Previous Entry Share Next Entry
$160,417.26
Face
mudcub


I just did my taxes today. I paid $160,417.26 to the US government in 2006. In addition, I paid $8,586.88 in miscellaneous Colorado state taxes. That's enough to turn someone republican!

  • 1
Not hardly. The Republicans have been on such a spending spree that economists have suggested that tax rates would have to go up 50% to cover it all. Either that, or withdraw medical care from old people.

I was just sitting at my desk running some numbers for my business and feeling self conscious about how big they were. But your number makes my number feel very small. ;-)

Been looking at your interests and web page. We have some interesting things in common. Ever get out to SF?

I *love* San Francisco. But I'm not rich enough or pretty enough to live there!

I love Mr. S and the Lone Star Saloon. I'm currently craving a hot fudge sundae at Ghiradelli square. A Different Light. I love Chinatown (where I find the cheapest hotels to stay in). IBR. Italian food in the North Beach area. SFMOMA. I even like Fisherman's Wharf and the touristy things like riding the trolley. Folsom and Dore and Harrison fairs. Grr, I need a vacation. See you in California soon!

This terrifies me:

"In San Francisco, a typical single-family home now runs about $713,000, up a stunning 23 percent"
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/16/MNGOLBBO691.DTL)

Two bedroom condos for over a million? $5,000 a month just for *rent*? 750 square feet is a huge apartment? Two hour commutes to outlying bedroom commmunities one way? You guys in California are crazy...

Indeed. Transient bubble about to pop, or the last faint chance ordinary mortals will ever have to own Bay Area property? Only time will tell.

I'm sure glad we bought a house when we could. Here in the Bay Area, what people did in the early 90s completely determined their fate for the rest of their lives. Owners and renters are now facing entirely different futures. It's kind of hard to watch.


You know that article is two years old, right? Things have changed a lot since then. Not so many buyers.

my gross is about a third of your tax bill. I can afford to live in San Francisco.

The problem with looking at SF from the outside is not seeing that wages match that high price tag.

Years ago I sweep floors at night at a bar for $15 and hour PLUS medical, etc. Thats non-union thank you.

You may not be able to have a big house and a big yard. But, even the very wealthy here forego that in order to live in the City.

It's worth it to me, because the men here are generally the piggiest I've seen anywhere. I went from being something of a freak elsewhere to just being minorly interesting here. :)

If you visit the City, I wanna fucking meet you face to face! Or face to something.

Since I'm on the lowest end of the economic scale, I'll thank you guys personally. Some of that money went to my 4 visits to the ER this year to numb out the pain from my Kidney Stone.

Had it not been for your tax dollars, I probably would have ended it all, since the pain was so severe...

I *love* San Francisco. But I'm not rich enough or pretty enough to live there!

I love Mr. S and the Lone Star Saloon. I'm currently craving a hot fudge sundae at Ghiradelli square. A Different Light. I love Chinatown (where I find the cheapest hotels to stay in). IBR. Italian food in the North Beach area. SFMOMA. I even like Fisherman's Wharf and the touristy things like riding the trolley. Folsom and Dore and Harrison fairs. Grr, I need a vacation. See you in California soon!


flashback

(Deleted comment)
I'm cheating a little - my family owns an "S Corp"... so the company makes the profit, and I pay the federal taxes for it. So 99% of that tax bill is only on paper and I don't get to see any of it. Still, it's a stunning number to me and absolutely unthinkable.

If you are managing your taxes properly, there is a lot of profit on the other side of that tax bill.

Out of context that number is virtually meaningless. But, remember that we have the lowest rate of taxation in the First World, by a third, at least.

Out of curiosity, if you were starting a small catering business with 2-3 owners and no regular employees, would you form an LLC or an S-corp? I'm trying to make that decision right now.

In my uninformed opinion, I'd say the LLC. We only set up an S-Corp for the tax benefits, and those kind of evaporated with the law changes in 2000-2002.

The S-corp still has the benefit of single taxation over a C-corp, where everything is taxed twice (once for the corporation, and again when the owner withdraws salary or profits). LLPs, LLCs, etcetera, each have different sets of advantages for different circumstances.

Your CPA should be able to tell you which is going to work best for your business.

You do have a CPA on tap, yes? If not, I highly recommend doing so. My CPA saved me from making some wickedly stupid mistakes my first three or four years in business.

I talked to a guy in Ukiah who didn't seem to know anything at all about LLCs. We just had an initial chat, nothing was actually done. He seems quite able to set up an S-corp, but I understand that LLCs are simpler and I happen to have the Nolo LLC kit handy.


I started Spectrum SupportNet, Inc. using a great lawyer and a regular accountant. Within a month, I realized I needed a CPA to keep me out of trouble.

It's a pain in the ass (at best) to change corporation types once you've incorporated. You may also want to incorporate in a state OTHER than California, for tax and/or liability purposes. (For example, will your liability insurance be cheaper if you're incorporated in Delaware, Nevada, or Texas?)

Given the variables, I suggest it's worth considering spending the money to consult either a CPA or a tax lawyer to ensure that you're setting up the best form of corporation for your company's desired outcome. :)

That's enough to turn someone republican!

Turn away from the dark side, Luke!

I'm still waiting for my accountant to churn the numbers.


  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account