What I don’t understand is how that question is relevant to this discussion.
As far as I know, EVERYONE, even employees of non-profits (and priests) pays income tax. So I’d have to say that yes, you should have to pay income tax, because it would make no sense to make an entirely new set of tax laws to cover street musicians.
Yes, certainly. Generally , any income used for one’s own benefit is subject to taxation, and any attempt to wriggle out of that will attract the wrath of the taxman. I thought LHOD was asking about sales taxes and so on.
I suppose if LHOD was a one-man charity he could go to all the trouble of keeping proper accounts in order to separate his busking income into two categories (tax-free monies used for supporting charitable work, and taxable monies used for his own benefit), or treat it all as taxable income and then reclaim the taxes when paying out for charity - should have the same overall outcome if the tax system is consistent.
That doesn’t answer a single question I have in the post to which you were responding, although it implies an answer of “yes.” The slave mentality thing is just a stupid ad hominem: stupid because I’m not saying that the buskers shouldn’t have those benefits. I’m asking clarifying questions.
Yep: the income tax thing is pretty cut-and-dried, inasmuch as even we nonprofit workers pay income tax. However, the sales tax issue is much different. I don’t know how much street musicians pay each year in sales tax related to their profession, but if we stipulate that it’s a sizeable amount (an instrument can easily run $1,000, 6% of which is a nice little chunk), it might make sense for them to band together and form a nonprofit for the sole purpose of avoiding paying sales tax.
Maybe that’s acceptable. I don’t know.
Daniel
Daniel