Wow! Begrudging your "parents" their Social Security? :O  LOL

It's been that way from the beginning, my friend. If you make a profit -- however small -- from selling your book -- or sharpening lawnmower blades -- then you are a "business" and business has always paid the lion share of Social Security taxes.

I don't think the issue was with having to pay a tax.. it was the fact that the tax is so arbitrary.  If he only makes $20/month on the books.. why must he pay $100?  How is that encouraging the young entrepreneur to keep going?  It would be one thing for a business that might pull in thousands.  It would be more reasonable for them to say, "If you make $20 a month on the books.. pay us $2."

Exactly! I see no problem with paying taxes... but these taxes should be tied to the money the business generates. I'm not aiming to create a company here, I'm just trying to get some extra money by creative writing. Meanwhile, the law makes it impossible - I can't do it though running a business, because the taxes make this approach unaffordable... and selling fiction without turning it into a business is, apparently, illegal.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:01, Mon 23 Mar 2015.

Gentlepeople, my point: It has never been that way! Social Security taxes -- for business -- have never been based upon profits.

Don't think you're being singled out OR that this is something "new." It has been this way for Bill Gates and Warren Buffet for decades . . . did you complain about it on their behalves?

I became self-employed and experienced this wonderful reality long ago. Welcome to the club.

I'm not saying it's anything new... I'm just saying it's dumb.

I mean, this makes it virtually impossible to start a tiny business to get some additional income...

Hmm.. you may want to consult with a financial professional on this issue.  If there's one thing that always holds true: there's an exception to nearly everything.

Having done the personal business thing myself: I've dealt with some of the silliness and the positives of going at it alone.  I'm guessing that you are speaking as an American.  If this is the case: LLCs or even C-Corps that are registered without employees fall under an entirely different category of taxable and cost-send-through liabilities.

Also - consider *insert company name here* and Direct Publishing.  It's one thing to 1099 yourself to heck and back - and let the big businesses that already exist shoulder that burden: especially if you're only publishing a thing or two.

(as I realized earlier: naming individual companies is a no-no, sorry moderators!) - so, not going to be super-specific; but, there are a number of options for this.

Actually, I'm speaking as a Polish person...

And I checked. There really seems to be no exemptions. Personal businesses with no employees are treated the same here as all other businesses.

ROFLMAO

Varsovian, you'll be much happier in life if you never expect "common sense" from a government entity!

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 891):

If you were American, self employed with no employees, you would fall under the minimums and not have to pay a social security tax.

Small scale "private" sales have always been an American thing, and I think people would freak out if every Garage Sale and EBay deal meant a mound of business tax obligations and regulations.

Whenever there are laws, there are almost always inequities. Laws seldom can be detailed enough top cover everything.

Regarding the business and social security: Though I don't know the laws, I suggest this. You have an in-home business. you have then set aside some space for that business and have other expenses. Get your country's business expense regulations...meals maybe, conventions perhaps.... Then your business operates at a loss, reducing your income, and thus lowing your taxes. And I think your social security payment is a business expense. BTW, your increased payments may increase your benefit.

Hmm... No, I really don't think you can deduce the social security payment as a business cost. It's not that easy...

I talked to a consultant at the official tax helpline today... and she said she didn't know whether selling e-books would qualify as a business. She said I should ask the tax authority for official legal interpretation... Of course, getting such an interpretation costs money, too. O_o

The matter is further complicated by the fact that I'd like to sell my stuff through Amazon or Smashwords... which are foreign businesses. That pay their own taxes, most probably...

This whole situation turns out to be some sort of legal mess...

There's bound to be books on starting a business in Poland. Ebooks even :)

One possible thing to consider, if allowed in Poland.  If you start a "company," maybe it can be a "multipurpose" company with various different areas it handles.  In other words, for whatever work you do, it would all fall under the "company," so you don't have to double pay.  I don't know about your personal job (employee, company owner, etc.), but in the U.S., some people also create corporations around themselves to take advantage of the laws (e.g., athletes).  That might be one way to comply with the draconian law in a way that doesn't multiply your expenses.

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 895):

Have you contacted the reseller (amazon, smash words, etc.) for advice? They probably encounter that sort of problem a lot, and maybe there are relevant forums or FAQ sections. Maybe contact other Polish writers to see what they do.

The $100 a month seems very harsh. Are you sure that isn't just an initial set up fee? Worth checking.

Does your bank have a small business advisor who can assist you? Most western banks do but I don't know for Poland.

I know governments can be idiotic at times but I would be surprised that any government would be so keep to kill off small enterprise.

I agree. There is likely a de minimus exemption or something, though typically those are based on a yearly, not monthly basis.

In reply to Isida KepTukari (msg # 874):

Late response but. I would suggest your husband may need psychiatric help for depression. This is from someone who has experience dealing with the disorder, but of course, a doctor's opinion is best.

Unfortunately mental illness has such a taboo to it that it may be tough to get him to agree to seek such help. So I don't know how much this would help your situation if the symptoms turn out to be a match.

It may be possible.  I have depression myself, and I know how variable the symptoms can be.  It's something I can raise with him, though some of his behaviors predated this stressful time, so his health is something we'll have to tackle from both angles.  I honestly think he should have had a sleep study done years ago, as well as getting exercises for his back.  But I can only tell the horse there's water - I can't make him drink yet.  :(

In reply to Isida KepTukari (msg # 901):

Unfortunately one disorder/problem doesn't mean there aren't others.  In fact, of course, often one problem leads to another.  Poor health can make one depressed (garden variety, not clinical I guess, but that's bad enough), depression etc can lead to poor eating habits and then to nutrition based issues, and so on.  Perhaps he's more likely to seek help for physical issues, and then you can try, with a little help from the doctor, to cover other areas.  *sigh*  Though I find medical doctors very bad about nutritional stuff; I actually had a doctor tell me gout had nothing to do with what I ate.  Of course the same doctor told me I had an active case of gout because the blood work said so.

When the primary form of communication between departments is email, it would really really help if people read what has been written instead of making up their own version.

It's right there. In correctly spelled words and in the correct order.

Common Sense 0 - 2 Bureaucratic Automatons

I feel you Tileira. People at my office are like, "Reading? What is this thing you call reading?"

They can handle about two sentences tops before tuning out. Pretty much you have to go to some people in person if you want anything to happen.

In reply to Tileira (msg # 903):

Kind of brings to light the Office Space scenario where 8 different people ask the guy if he read the memo after he screws up a TPS report.

I have to email our contractors, often asking for clarification or to pass along new information. I would usually write about a 4 sentence email. I heard from other sources that they had difficulties with my emails. So I started to put each sentence on a new line with number in front of it. Nothing about my emails changed except adding a number in front of each sentence.

Yet now, they can magically read it.

In my day, you could be "failed."

Today -- and for many years now -- that's been illegal. You graduate High School even if you can't read, write, or do basic math.

Sadly, those people are now taking over, just a few years before I qualify for Social Security.

The world is becoming a scary place indeed.

In reply to Mystic-Scholar (msg # 907):

No worries there, no one in Government has ever had much of any common sense anyway.
I spent 3 months last year trying to tell a person that I had x amount of money in my bank account for a particular month, they kept insisting I was $400 over that amount - took someone in a totally different office to look at it and see I was right (after they told me I had to pay the state back $1400 because I was over the limit of how much money I am allowed to have.)
All because I transferred money from my savings to my checking accounts - they subtracted the amount from my Savings but not my checking account prior to the audit, but Not from the Total of both accounts - had it been from the total everything would have worked out perfectly.

Just to make this clear - I am Disabled in the US - according to the State level disability laws I am only allowed to have a Maximum of $2000.00 even $.01 over that and they will force you to return the previous months check in total.
Ironically a person is allowed to have a home and a car of any value - just not enough money to actually Purchase one.
Then they complain about the state we forced poor live in. (their way of getting a person off disability is to allow us to earn $65 dollars a month, every $2 over that they subtract $1 from our checks down to you have to get a min of $1 to keep your state insurance (and sense Obama care started this is important cause if you Don't have insurance the Government Fines YOU for it) - ergo if you get say $700 a month, then following the rules you could earn $1464 a month and keep your insurance. Provided that in that time your available cash does not go over $2000 at the beginning of a month, if so they cut you off. Then fine you for not having Insurance if you have not gotten any prior to being cut off - mind you Getting health insurance when your on Medicaid to start with is next to impossible (catch 22 I have been living in for Years now).
This message was last edited by the user at 14:56, Mon 30 Mar 2015.

In reply to ShadoPrism (msg # 908):

I was just denied Disability -- Pennsylvania, USA -- and am seeing an Attorney about it.

They decided that I am still capable of doing my former job, even though federal law says I am not. I was an Over-the-Road Truck Driver and lost my CDL (Commercial Driver's License) due to Diabetes. Federal Law requires that I be off insulin to have my CDL. More to the point, now that I've lost it, I am required to retrain to get my CDL back . . . at the tune of $5000.00.

Having been unemployed for the last five years, I have no idea where I'm supposed to get $5000.00, or money for any type of retraining. Then we must add to that the fact that I still don't have my Diabetes under control -- this morning my blood sugar was 203. My doctor thinks that -- at my age -- getting off of insulin isn't in my future.

So one hand of the government has no idea what the other hand of the government is doing. One branch of the government says I can still do my "job" and another branch says that I legally can't. Common Sense? I don't think there's a government employee anywhere that can even spell "common sense."