According to my local paper's Twitter/X feed, HMRC has increased the 'side-hustle' reporting threshold to £3000. They explicitly mentioned people selling on market sites like Ebay and Vinted, but presumably it also applies to e-book sales via Bookapy.
ETA A further search revealed that side-hustle income over £1000 is still taxable by HMRC, which is introducing a simpler system for taxation of the profits rather than having to fill in a full self-assessment form.
AJ
Under the US IRS code, ANY income is taxable. For places that process payments and cash transfers, they have a reporting requirement at $3000. For businesses that pay you as a contractor, their reporting requirement kicks in at $600. If you something like Zelle to sell some personal goods that were not purchased or resale or sold at a gain, it is up to you to show that it is nontaxable.
A friend called me for help because he moved to a smaller house when he retired, and he had sold a bunch of used furniture and other household stuff using Zelle, and got a 1099K form reporting sales of about $4200. It wasn't taxable. But if he had sold an antique desk for $5000 that he had bought for $1000 10 years ago, the $4000 gain would be taxable at the Long Term Gain Tax rate whether it was reported on a 1099K or paid for with cash..
Under the US IRS code, ANY income is taxable.
In the UK, the first £1000 earned by side-hustles is tax free. When I read the first article, it sounded like that limit was being increased to £3000. It took further research to show that the first article was misleading.
But if he had sold an antique desk for $5000 that he had bought for $1000 10 years ago, the $4000 gain would be taxable at the Long Term Gain Tax rate
It would also be taxable in the UK although my reading of the gov.uk article on the subject leads me to believe the first £3000 of capital gains in any tax year is non-taxable. The effing government have changed the rules yet again this year and the whole system is fiendishly complicated.
AJ
Back to the desk, if he had only been able to get $995 for it, there would not have been any reporting unless he used a cash transfer agency with totals over $3000. Then he would have simply told them the circumstance of the transaction.
The effing government have changed the rules yet again this year and the whole system is fiendishly complicated.
Same over here.
Under the US IRS code, ANY income is taxable
Not true. There are a few forms of investments, predominately bonds, that generate non-taxable income.
Not true. There are a few forms of investments, predominately bonds, that generate non-taxable income.
The U.S. tax code is so complex that even municipal bond tax free income can be taxed for us collecting social security.
I always thought that was one of the weirdest things. The reason for the tax free status is to encourage people to buy municipal bonds. To help states and municipalities to raise money. Then they take that tax free status away from a large portion of the population who buys bonds for income.
To be more specific: Your bond interest will be counted as income in calculating the taxable amount of your Social Security income.
And Social Security Benefits shouldn't be taxable. They take our money, give of it back to us later, then take some of that - a never ending loop.
And Social Security Benefits shouldn't be taxable. They take our money, give of it back to us later, then take some of that - a never ending loop.
There's a body of opinion that non-means tested benefits should be taxable
AJ
And Social Security Benefits shouldn't be taxable. They take our money, give of it back to us later, then take some of that - a never ending loop.
I believe that the contribution you make to Social Security is collected from your gross salary before tax is assessed. In other words it is income you have not paid any tax on. Therefore when it is paid out I would consider it fair that tax is then collected. The idea is that you put the money aside when you are earning lots and have a higher rate of tax. And it is paid out when your income is much lower and you have a lower rate of tax. I don't have a complaint about that.
Forgive me if I'm wrong here - it has been 25 years since I last paid Social Security Contribution. But that's the way the state pension schemes work in the UK and in other European countries.
The idea is that you put the money aside when you are earning lots and have a higher rate of tax
If you are talking about US Social Security, that's not how it works, it was never how it worked. From the very beginning when Social Security was created in 1935 under FDR, current payroll tax receipts pay current benefits.
Your Social Security taxes weren't set aside to pay your benefits when you retire, they pay (paid) your parents benefits.
I don't blame you for the misunderstanding. The way you describe it was a deliberate lie used to sell Social Security to the general public when it was first created.
The trust fund was originally meant to balance out differences in tax receipts and benefit payments year over year.
The trust fund does not and never has contained anything but IOUs. By law, every dollar of surplus that the SSA has is invested in US treasury bonds.
In other words, the actual money goes into the general fund and the trust fund holds a treasury bond (IOU). Again, this is the way it has been since the Social Security Act was originally passed in 1935.