

    statements such as:

    "the top 5 percent may pay the "bulk" (more than 50 percent) of the taxes. but do you have any idea what percentage of the nation's wealth the top 5 percent owns?"

    seem to argue the more you own (as opposed to earn in a year) should be the basis for taxation. either that, or wealth is somehow immmoral.

    our system is set up so that the more you earn, the higher percentage of what you earn goes to taxes.


By pez on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 05:09 pm:

    70% of all statistics are made up.

    including this one.

    * * *

    all i know is that i read in the newspaper about how corporations complain about not getting enough benefits.

    sure, i got a new year 30 cent-per-hour cost of living raise, but the increase in union dues more than makes up for that.

    try getting your weekly check, opening it up, and seeing that you worked 20+ hours for around $80. that's like $4 an hour.

    i pay my tuition, pay for books (the store marks the list price UP by 1/3), gas money, some food and a new pair of socks everyonce in a while. i paid for my kitten to be spayed, paid for her food.

    i'm beginning to think about taking a second job and moving out so i could let my 16-year-old sister have the car because i'm tired as heck of driving 60 miles a day because she needs a ride to school, forgot her track gear, then needs a ride home.

    i haven't bought any new clothes for a couple of months, but i need a new pair of jeans, more slacks, dress shirts.

    i have no decent work shoes, and it looks like i'm going to need to drop at least $60-$70 because most stores don't carry my size and to top it off i have flat feet.

    i'm relying on my next paycheck to make up for the amount i need for tuition, due by one week from today. i've budgeted no money for books.

    if the real world is worse, please shoot me now. there's no way i can be fully self-sufficient on less than $200 a week.

    * * *

    this has been another pointless rant. please disregard the previous passage.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 05:09 pm:

    i hope you're an employee, patrick.


By patrick on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 05:33 pm:

    working towards it....im so sick of gay porn


By dave. on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 05:59 pm:

    sigh. me too.


By Cat on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 06:32 pm:

    You can be an employee without necessarily working for her, Patrick. Especially if she starts to make money.


By patrick on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 06:40 pm:

    right.....the trick is...waiting for the money to come in. the fashion biz..operates on seasons...so right now production is starting for the fall season, orders are delivered in the summer....payment received then....and then in Sept. Nov. December the cycle starts again for spring. So, we won't see any income for a while.


By Nate on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 07:00 pm:

    if you're an employee, then your wage would be a cost, and therefore reduce the amount of money the company pays in taxes.

    you'd have to see where the benefit is.


By Cat on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 07:05 pm:

    You could look at invoicing your current employer for your work, rather than getting paid a salary. You then have the money paid directly into a company account, and just draw a token salary.

    The trick is to be your own employer.


By dave. on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 07:12 pm:

    the trick is to employ your own beer.


By Antigone on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 09:01 pm:

    the prick is to deploy his own queer


By J on Monday, April 2, 2001 - 01:50 pm:

    I need to start working again,you do get a big tax break,I guess I'll just have to strap a mattress on my back just to pay Uncle Sam this year,it just tears the ass out me when I think of what I could buy,with what I have to pay.


bbs.sorabji.com
 

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS
 

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact