Long Term Benefits Of TAX & ID Evidence Submission from LL

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

I am sure about apostrophe. Using a name makes it more clear: "I spent the evening at John's".You wouldn't say "Johns" unless you visited several of them. To make matters confusing again (not really but I thought it was funny), there's this obscure company called "Wendy's", not "Wendies". So would you have stayed at "Wendy's's"? Also, I wouldn't advice to have "breakfast at Tiffanies", that would be very bad for your relationship(s).

Interesting that you as Brit would say 'Walmart's were open all night'. I'm not quite sure whether that's a correct sentence, it surely sounds odd, but I guess it indicates two things. First is by being British (native) you overlook the obvious. (I certainly do that with Dutch myself) Second is you refer to a singular company in a plural way yourself.

I guess we disagree on the government, that's fine

[steph Arnott]

Paypal requires ones bank details, the bank requires id proof and residential address proof to open the account. The banks keep records for six years and any regular credits are flagged for the tax authorities when it reaches a limit. LL have to abide by tax laws. So I not sure why you find it an unusual practice.

Something I can not understand is, I have an American friend in UK, he has lived here for thirty years and has to file a US tax return every year. Actually he has given up his US citizenship because he fed up with filing the returns. He did say he had pay income tax to the IRS. I can not work that one out.

EDITED FOR TYPO

[LillyBeth Filth]

---

steph Arnott wrote:

Paypal requires ones bank details, the bank requires id proof and residential address proof to open the account. The banks keep records for six years and any regular credits are flagged for the tax authorities when it reaches a limit. LL have to abide by tax laws. So I not sure why you find it an unusual practice.

Something I can not understand is, I have an American friend in UK, he has lived here for thirty years and has to file a US tax return every year. Actually he has given up his US citizenship because he fed up with filing the returns. He did say he had pay income tax to the IRS. I can not work that one out.

EDITED FOR TYPO

---

I can only assume people don't read posts properly lol

I have never said I think it's an unusual practice...in fact...if you take the time to read my post(s) you will find I am saying the exact opposite!

I am not going to repeat what I have already written for those who can't or won't take the time to read my text properly.

EDIT: I will however, copy & paste the paragraph from the post you are responding to:

 

"There is some speculation as to whether ALL people who cash out will be required to provide this ID information.

I believe; Yes. They will.

I think this because as I have said in other threads, what LL are doing is not unique to LL.

Its actually a very normal and typical requirement for anyone that tries to set up a seller account on e-commerce websites that sell digital content such as renderosity.com or any website whose website is registered address is in the USA and who allow third parties (merchants) to sell through their platform.

I have completed 4 of these TAX forms when I went to start selling on contentparadise.com, turbosquid.com etc"

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

In Coby's case, she could write the singular unless she meant that the staff as a whole are efficient but not every individual is, in which case she could write it a little differently. "Most members of staff are efficient", for instance. So I still suggest that Coby follows Dresden's reply to her, and she won't go wrong.

---

I must say that like the sentence:

"The staff are very efficient."  it's compact, neat and even looks cool. :matte-motes-smile:

 

Whereas the sentence:

"Most members of the staff are very efficient."  is long and cumbersome.

 

[Phil Deakins]

Either will do, Coby. It depends on whether or not you'd want to pass on the information that some members of staff aren't efficient. If you don't want any of them to know that some are not as good as others, "the staff are efficient" is fine, as is "the staff is efficient",

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

I must say that like the sentence:

"

The staff are very efficient.

"  it's compact, neat and even looks cool. :matte-motes-smile:

 

Whereas the sentence:

"

Most members of the staff are very efficient.

"  is long and cumbersome.

 

---

Let's milk this example until it hurts...

"Most members of the staff are very efficient" is often the same as "the staff is very efficient", but this is not a given. Imagine an assembly line where the first 999 people are working their butts off being very efficient, but the last person in line is taking a nap. The staff are very efficient then (I assume we can overlook one person in a thousand) but the staff is not, since nothing ever gets finished.

[steph Arnott]

Seems to me, the last one is efficient at doing nothing. So they 100% efficient.

ADDED: Just words, what is the percentage of successful solved problems or completed and QC passed output. Make more sense.

[Perrie Juran]

---

LillyBeth Filth wrote:

 

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

The most creative people are those that don't have the NEED to sell what they create.. As soon as there is an obligation to create or a pressure to produce for an income, all those creative juices start to dry up.

The most beautiful art has come from those that were poor and did it for the sake of art.

---

This is a bunch of bleep.

Certainly have been many artists who were poor, who were never remunerated for the work that they did.

It's a sad thing that many artists do not get remunerated for their work.

Where we ever get this idea that making a living doing art, needing to do it for money, is counter to the 'creative processes' is beyond me. 

If I remember my art history correctly, Roman Emperors and later European Sovereigns would, I will put it euphemistically, "adopt artists."  They'd simply say, "You are now the Royal Artist."  Do you know what happened to them if they didn't produce?  Kind of a big need for them to produce.

Needing to do it for money and the creative process only becomes like oil and water when someone thinks it's that way.  And from that thinking comes the reaction of people when they rant that they shouldn't have to pay for a picture or for a song.

The truth is many of these artists kept painting with the hope that someone would recognize and buy their art.  Yes they loved art and I'm glad they didn't allow poverty to stop them.  But this faux noble idea that if you do art for money then it isn't art needs to die.

 

 

[LillyBeth Filth]

Well.. I hope you feel better for getting that off your chest.!

But in the greater scheme of things (in particular within this thread)  it's not really high on the list of priorities..

But for what it's worth and based on my own experience and that of watching fellow SL artists become "financially successful" a large % of those designers did not set off with the intention tof make content for profit.

It usually starts as a hobby and because it was a hobby and something they enjoy, the quality of their work was  good and people bought it and tada! A merchant is born.

If you feel pressured or stressed then creativity is blocked... any designer will tell you that their moods effect their ability to "create"

So it's not that unreasonable to assume that if people are creating purely for the purpose of money, then their creativity is not likely to be at its most fluent or best.

I know I feel pressure to produce if I haven't created anything I consider "worthy" or new. And that pressure causes me to feel uncreative, like a creative block or a self fulfilling prophecy.

I was much more creative and free thinking when SL was pure hobby. Fact.

Here, if you're really interested, there's been some studies done on what motivates peoples creativity

[Perrie Juran]

I stand by what I said.

As far as people freezing up (getting Artist's Block) in any field of endeavor it happens.  That is very true.  Sometimes it may be learned behaviour.  Sometimes maybe not.

I raised two children.  One of them could sit at home and rattle off the answers to every question but when they got in the class room and the test paper was in front of them they'd completely freeze up and not be able to remember a thing.  The other one aced every exam without blinking an eye.  Maybe you can figure it out.  We were never able to.

While it may be true that many artists get artists block in these situations, correlation does not necesarily equal causation. 

And for the record, it was not a matter of 'getting it off my chest' other than I am involved in a lot of things related to the Arts in RL.

[Phil Deakins]

The test $500 went through to PayPal ok without me being asked to fill any forms in or provide any information. PayPal doesn't have a photo of me and they don't have any bank information for me.

Perhaps LL only asks for the form to be filled in when a person cashes out more than $600 in total since LL started dealing with the forms, and not simply in the last year, which doesn't include the time when LL didn't deal with those forms. Perhaps the next $500, making a total in excess of $600 since LL started dealing with the form, will attract the form.

[West Habercom]

That or you just got lucky  .  I will be interested to see what happens next time you take out more than $100.

[LillyBeth Filth]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

The test $500 went through to PayPal ok without me being asked to fill any forms in or provide any information. PayPal doesn't have a photo of me and they don't have any bank information for me.

Perhaps LL only asks for the form to be filled in when a person cashes out more than $600 in total

since LL started dealing with the forms

, and not simply in the last year, which doesn't include the time when LL didn't deal with those forms. Perhaps the next $500, making a total in excess of $600 since LL started dealing with the form, will attract the form.

---

I took a quick glance at the SL Universe forums and someone said they had got one of these forms back in August but because no one had said anything in the public forums she/he didn't bring it up. It's only since people have started posting about it that she/he realised it wasn't something unique to her/him.

It makes sense to me that LL are required by law to gather peoples TAX ID as they are paying people in real currency. But perhaps they are doing it in stages to avoid an administration melt down or perhaps they only ask when people go over a certain threshold...I don't know but the way they have not gone public about it is not good.

A blog announcement may cause mass hysteria but all of this "cloak and dagger" is creating more debate and conspiracy then if they just told us how it is...why they are doing it, who it will effect.

If for no other reason other than to allow people the knowledge and understanding of running a business and what they should be doing in relation to the TAX.

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

The test $500 went through to PayPal ok without me being asked to fill any forms in or provide any information. PayPal doesn't have a photo of me and they don't have any bank information for me.

Perhaps LL only asks for the form to be filled in when a person cashes out more than $600 in total

since LL started dealing with the forms

, and not simply in the last year, which doesn't include the time when LL didn't deal with those forms. Perhaps the next $500, making a total in excess of $600 since LL started dealing with the form, will attract the form.

---

 

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

There's a few hundred more waiting to go so I can test it in the next few days.