Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[kiki5711]

Well, you said it was "non taxable cash," so apparently it's new information to you, since it is not at all "non taxable."

You said that it is a "business in name only, not on books," which is completely wrong, since cash businesses are just as much "on the books" businesses as any other business. So, apparently, that is news to you too.

It's taxable if you include it as your income on tax returns. If you don't, than it's just extra cash in your pocket. I did not keep any books, but I kept the cash.

So apparently, you misunderstood me again.

It's taxable whether or not you include it as income on your tax returns. It's tax evasion if you don't include it.

It's easy to misunderstand you when you use words incorrectly. Cash is not "nontaxable" no matter what you do with it. If it's income, it's taxable. Whether you commit tax evasion or not is your call -- the money remains taxable.

of course it's taxable, I never said it wasn't. But every single person that I ever know of that cleans houses (not through a company but private steady clients) never claimed it as income. So, it is "tax free cash".

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, you said it was "non taxable cash," so apparently it's new information to you, since it is not at all "non taxable."

You said that it is a "business in name only, not on books," which is completely wrong, since cash businesses are just as much "on the books" businesses as any other business. So, apparently, that is news to you too.

It's taxable if you include it as your income on tax returns. If you don't, than it's just extra cash in your pocket. I did not keep any books, but I kept the cash.

So apparently, you misunderstood me again.

It's taxable whether or not you include it as income on your tax returns. It's tax evasion if you don't include it.

It's easy to misunderstand you when you use words incorrectly. Cash is not "nontaxable" no matter what you do with it. If it's income, it's taxable. Whether you commit tax evasion or not is your call -- the money remains taxable.

of course it's taxable, I never said it wasn't. But every single person that I ever know of that cleans houses (not through a company but private steady clients) never claimed it as income. So, it is "tax free cash".

You specifically said it was "nontaxable cash." When something is non taxable, it's not taxable, which means it would not be taxable. So you did say it wasn't taxable. That's nontaxable means.

And, the next bit about all the people you know that clean houses committing tax evasion, yes. A lot of them do it. That's why the illegals doing that work aren't being taken advantage of en masse. They mostly get paid in cash, and declare very little of what they make, then they take their artificially low incomes tax returns and apply for state benefits. That's very common.

[kiki5711]

You specifically said it was "nontaxable cash." When something is non taxable, it's not taxable, which means it would not be taxable. So you did say it wasn't taxable. That's nontaxable means.

I didn't mean that it could not be taxed, but that most cleaners don't claim it as income so that's why I said it was non taxable cash in your pocket.

Do you understand now?

Jeysus Lordy lord, I think you really have some communication issues.

[hadespussercats]

Coito, if you want to get back on track with the OP you could respond to some of my previous posts?

If you feel like it. Otherwise I'll just move on...

I did get back on track. Others derailed it again, but I should probably move on from discussing kiki's posts at all. They don't seem to relate to anything.

I did not mean to ignore your posts. I am sure I responded to you on this thread. Remember, I was gone about a week after being told I ruined the thread by posting too much. Then nobody, including the person who chastized me, discussed the issue further. So, for some reason, we had a person come to a thread she had no interest in actually participating in, berate a member, and then kill the serious discussion of the OP.

The last thing you posted is here http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1172856 (that link includes my response to it - you didn't, as far as I can tell, comment after that).

The next two of your previous posts - going back to May 2 - are here -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1172355 - and so are my responses.

Anyway -- that's a while back, so I'm not sure what I missed. But, It seems to me that I addressed the things you raised. If there is something I missed, let me know. I would love to give you the courtesy of a polite reply.

Here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1172945

Oh. And please consider this: http://www.change.org/petitions/don-t-s ... oms-credit
in your response.

I don't get why your posting that.

I would think you'd be all in favor of the CARD Act in that regard.

Anyway, the Card Act does have stay at home moms (AND STAY AT HOME DADS - I fucking hate how these issues are always phrased in sexist manner) only relying on their own personal income if they apply for a credit card -- but, of course, that is if the husband is not a cosigner on the account. So, the idea is that one spouse, who has no income, can't get a credit card that he has no income to pay, and then charge up the card, and there would be nothing the credit card company could do, because unless they have the other spouse signed on the dotted line, they can't collect from the other spouse's income.

I thought their money was their money-- that the money one spouse earns is for both of them. (This is my sense of your earlier position, which you've declared several times. This above comment of yours seems like a reversal.)

I didn't post that in a gender-specific way-- in my hypothetical example to you, you are the stay-at-home parent.

Seems like you think the stay at home parent doesn't just have money for being married to the wage-earner. So. Is a stay-at home parent a slave? Or should he be paid for his time?

[hadespussercats]

The one paying the salary is the one who gives the orders.

I'd say the one who gets to say if and when you can have money and what you can spend it on is the one who gives the orders.

[Coito ergo sum]

I thought their money was their money-- that the money one spouse earns is for both of them. (This is my sense of your earlier position, which you've declared several times. This above comment of yours seems like a reversal.)

No, because whether their assets together are marital assets is not the same thing as whether a spouse can bind another spouse to liability under a contract. That's what a credit card is. So, the position of the credit card company is that they are contracting only with the person or persons who sign up for the card. If only one person signs up for a card, then that person's spouse does not become liable. That's contract law, and isn't the same thing as whether a spouse's assets are legally considered part of the "marital estate."

I didn't post that in a gender-specific way-- in my hypothetical example to you, you are the stay-at-home parent.

I didn't say you did. But, my question as to why you posted it is merely to express my lack of understanding of the point you're making by posting it.

Seems like you think the stay at home parent doesn't just have money for being married to the wage-earner. So. Is a stay-at home parent a slave?

No, a stay at home parent is not a slave, because the stay at home parent doesn't have to do anything they don't want to do. They also are not required to have children in the first place, or get married. If they are married, it is certainly LAWFUL to have one working spouse pay the other spouse $10 an hour (or whatever) for vacuuming, going to the grocery store, cleaning the bathrooms and kitchen, and taking care of a child (if any), but should it be legally required that a stay at home spouse be paid for "their time?" Of course not.

If a stay at home dad gets "paid for his time" cleaning up and wiping asses, then the "working mom" who comes home and puts in 4 hours in the evening of the same home-tasks ought to be paid for hers, too, yes?

Or should he be paid for his time?

Paid by whom? You keep phrasing this in the passive voice.

What if I'm a "stay at home single man" and I choose to be a homemaker and take care of myself and my home. Should I get paid for my time?

What if I'm a stay at home single parent? Should single moms and dads be "paid for their time" at home if they "choose" to be homemakers?

[Coito ergo sum]

The one paying the salary is the one who gives the orders.

I'd say the one who gets to say if and when you can have money and what you can spend it on is the one who gives the orders.

I agree. That is why the concept of a husband and wife having marital assets together, rather than have one person who earns $100k become the employer of a stay-at-home parent. That way, the stay-at-home spouse doesn't have to ask the working spouse to spend some of the $100k earned by the working spouse. And, we don't have the thorny issues of what happens when the stay-at-home spouse is a slacker, and whether deductions have to be made for unemployment compensation, workers comp, social security, etc.

[Coito ergo sum]

You specifically said it was "nontaxable cash." When something is non taxable, it's not taxable, which means it would not be taxable. So you did say it wasn't taxable. That's nontaxable means.

I didn't mean that it could not be taxed, but that most cleaners don't claim it as income so that's why I said it was non taxable cash in your pocket.

Do you understand now?

Jeysus Lordy lord, I think you really have some communication issues.

You have the communication issues. Nontaxable is a word, and it has a meaning. You used it to mean something it doesn't mean. What you meant was that the cash was not actually taxed because they hide the money.

[kiki5711]

You specifically said it was "nontaxable cash." When something is non taxable, it's not taxable, which means it would not be taxable. So you did say it wasn't taxable. That's nontaxable means.

I didn't mean that it could not be taxed, but that most cleaners don't claim it as income so that's why I said it was non taxable cash in your pocket.

Do you understand now?

Jeysus Lordy lord, I think you really have some communication issues.

You have the communication issues. Nontaxable is a word, and it has a meaning. You used it to mean something it doesn't mean. What you meant was that the cash was not actually taxed because they hide the money.

If you already knew what I meant, why the ring around the rosie over and over?

[Coito ergo sum]

You specifically said it was "nontaxable cash." When something is non taxable, it's not taxable, which means it would not be taxable. So you did say it wasn't taxable. That's nontaxable means.

I didn't mean that it could not be taxed, but that most cleaners don't claim it as income so that's why I said it was non taxable cash in your pocket.

Do you understand now?

Jeysus Lordy lord, I think you really have some communication issues.

You have the communication issues. Nontaxable is a word, and it has a meaning. You used it to mean something it doesn't mean. What you meant was that the cash was not actually taxed because they hide the money.

If you already knew what I meant, why the ring around the rosie over and over?

Because I now know what you meant does not mean that your meaning was known or apparent at the time you made the stupid comment.

[kiki5711]

It was your "stiff" interpretation that made it sound stupid to YOU.

from now on I'll just place an emoticon next to each and every sentence so that you can read it slowly and "get it".!

[Coito ergo sum]

It was your "stiff" interpretation that made it sound stupid to YOU.

from now on I'll just place an emoticon next to each and every sentence so that you can read it slowly and "get it".!

So, now you were joking about the money being "nontaxable?" Hilarious.

[kiki5711]

It was your "stiff" interpretation that made it sound stupid to YOU.

from now on I'll just place an emoticon next to each and every sentence so that you can read it slowly and "get it".!

So, now you were joking about the money being "nontaxable?" Hilarious.

WTF? Do you just pull stuff out of a hat and decide to comment on it? That was like soooo yesterday. Maybe a time to move on.

[tattuchu]

[Thumpalumpacus]

This thread is like herpes. It just keeps on giving.