BushFishRox;1999620; said:
No it was colonel mustard in the wine sellar. I'm honored, but look back at my posts, I'm not even familiar with these fish. In my 250 or so post's I have never mentioned any of the fsh in question.
Copyrighted Fish Images..
- Thread starter Mudfrog
- Start date
No it was colonel mustard in the wine sellar. I'm honored, but look back at my posts, I'm not even familiar with these fish. In my 250 or so post's I have never mentioned any of the fsh in question.
dmed;1999936; said:
You would still have to declare the money to get a refund on the equipment anyway. Also you don't get full reimbersement for the equipment, it is a percentage. There is just about no way you could ever exceed your profits or else people would just buy stuff with the governments money. You really don't understand the tax system, so stop arguing it. I don't see how I was being anywhere near as nasty as you or the Mudfrog.
.. this shhh made me laugh so hard.fishkeeper27;1999949; said:
Ok. just my two cents. I'm an artist, not a college professor(nice land)..but yeah i concentrated in photography, painting, all that wish wash artsy fartsy whatever you wanna call it. If my work was taken to be exposed for arts sake or just for the quality of the image, i would be flattered. i would be glad that my work is getting the attention it (hopefully) deserves. But if someone is running a business and using my images- thats just grimy. It is no longer for sharing and observance- it serves another purpose- to sell sell sell.
Now if anyone (including prof/amateur) believes that their images(good or bad) are taken out of context, they have every right to complain, ask for the picture be taken down, or be reimbursed.
peace
Don't you Americans have a break on tax? I know here, if you make less than a certain amount separate from your income, you don't have to pay tax on them.
Kioka;2000857; said:
If you make under a certain amount, say 15,000 (just making this figure up I hon't know how much it is) then you don't have to pay income tax. That figure is total income though. If you have two jobs paying 10,000 each, then your income is 20,000, you have to pay taxes. If you make 40,000 from your job, you sell your car for 5,000 and sell pictures for 100, then your total income is 45,100. You pay tax on all of it.
As for writing stuff off, you would be lucky to get 10%. If your equipment costs $500, then you get maybe $50 back. Also, to write stuff off you must prove that it makes up an important part of your income. you would never get camera equipment written off for selling $100 worth of photos if you had a real job.
I think that if you ask someone not to use your pictures, then they should do so, but I think you shouldn't be a jerk about it. I'm not really defending the vendor (and if I was I shift my views) as much as I am pointing out a problem with the way the issue was brought up in this thread.
The reason I brought up the tax thing (and sorry to derail) is to show you, mudfrog, that we all accidently break the rules sometimes, and it's nothing to get offended over. I'm sure your a good guy just with the vendor that you got mad at, and I just wanted to show you that we all make mistakes, and that you must have understanding for others.
Hmm... here you are allowed to have a gross profit (they keep changing how much is alloted) separate from your main income before having to pay income and service taxes on it.
dominicolas;2001062; said:
This is all incorrect. An individual will only pay income tax on the sale of a car if you sell the car for more than you originally paid for it (or if you capitalized it into your business and claimed a depreciation on your taxes each year and you sell it for more than the depreciated value). Very few cars are sold for more than the original selling price. The only tax generally paid during a car sales transaction is state sales tax, which is paid by the buyer.
The word "offset" (which I used earlier and was apparently misunderstood) means to claim your business expenses against your gross profit to calculate your net profit from a business. Legitimate business expenses are 100% deductible (up to the amount of profit that you show). You do not deduct a percentage of your operating costs. So, if you were paid $500 for selling pictures and you spent $100 that year on equipment or other expenses, you would deduct the $100 and pay taxes on $400 of income. If you were paid $500 for selling pictures and you spent $1000 on equipment, you can deduct $500 and you will not pay any income tax on that $500, because you did not make any income that year from the business. The additional $500 you spent can be "banked" for a specified period to offset profits in future years. You can also capitalize equipment you have already purchased into your business, which means that you can claim a deduction for their depreciation in value each year for as long as you own the business.
This does not mean that you are getting the equipment for free or "using the government's money" as it was earlier stated by someone. It is fairly and legitimately reducing your tax burden by properly claiming your business expenses. My point was that the OP probably has more than $500 worth of legitimate expenses, so his net income from photography would be zero and no taxes would be owed even if you did claim the $500. People who take small photography jobs to pay for new equipment do it this way -- you are still working to earn the money and using your own money to buy the equipment, but you are paying less income tax on the portion of your total income that comes from taking photos.
Ok, I read it. You might be right about the car thing, Ill have to check. Your wrong about the amount of reimbersement you can recieve though, for sure. It's realy a pointless argument because he didn't declare the money or the equpment. So, he still broke the law. Bam.
Yes, it is irrelevant, as it is following a major thread derailment. However, I didn't EVER say anyone was getting reimbursed. I said you can deduct your expenses from your profits and you will only pay tax on the difference, because that is your actual income, not whatever total amount someone paid you for your product. If it were any other way, businesses could not afford to operate. CASH RECEIVED - PRODUCTION EXPENSES = INCOME. I'm done with taxes here for now and don't want to think about them again 'til next April. 
Back on track -- Hope that guy takes the pictures down soon since the OP said he can't use them anymore.
Back on track -- Hope that guy takes the pictures down soon since the OP said he can't use them anymore.
