HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: misc.entrepreneurs
Subject: Re: Promote Your Business!!!
From: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 06:22:28 GMT
Organization: Northern Bytes BBS - Sault Ste. Marie, MI U.S.A.


 >> In article <1992Sep18.134551.6598@wam.umd.edu> scarfman@wam.umd.edu
 >> writes: Promotional items can range from key chains to mouse pads to mugs
 >> and more. The better people know your company, the better your company
 >> will do.  For more information contact Richard S Smith at 301-770-9089 or
 >> write to him at ..... <address deleted>. How much more
 >> commercial can you get??? This type of advertising is not supposed to be
 >> here!

 >    SAVE THOSE LITTLE CARDS THAT YOU TEAR OUT OF MAGAZINES, THE ONES WITH
 > POSTAGE ALREADY PAID....

 >    NOW PUT THE ABOVE ADDRESS ON THEM... MR SMITH SEEMS LIKE HE NEEDS SOME
 > MAIL FOR HIS COMPANY.

 >    I believe after a month or two of sorting through his thousands of
 > responses we won't be having any more commercials....

 >    It's FLAME TIME PEOPLE....

Yep, and YOU are the recipient of this one!  Of course you realize that you
have just encouraged the readers of this conference to commit mail fraud.
That's a FEDERAL crime, boy, and far worse than posting an off-topic message in
a newsgroup. You can go to the federal pen for mail fraud!

If anyone is actually dumb enough to follow the above badvice, I hope you get a
visit from postal authorities and/or the FBI.  Also keep in mind that you will
also be harassing an innocent businessperson who did nothing to offend you (I'm
talking about whoever's card you return... they will be spending their money
processing your reply).  This malicious misuse of business reply cards is one
reason a lot of companies make you apply your own stamp now.

I just can't believe the level of stupidity I see in these conferences
sometimes...

Jack

Jack Decker                               | No, I don't own an Amiga; I just
Internet address: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com | get Internet mail via a gateway
Fidonet address:  1:154/8                 | system that runs on an Amiga.
From: cliff@allen.com (Cliff Allen)
Newsgroups: misc.entrepreneurs
Subject: Re: Software Packaging Costs -- need some insight
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 06:06:42 EDT
Organization: Allen Marketing Group - Raleigh, NC

morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) writes:

> I've been in small systems since PC meant Altair or Imsai.  My personal
> opinion is that an extra 10% spent on the manual would save 25% in the
> calls.  As Jerry Pournelle says: "You can almost never have too many

At one software company I worked for, having a professional tech writer 
rewrite the user manual resulted in a 50% reduction in tech support 
calls.  Since the developers also handled tech support, this meant that 
they could get back to developing -- and new products started being
released on time.


Cliff
From: jfu2@quads.uchicago.edu (Carlo Graziani)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Grad fellowship tax refund?
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:49:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Sep30.164944.7024
Reply-To: jfu2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Hello.  The subject line nearly says it all:  is the Graduate fellowship
tax refund that was discussed some months ago still in the tax bill
that was passed by Congress yesterday?  I could find no reference to
that provision in the NYT...

Thanks,
Carlo

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Graziani           |   Warning:  some of the above may not be a fully  |
Dept. of Physics         |   correct representation of profound cosmic truth.|
University of Chicago    |                                                   |
                         |  "It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how!"|
carlo@nu.uchicago.edu    |                           -The Cat in the Hat     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chen@digital.sps.mot.com (Jinfu Chen)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: IRA vs other tax deferral plans
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:51:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: digital.5b80743b.1b2f0
Organization: Motorola, LICD, SPS, Mesa, AZ

In article <1992Sep30.223622.9770@tamsun.tamu.edu> tpradeep@cs.tamu.edu (Pradeep K Tapadiya) writes:
>                   IRA                TDA           DCP
>Amount:         $2000 max(1)      <--- $7500 max, both combined--->(1)
>Deduction:      $2000 max(2)          no             no

Actually under tax deferral plans your contribution is automatically deducted
from your taxable income already by your employer.  Unless the investment
choice under a tax deferral plan is very limited, e.g. mostly in your
employer's stock, it is always better than an IRA plan.  This is what I would
compare:

                   IRA              401k/403k
Amount:         $2000 max(1)        $8728 max
Deduction:      $2000 max(2)          yes
Tax Defer:          yes               yes
Type of
investment:     your pick       plan dependent
Fund
Matching:           no                yes (depending on employer)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes,misc.invest
From: w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven L. Finberg)
Subject:         Wanted STATE tax rates
Followup-To: misc.taxes
Summary: Which state has the best "deal" for retirement - inheritance ?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 08:24:54 GMT

Hi

I am looking for comparative tax rates, specifically state income, investment
and inheritance taxes.  Any sugestions where to look for rate tables?

Currently PA and Florida are of the most interest.

One big surprise was from a broker who said Florida has a 1.5% tax on the 
value of a residents portfolio.  Can this be true?
^^^^^

Which is the best state to retire to?

		Thanks 

		Steve F


*******************************************************************************
Steve Finberg			W1GSL			w1gsl@athena.mit.edu
PO Box 82 MIT Br 	  Cambridge MA  02139		    617 258 3754
*******************************************************************************
From: cfrnb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Bob Barger)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Home computer for business purposes
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:16:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1992Oct02.201611.29224
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

If my employer furnishes me with an office computer, but I also buy
one for use at home to more conveniently handle some of my
professional computing tasks after office hours (...I'm a university
professor and teach some computer courses...), can I take the portion
of the home computer I use for professional purposes (which is about
95%) as a deduction? If yes, can I "expense" this?  

Thanks for any info/opinions on this question!
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: sns@bondi.jpl.nasa.gov (Sam Southard)
Subject: How do you do sales tax?
Organization: SAR Systems Development & Processing, JPL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:50:21 GMT

I'm starting a software company and would like to know the tax consequences.
Specifically, I will be selling support contracts and software licenses.  I've
done consulting before, and know how to treat that.  However, I'm not sure how
to treat selling something.  I'm mainly concerned about sales taxes, but if
there are other things with which I should concern myself please let me know.

Specifically:

If the support contract purchaser is in the same state as I am
	(California), do I need to collect sales tax?  What about software
	licenses?
What if the purchaser is in a different state?  If I do need to collect, which
	state's tax do I need to collect?  What do I need to do to hand over
	the tax to the state?
What if the purchaser is in a different country?

If it matters, I will be delivering the software in different forms to
different purchasers.  Some will get it via ftp, some via a tape or other media
sent through the mail.

Finally (this is probably the wrong place for this question, but as long as I'm
posting...), what do I need to do to get set up to accept credit card payments?
What is the proper newsgroup for this question?
From: joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com (joseph)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: New 20% Withholding T
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:32:06 GMT
Reply-To: joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com (joseph)
Followup-To: misc.taxes
Organization: GE Research



Does anybody know what the scope of this law is ?  Does it apply
only to 401(k) or 403(b) type retirement plans, or does it apply
also to IRA accounts ?  If it does apply to IRA accounts, does
that mean that you can never do a rollover without incurring the
wrath of the 20% withholding ?  You will always be forced to do a
trustee-to-trustee transfer !

If the law does not include IRA accounts, is there anything that
prevents one from transferring money directly from a 401(k) to
an IRA, and immediately withdrawing it and getting the use of the
money for 60 days without having to make the interest free loan to
the IRS ?

james joseph             joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: New 20% Withholding T
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:11:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.164141.23726@access.digex.com>
breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt) writes:
 
>
>Okay Jim, let me step back in here for a sec...How about a case
>(mine for example) wherein you go to work for a new employer, who
>does not allow you to participate in their 401(k) program until
>you've completed the 6-month probationary period.  So, until then
>you roll over the entire (or less 20%) into a conduit IRA, which
>has to remain put for 18-months (minimum maturity date offered
>at my bank).  Then, at the end of 18 months, I want to roll that
>money back into a 401(k) [ finally ], I can't because the maturity
>date of my conduit IRA isn't within 7 days of the quarterly
>"open election period for making changes to the 401(k) account."
>This can't be too unheard of since 2 out of my last 3
>employers worked this way (the other didn't even have a 401(k)
>plan, which is yet another problem in this situation).
>
>                                 Robert B. Reinhardt
I am not an expert in this law, or in tax law.  I disagree with this
law.  I am not trying to say it is a good law.
 
My company also has a period during which I cannot participate in
the 401(k) plan.  They would have accepted my rollover from the
previous employer during that period.  I did not actually perform
the rollover, because the company managing the previous employer's
401(k) would have charged me a 7% early withdrawal penalty.  I
opened an IRA with that company by filling out a fairly complicated
form, but no other hassle.  My money will be there for about 6 more
years, while I have a brand-new 401(k) with my new employer.  At the
end of that time, I have the option of making a rollover or leaving
the existing IRA in place.  I now have two separate retirement
accounts with two large financial management companies.
 
I repeat:  what is the big deal here?  One more account to balance
statements for?
 
This will be my last post on this law.  I DISAGREE WITH IT, OKAY?
If you feel your future has been threatened, go bomb the Capitol or
something.  I just hated to see people go into hysterics over nothing.
 
Jim McMaster
From: dana@hcxio.hdw.csd.harris.com (Dan Aksel)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Is home office a deduction?
Date: 2 Oct 1992 18:54:39 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division, Ft. Lauderdale FL
NNTP-Posting-Host: hcxio.hdw.csd.harris.com

In article <6919@transfer.stratus.com> scol@scottsdale.az.stratus.com (Scott Colbath) writes:
>Can I use my home office as a tax deduction under these conditions:
>1) I own the home.
Ownership is NOT a requirement.  As a matter of fact rent can actually be
a better deal as you pro-rate rent.  The home you must depreciate.  So
answer to your question is you do not need to own the home to claim as office.

>2) It is not a full time office. I am employed and use it when I am on call 
>   for my company.
This right here rules you out.  Big brother requires you use the office
REGULARLY.  I asked what regularly meant.  The answer was "every day a
normal business of that type would be expected to be open."

>3) It is not used for anything else.
This is a requirement.  The regulations say "... regular and exclusive use..."

>What other things need to be considered which I may have not mentioned?
A) Home office deduction can not exceed income from that business....
   (In your circumstance it appears you are trying to claim a home office
    deduction as a non-reimbursed business expense.  This BTW is subject to
    a 2% floor on your AGI)

   Order of deductions that MUST be followed for home office deductions:

   1) Pro-rate any towards home office that are always deductible elsewhere
      on the return: Examples include interest and taxes.

   2) Pro-rate operating expenses.  Examples include insurance, electric
      water, trash removal, lawn care, etc.

   3) Pro-rate items which effect basis of property.  Examples include
      depreciation, capital improvements.

Take the deductions in the above order until you cross over zero.  Then you
stop.  The remaining deductions are forever lost (expcect those in item 1
which would flow to Schedule A).

B) If you depreciate your home you MUST pay capital gains tax on the BUSINESS
   USE portion of the home in the year of the sale.  No 2 year replacement
   period, no rolling over into new home, no $125,000 exclusion if above
   aage 59 1/2.  It's now business property and is tax accordingly.

C) The *primary* phone line into a home is not deductible at any time.  The
   long distance calls made on the phone are deductible but not a portion of
   the monthly base fee.
---
Dan Aksel
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: steinman@is.morgan.com (Jan Steinman)
Subject: Re: king and kerri
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Company
Distribution: misc
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:30:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.1302.3342@execnet> "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com> writes:

  BTW, in no event will Mr. King "get it all."  His lawyers will get
  the first 1/3.

That depends on his agreement with the lawyers. If it was a
contingency case, what you said is true, but one is generally better
off paying lawyers by the hour if one has a reasonable chance of
winning.

Of course, on a long shot, contingency would be wise, at least
compared to the wisdom of wasting everybody's time and taxpayer's
money on a long-shot in the first place.

--
: : Jan Steinman	   steinman@is.morgan.com		 Bytesmiths : :
: : 2002 Parkside Court				   West Linn, OR 97068-2767 : :
: : 503/657-7703					       212/956-8722 : :
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: garym@netcom.com (Gary Martin)
Subject: Re: FICA is not a tax (was: Maximum  1992  FICA Tax)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 22:54:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.210522.12540@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> boaz@lcs.mit.edu writes:
>In article <lcev9kINNl5n@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, tut@cairo.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill) writes:
>
>  Why is FICA called a "tax" ?  FICA stands for the Federal Insurance
>Corporation of America, and payments for insurance are premiums, not
>taxes !! (It so happened, as a convenience, to be collected by IRS)
>

Section 1 of the part of the Internal Revenue Code (USC Title 26)
dealing with Social Security taxes (a codification of the Social 
Security Act of 1935) begins with:

"There is hereby imposed a TAX ON THE INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL 
(emphasis added)"

I think that pretty well sums it up. Further, for those who believe
that the levy is a "contribution" check that definition in a law dictionary --
you'll find that it's a very old word for tribute or tax. The Supreme Court
ruled in 1959 in a case, the  name of which escapes me but which I have read,
that the Social Security program is tantamount to welfare, not insurance.
It was sold (fradulently by the politicians) as insurance, complete with
"premiums" and "benefits". What you got was welfare. If anyone wants the
cite I can dig it up.  

There is an excellent book on this issue and more called "Social Insecurity"
by Dorcas R. and C. Colburn Hardy, Villard Books, NY, 1991, available at your
local bookstore. Dorcas Hardy was commissioner of Social Insecurity under Reagan
for three years and is intimately familiar with the scam which she describes in
detail. 

Hope this helps.

Gary Martin
Santa Clara Ca.
garym@netcom.com
-- 
Gary Martin                              garym@netcom.COM   | INTERNET
Senior Engineer                          amdcad!cosys!gary  | UUCP
CoSYSTEMS, Inc.                          (408) 748-2190	    | VOICE
Santa Clara, CA, USA                     (408) 988-0785     | FAX
From: joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com (joseph)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: New 20% Withholding T
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:27:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: crd.1992Sep27.152745.4076
Reply-To: joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com (joseph)
Followup-To: misc.taxes
Organization: GE Research


In article <1686DCE80.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
> 
>This is really strange.  I find myself typing things to "defend" a law
>with which I disagree.  I do *not* favor this law.  I just don't see it
>as an extreme hardship to get around the withholding.  The intent is to
>make it very painful not to roll it into another retirement account.
>Too many people were tempted to take some of the money out during the
>60-day window.  This is a wrong-headed way for Congress to remove the
>temptation, but they usually try to kill gnats with sledgehammers.  This
>is far from the stupidest law they have ever passed.  I would rather
>fight over things that really matter.

  The law had nothing to do with disciplining people.  It has nothing
  to do with removing any temptations. And, its intent is not to
  prevent people from using the money during the 60 day window (although
  that is a side effect of the law).

  The only reason for the law (and, even congressional leaders say that
  this is the case) is to raise revenue to pay for the extended
  unemployment benefits (and probably some other things).

  You have to remember that the congress and the u.s. government does
  not operate the way you and I do.  If they get to withhold the 20%
  this year, it is counted as income for this year and gets spent.  If the
  guy puts the money back into an IRA and files for a refund, that has
  to be paid only from next year's budget.  Who cares what happens next
  year?  For all we know, next year I may not be the president, or I may
  not be re-elected to the congress.  So who cares ?

  For argument sake: if the intent of the law is to prevent people
  from getting the use of the money for the 60 day period, may I ask why ?
  What good or harm does it do to anybody if the poor slob uses his money
  for a sixty day period when he probably needs it most - ie, when he
  is between jobs, or has lost his job ?

  james joseph            joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin)
Subject: Passive income Rules
Summary: What are Passive Income tax rules on royalties
Keywords: Taxes Federal IRS Passive-income Royalty
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:19:50 GMT

I'm about to engage in a contract for services for which I will
receive some compensation in the form of royalties on products
ultimately sold.

I've heard some concerns expressed about higher tax rates on
"passive income" from royalty agreements.

  1)  Does it apply in this kind of case?
  2)  What is the tax effect (1040; not a corporation)
  3)  What IRS pubs to I need to read?

Thanks for you help.
--Friday                               "You have three option in this life:
   Carol Anne Ogdin, Principal Designer            Get sick,
   Deep Woods Technology                           Go crazy, or
     friday@netcom.com                             Ask for what you want!"
-- 
--Friday                               "You have three option in this life:
   Carol Anne Ogdin, Principal Designer            Get sick,
   Deep Woods Technology                           Go crazy, or
     friday@netcom.com                             Ask for what you want!"
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: FICA is not a tax (was: Maximum  1992  FICA Tax)
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:15:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.210522.12540@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> boaz@lcs.mit.edu writes:
>  Why is FICA called a "tax" ?  FICA stands for the Federal Insurance
>Corporation of America, and payments for insurance are premiums, not
>taxes !! (It so happened, as a convenience, to be collected by IRS)

OK, it's not a tax.  It's a mandatory levy extracted with full powers
of taxation by a government, but it's not a tax.  Even if you believe
in the concept of social security, as I do, a tax is a tax.
--
-- Christophe

"Black is the color of non-conformity.  Everyone has to have it."
	T-shirt company executive
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar)
Subject: Re: FICA is not a tax (was: Maximum  1992  FICA Tax)
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:10:47 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Sep30.210522.12540@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> boaz@lcs.mit.edu writes:
>  Why is FICA called a "tax" ?  FICA stands for the Federal Insurance
>Corporation of America, and payments for insurance are premiums, not
>taxes !! (It so happened, as a convenience, to be collected by IRS)

Nonsense.  FICA stands for "Federal Insurance Contributions Act," the law
that established the Social Security system.  It's collected by the IRS
because it goes to the Federal government.
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: king and kerri
Date: 1 Oct 92 09:54:01 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Jan Steinman, in a message to All on 09-30-92 at 5:07am, said:

JS>|That depends on his agreement with the lawyers. If it was a
   |contingency case, what you said is true, but one is generally better
   |off paying lawyers by the hour if one has a reasonable chance of
   |winning.
   |Of course, on a long shot, contingency would be wise, at least
   |compared to the wisdom of wasting everybody's time and taxpayer's
   |money on a long-shot in the first place.
   |____________________________________________________________________

               In order to hire attorneys on an hourly basis, you
               need to be able to *pay* them on an hourly basis
               regardless of the outcome of the case.  Virtually
               all trial lawyers who handle matters for individu-
               als on a hourly basis require them to deposit a
               retainer equal to the estimated total billings on
               the matter *up front*.  If the only way the client
               can afford to pay is from the proceeds of a judg-
               ment in his favor, then by definition the fee is
               contingent, and the attorney is entitled to be
               compensated for the risk of non-payment with a
               higher fee.  I always offer my plaintiff-clients
               an opportunity to pay on an hourly basis.  The
               vast majority cannot afford to do so.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Heisenberg may have been here.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host