And you can't find another server that has, either, because it does not happen.
I'm sure it happens all the time - especially at high-end restaurants where the hourly wage won't even come close to covering the tax liability. You need to prove your claim that "it doesn't happen". I've showed you the IRS links that proves that the tax is still owed, whether it's withheld or not.
Look at lines 75-79 on a 1040 Return form. If you overpaid your tax liability through withholding you get a refund. If you didn't pay enough through withholding you send a check in with your return. It's the same for anyone who doesn't cover their tax liability with withholding.
It's fascinating to watch how you move the goalposts, backpedal, and pretty much repeat exactly what I said in the first place in your vain attempt to "win" some Internet debate.
I was simply disputing your assertions that "Servers never ever ever pay taxes out of their tip money. Never." and "The Fed just eats the difference." You are wrong on both of those points.
When you don't tip a server you are directly messing with their income.
So what? When my car mechanic fucks up my car, I don't pay him either. That's directly messing with his income too. I don't pay for poor service anywhere. If a server is so bad that I don't believe they deserve my "gratitude" I won't leave a tip. If they are especially egregious, I will leave a penny just so they know I didn't forget the tip and I gave them what I thought their service was worth to me.
The ONLY place where you put money into taxes (and you weren't even really doing it yourself) is from your paycheck.
That is simply not true. Here is a quote from the IRS on this. It's from one of the links I posted below:
Giving your employer money for taxes. Your regular pay may not be enough for your employer to withhold all the taxes you owe on your regular pay plus your reported tips. If this happens, you can give your employer money until the close of the calendar year to pay the rest of the taxes. [...] If withholding taxes remain uncollected at the end of the year, you may be subject to a penalty for underpayment of estimated taxes.
Tips are taxable income. Servers have to pay taxes on tips because it's taxable income. If not enough money was withheld from the server's paycheck to cover the taxes on both the hourly wage and the tips combined, the server will owe the IRS at the end of the year.
You are wrong. I worked a couple of years as a contract cable installer. It was a 10-99 position. I owed taxes at the end of the year on my income because nothing was withheld from my paychecks to cover the taxes.
Most years I get a tax refund when I file my 1040 return because they withheld more income taxes than I owe. That's what an income tax refund is - money you have overpaid through wihholding on your paychecks.
Yes. Although, she wouldn't really mail $5 everytime that happened. It would be calculated on her 1040 income tax return for the entire year. If she had underpaid for the year, she has to send in a check to the IRS for the difference and if she had overpaid, she gets an income tax refund.
Nothing, which is why your silly distinction is baffling to me.
Tips are considered income. Income taxes are paid on tips. It really doesn't matter if those taxes are paid from the actual tips, the payheck from the house, the server's bank account or from a rusty can of coins buried in the server's backyard. Income taxes are paid on the tips, that's what matters.
That's why it's called Income Withholding. Servers don't pay taxes into the system. The Fed just eats the difference." And nothing in your retort says anything to contradict it at all.
The Feds do not "eat the difference". Lots of employers do not withhold income taxes on wages. 10-99 employes or "contract workers" do not have income taxes withheld. It's the responsibility of the worker to pay the income tax on thier own. Income tax not being withheld doesn't, in any way, relieve someone of the responsibility of having to pay the tax.
Servers DO NOT pay into taxes with their tips period
Servers have to claim thier tips. It's considered taxable income by the IRS. You seem to be making some sort of silly distinction between whether the taxes are withheld from the actual tips or from the paycheck from the house. It makes no difference at all. The bottom line is the fact that the tips are considered taxable income and servers do pay income taxes on the money they receive in tips.
Let's consider a simple case: Man robs the bank and take $10,000 dollars. He is arrested. Should he be allowed to keep the $10,000 and use it for legal fees, or does it get seized as basically "what was stolen"? The answer is generally simple, almost everyone can agree that the money needs to get seized.
So why not a system where the assets can be seized like they are now, but are held intact in some sort of escrow account? Physical items could be warehoused and real property could be placed under a title hold. The accused cannot access them, but neither can the government. If the government fails to secure a conviction, then the assets are returned in toto since they cannot be "ill-begotten gains" if no crime was committed in the first place.
Taxes are only taken out of a paycheck. That's why it's called Income Withholding. Servers don't pay taxes into the system. The Fed just eats the difference.
That's not true. As far back as the early 80's when I waited tables you had to claim your tips every week on your time card. Taxes for the tips were removed from the paycheck you received from the house. The paychecks I received were usually less than $50 for a 40 hour week after all the taxes were paid.
You could fudge a little bit with the cash tips, but if you didn't at least cover the credit card tips and come some where close to a percentage of the total house sales you could expect to get your tax return audited.
I think a writer writing a book, someone read it like it, copy it and sell it, without compensating the author, with no recourse because he/she didn't register it, is unjust. A songwriter needing to register a song every time they write and record one or else someone can copy it verbatim and sell it is what our system, as implemented today, is supposed to protect.
Prior to the 1976 Act a rights holder did not have any recourse against infringement unless they registered the copyright. You didn't have standing to sue unless you registered. Even today, if you don't register your copyright prior to infringement, you cannot sue for statutory damages or legal costs.
I think you are failing to see the benefit to the creator from automatic protection.
Well, copyright's main purpose is to benefit the public. The rights we give to the creator is only the means to achieve that end. The benefit to the public outweighs any annoyance it may cause the creators, in my opinion.
Let me put this another way, inventors have to register their patents in order to gain protection, so why should copyright be any different? The creators are being granted a sole monopoly on their creations, so why shouldn't they have to work a little bit in order to gain such a valuable right?
You seem to imply that copyright has tremendous value to you, but not enough for you to actually do a little work in order to receive it.
Having a simple system to use orphaned works such as a waiver stating they tried to find the copyright holder, couldn't, but if they surfaced could get a statutory amount for use is a possible solution. If you are claiming the only way to remedy orphaned works is by eliminating automatic copyright protection upon creation, it's not that I'm "more worried about the inconvenience," I just don't agree.
Such a system may help our current situation some, I agree. I think we need to fix the system going forward so we don't have to rely to these "fixes" in the future. The problem is only going to get worse and I am worried about my grandchildren and their children who will inherit this problem further down the road.
The concept of automatic copyright protection was codified by the Berne Convention in 1868.(147 years) In the U.S...
You don't seem to be grasping the fundumental fact that the US didn't actually sign on to the Berne Convention until over hundred years after it existed. We basically ignored it, mainly due to the moral rights requirements.
However, I do believe copyright protection should be automatic, without registration.
Yes, I know. You seem much more worried about the inconvience of having to register your works over fixing the tragic problem of losing massive amounts of our society's culture and history because nobody can figure out what is copyrighted and whether anyone exists to claim those copyrights.
Table 1 has the renewals broken down by "class", but I haven't found a key that indicates what is what.
Although, there is a hint in the paragraph describing Table 1:
Table 1 shows that, as far as renewals are concerned, music is by far the most important class of copyrightable works. Nearly half of all renewal registrations cover musical compositions, and more than 1/3 of the musical compositions registered in 1931-1932 were renewed. In contrast, only 7% of books and 11% of periodicals are being renewed.
On an aside, as I was researching this I came across an interesting study that reinforces the notion that our current copyright terms are way too long. It's from a 1961 Senate study on copyright renewals. It shows that the percentage of works that were actually renewed ranged from 4% for works copyrighted in 1883 up to about 15% for works copyrighted in 1932.
In other words, 85% to 95% of creators didn't need copyright longer than 28 years.
Copyright registration in the US was required up until the Copyright Act of 1976 was put into force on January 1, 1978.
I slightly misspoke here. Works created under the Copyright Act of 1909 prior to 1964 did not require registration for the first 28 years as long as they were published (made available to the public) and had a properly affixed copyright notice. Copyright registration was required in order to gain another 28 years of protection. Works after 1964 automatically gained renewal with the passing of the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended protection for those works another 20 years.