Why no one should set up practice in California

[LADoc00]

I just received a tax bill I could not fathom needing to pay: Business property tax.

As a background, I own no property. I rent no property as part of my business either. In fact, I have NO assets listed in my business other than a collection of BOOKS, textbooks. That is it, specifically designed to avoid the predictable buttrape so prevalent in Blue State governments.

I received and paid the absurd Calif:
1. corporate tax
2. business license tax to county
3. fict. license tax to Medical Board
4. malpractice insurance
5. outrageous accounting fees
6. ******ed billing fees which are 2-5% MORE than other specialities such as Radiology
7. payroll tax (yipee!, WTF is that)

as well as personal:
1. State income tax at max rate
2. Max bracket for Feds too
3. Social Security
4. Medicare - the logic escapes me but yeah...

but get this: I was issued a warrant for back property taxes on my BOOKS. My pathology books, which the "man" claims are worth $4000 I need to pay 46 bucks/year in taxes on. 46 bucks a year for the privelege of owning books I already f'ing bought AND paid sales tax on!!!!!! This is a complete outrage. An outrage!

Do NOT come to California. This place is run by COMMUNISTS who will die in the Revolution!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[yaah]

Did you write this post before that earthquake hit? Maybe you caused it!

 

[Alteran]

I never had any intention of ever going to California for any reason other than a short recreational trip. They deserve their total mess of a state and I look forward to the day when that necrotic tumor on the side of this country sinks into the Pacific.

PS: In case anyone's wondering where my feelings emanate from, I totally hate commies (or anyone who is just plain out to screw people over for that matter).

 

[gbwillner]

I'm confused- I thought the communists win the glorious revolution....

 

[ZZPath]

CAP website has a recent ad with "due to expansion, positions are immediately available in the Los Angeles and San Diego metropolitan areas." Is this an expansion of the San Andreas fault?

 

[Farles]

I just received a tax bill I could not fathom needing to pay: Business property tax.

As a background, I own no property. I rent no property as part of my business either. In fact, I have NO assets listed in my business other than a collection of BOOKS, textbooks. That is it, specifically designed to avoid the predictable buttrape so prevalent in Blue State governments.

I received and paid the absurd Calif:
1. corporate tax
2. business license tax to county
3. fict. license tax to Medical Board
4. malpractice insurance
5. outrageous accounting fees
6. ******ed billing fees which are 2-5% MORE than other specialities such as Radiology
7. payroll tax (yipee!, WTF is that)

as well as personal:
1. State income tax at max rate
2. Max bracket for Feds too
3. Social Security
4. Medicare - the logic escapes me but yeah...

but get this: I was issued a warrant for back property taxes on my BOOKS. My pathology books, which the "man" claims are worth $4000 I need to pay 46 bucks/year in taxes on. 46 bucks a year for the privelege of owning books I already f'ing bought AND paid sales tax on!!!!!! This is a complete outrage. An outrage!

Do NOT come to California. This place is run by COMMUNISTS who will die in the Revolution!

Wow. I take it that's because you reported the books as a purchase for your business? That's such ticky-tack BS. You should see if you can claim depreciation on the books just to piss them off.

 

[elwademd]

sounds more like a lack of understanding of the tax code.

did you run this by your cpa?

if you have no property through which you run your business, yet you run a business, then it sounds like you're claiming part of your personal residence as business space... which becomes tricky.

 

[Neuro27]

Whatever happened to the physician tax in California? Did it ever go through? I remember hearing about it last year and though it was absurd to apply a special tax on a specific occupation.

 

[LADoc00]

Whatever happened to the physician tax in California? Did it ever go through? I remember hearing about it last year and though it was absurd to apply a special tax on a specific occupation.

THe 2% tax on physicians did not go through. It would not be constitutional anyway, even in CA.

 

[xanthines]

Yeah, if I was the taxman and saw some dude 1. making lots of money, 2. is self-employed, 3. only claims books as assets, I'd put my hands together, twiddle my fingers, narrow my eyes, and mutter "Eeeexcellent!", Mr Burns style. Dude, after wait staff and hair stylists, the self-employed are next in line for bendovers, I mean, audits.

Get a CPA AND a tax lawyer.

-X

sounds more like a lack of understanding of the tax code.

did you run this by your cpa?

if you have no property through which you run your business, yet you run a business, then it sounds like you're claiming part of your personal residence as business space... which becomes tricky.

 

[skinknee]

THe 2% tax on physicians did not go through. It would not be constitutional anyway, even in CA.

Constitutional??? ha, ha, the whole income tax is unconstitutional. There is no law nor statute that says we must pay an income tax.

 

[lexrageorge]

Constitutional??? ha, ha, the whole income tax is unconstitutional. There is no law nor statute that says we must pay an income tax.

This is a common misstatement propagated by some anti-tax groups that is both wrong and likely to get you in trouble at some point.

 

[skinknee]

This is a common misstatement propagated by some anti-tax groups that is both wrong and likely to get you in trouble at some point.

Yea, I guess so. Especially since our leaders emphasize that the constitution is just a piece of paper. I mean it's sooooo 1800's and outdated. Times have changed...allegedly.

 

[djmd]

Yea, I guess so. Especially since our leaders emphasize that the constitution is just a piece of paper. I mean it's sooooo 1800's and outdated. Times have changed...allegedly.

Well, they did pass an amendment (the 16th) so I guess it is constitutional.
Of course, even the original constitution allowed "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..." Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

And no I don't want to get it to some argument about how foreign aid invalidates the whole thing or something else equally pedantic.

 

[schrute]

This is a common misstatement propagated by some anti-tax groups that is both wrong and likely to get you in trouble at some point.

True, but historically income taxes were enacted with the intent to fund wars at the time (with subsequent repeal upon completion of the war), and not until the 16th amendment did it become a permanent fixture.

Taxes were antithetical to the mindset of the framers, though they realized the possibility that future needs of the country may necessitate imposition of taxes. Today, however, the basis for income taxes is to fund govt projects regardless of their utility or beneficence. It is not an income tax system, it is an income redistribution system that follows the socialist platform.

 

[djmd]

True, but historically income taxes were enacted with the intent to fund wars at the time (with subsequent repeal upon completion of the war), and not until the 16th amendment did it become a permanent fixture.

Taxes were antithetical to the mindset of the framers, though they realized the possibility that future needs of the country may necessitate imposition of taxes. Today, however, the basis for income taxes is to fund govt projects regardless of their utility or beneficence. It is not an income tax system, it is an income redistribution system that follows the socialist platform.

The founding fathers also didn't anticipate having a standing army, a FBI or a CIA, NSA, etc... So I guess some of the income redistribution system accidentally pays for national defense.

Of course the consitiution says "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

So it pretty hard to argue that "welfare" doesn't include social support systems. Not to say the constitution says we have to, but it does say congress has the power to do so.


Look you can hate income tax, and you can hate welfare or social support systems...
But the argument that it is unconstitutional is kind of foolish... if it was don't you think that a challenge to the system would have worked?

 

[skinknee]

Well, they did pass an amendment (the 16th) so I guess it is constitutional.
Of course, even the original constitution allowed "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..." Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

And no I don't want to get it to some argument about how foreign aid invalidates the whole thing or something else equally pedantic.

True. But supreme court justices have commented that the 16th amendment was never ratified by the minimum number of states required. And also that the 16th amendment gave no new power of taxation to the fed govt. Therefore, gains are fair game for taxation but unapportioned taxes on one's wages are clearly unconstitutional!

Lastly, the 16th amendment was passed shortly after the creation of the Federal Reserve back in 1913. That was day congress granted the power to issue currency to the independent private company known as the Federal Reserve. The federal reserve is just as "federal" as Federal Express. They were only able to pass this legislation because it was voted on Christmas Eve when many Congresmen were home with their families. As a result, every dollar put into legislation by the Congress is "borrowed" from the Federal Reserve at interest. This is all unconstitutional as the founding fathers knew that paper money was dangerous to the economy, creating money is disastrous, and that only gold and silver are to be legal tender. Nixon screwed us over on that one in 1971. Oh well.

 

[djmd]

True. But supreme court justices have commented that the 16th amendment was never ratified by the minimum number of states required.

Uhh ok... so 42 states out of then 48 is not enough??


And the whole apportion issue has to do with not having to apportion federal fund to state in proportion to census data... meaning if your state has more people you get more federal funds period.

So you are concerned that California is not getting its share of federal dollars?

 

[schrute]

So I guess some of the income redistribution system accidentally pays for national defense.

Of course the consitiution says "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

So it pretty hard to argue that "welfare" doesn't include social support systems. Not to say the constitution says we have to, but it does say congress has the power to do so.


Look you can hate income tax, and you can hate welfare or social support systems...
But the argument that it is unconstitutional is kind of foolish... if it was don't you think that a challenge to the system would have worked?

I don't take argument with tax-derived defense appropriation, or 'general welfare' for that matter, and I'm not arguing that taxes in general are unconstitutional, but you can't tell me our government hasn't lost the ability to discriminate necessary from unnecessary, effective from useless, beneficial from harmful.

Having a socialist, progressive tax schedule is not implicit of giving Congress the power to collect taxes.

Not to mention the term 'tax' refers to income, FICA, state, property, dividends, capital gains (which are a double tax), etc... It's erroneous to suggest that all taxes, regardless of their rate, are constitutional.

 

[skinknee]

Uhh ok... so 42 states out of then 48 is not enough??


And the whole apportion issue has to do with not having to apportion federal fund to state in proportion to census data... meaning if your state has more people you get more federal funds period.

So you are concerned that California is not getting its share of federal dollars?

42 states? hmmm, I wasn't aware of that. Interesting.

Well there should be one law for all citizens as stated in the constitution. Taxes should be apportioned. However, everyone is not treated the same. Productivity and growth are penalized with higher tax rates.

I was never talking about distribution of federal funds. I was talking about the unfairness of unapportioned taxes and how that is unconstitutional.

 

[lexrageorge]

True. But supreme court justices have commented that the 16th amendment was never ratified by the minimum number of states required. And also that the 16th amendment gave no new power of taxation to the fed govt. Therefore, gains are fair game for taxation but unapportioned taxes on one's wages are clearly unconstitutional!

Lastly, the 16th amendment was passed shortly after the creation of the Federal Reserve back in 1913. That was day congress granted the power to issue currency to the independent private company known as the Federal Reserve. The federal reserve is just as "federal" as Federal Express. They were only able to pass this legislation because it was voted on Christmas Eve when many Congresmen were home with their families. As a result, every dollar put into legislation by the Congress is "borrowed" from the Federal Reserve at interest. This is all unconstitutional as the founding fathers knew that paper money was dangerous to the economy, creating money is disastrous, and that only gold and silver are to be legal tender. Nixon screwed us over on that one in 1971. Oh well.

When you can actually prove that the US Supreme Court (not some justices writing in law review journals) either (a) declared the income tax unconstitutional, (b) invalidated the 16th amendment, or (c) declared paper money or the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional, then I'll start buying your arguments.

As to what the Founders "intended", well, if they wanted to enshrine gold and silver as the only legitimate currency, then they certainly had an opportunity to do so. But, guess what, they didn't. Why? Probably because influential folks like Alexander Hamilton actually disagreed with a pure specie system of currency.

Finally, it was Thomas Jefferson himself who warned about being too loose in interpreting the Constitution beyond the stated words. The words say Congress has the power levy taxes. There was no qualification about it being only in times of need.

There are plenty of valid arguments (and criticisms) to be made on our current taxation and monetary policies. But sweeping every viewpoint that you disagree with as being "unconstitutional" is simply not supportable.

Also, the US Tax Court has a policy regarding frivilous defenses for non-payment of taxes. And the same Tax Court considers arguments stating that the income tax is unconstitional as frivilous.

 

[DarksideAllstar]

This is a common misstatement propagated by some anti-tax groups that is both wrong and likely to get you in trouble at some point.

 

[djmd]

4

I was never talking about distribution of federal funds. I was talking about the unfairness of unapportioned taxes and how that is unconstitutional.

I said it once before, but Apportionment in the constitution ONLY refers to states getting apportionment based on their populations from census data.

But that was specifically dealt with in the 16th amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

without apportionment

So as I said, the 16th amendment (ratified by 42 out of 48 states), allows congress to collect taxes without apportionment.
And even if they didn't have the 16th amendment, they could still collect taxes, they would just have to ensure that it was roughly set up so a state with 10% of the population payed 10% of the taxes.

Which it really is too far off right now...
What is the issue? you want poor Deleware and D.C. to stop paying too much?
Pony up South Carolina, Montana, Mississippi, and West Virginia...
You slackers owe Uncle Sam!

 

[skinknee]

This is a common misstatement propagated by some anti-tax groups that is both wrong and likely to get you in trouble at some point.

Hmmm, I must concede that I am no expert. Some of the roots to my ideas were inspired by a documentary I saw. Aaron Russo put together this documentary on the IRS. I watched it because no one at the Cannes Film Festival wanted to touch it. It was too controversial for them! This really struck me so I became curious and watched it on google video. It's free.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...i=24-rSLGbLISaqQLLrOChAw&q=freedom+to+fascism

It explained how the income tax came into effect and how it was unconstitutional. And it provided a lot of historic details. Overall I thought it was really fascinating. Curious as to what you guys think of it. Is there any validity to what he's saying? Or is this a pure dissemination of misinformation?

 

[djmd]

Hmmm, I must concede that I am no expert. Some of the roots to my ideas were inspired by a documentary I saw. Aaron Russo put together this documentary on the IRS. I watched it because no one at the Cannes Film Festival wanted to touch it. It was too controversial for them! This really struck me so I became curious and watched it on google video. It's free.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...i=24-rSLGbLISaqQLLrOChAw&q=freedom+to+fascism

It explained how the income tax came into effect and how it was unconstitutional. And it provided a lot of historic details. Overall I thought it was really fascinating. Curious as to what you guys think of it. Is there any validity to what he's saying? Or is this a pure dissemination of misinformation?

It has a lot of misinformation and misquotations.

The best (worst) is
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"

The full quote is (and has Nothing to do with taxes)
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles—it's something I strongly support—we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation—no other nations—has permitted to exist."


Read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism#Inaccuracies

No one wanted to touch it at Cannes because it wasn't accepted into Cannes...
I have a home video I filmed that no one at Cannes will touch, but does that give me some claim to legitimacy?

The guy rented an inflatable screen and played it at Cannes... that doesn't prove anything except people aren't interested in his movie.

 

[gbwillner]

WTF has happened to this forum?????

 

[djmd]

WTF has happened to this forum?????

I would have worried about this thread being off topic... but it never really was on much of one to start with...

 

[yaah]

Yeah I was just kind of letting it go because it was sort of off topic from the get go, but doesn't really belong anywhere else.

 

[LADoc00]

the conclusion of this thread was that I paid the taxes anyway after bitching and moaning about it for 2 days because I was spending hours on the phone with the county...

please delete thread now.

 

[yaah]

I'll close it for you. Not going to delete it though.