Credit cards?

[Kevin Slater]

Looking though rentboy, I see more than a few guys who say they accept credit cards. Anyone know how they do this? (Paypal? An agency?) I know there are supposed to be sites that allow individuals to process cards, but believe these take a hefty chunk. Moreover, what's to keep some disreputable client (yep, we all have a couple of these, unfortunately) from subsequently disputing the charge?

 

My stock answer when asked about credit cards is that he can stick that card into any atm in the world and get cash. In reply I've heard:

 

Can't, I'm over my limit

Well it's not my card

I don't want to head back out (the half block to an atm)

 

I'm real glad I didn't take those cards. Now I'm curious how it works for the guys who do.

 

Kevin Slater

[+ ArVaGuy]

Kevin,

 

Depending on the issuer the merchant transaction fee can range in the 1.5% to 4% of the total. AMEX has the highest merchant fee of the card issuers and that's why some places don't take their card.

 

Having been the victim of credit card fraud, I would be very reluctant to pay for such services via credit card. From a client perspective I don't think I would want an electronic record of any such transaction for obvious reasons.

 

And from an escort perspective, since these funds are deposited by the credit card bank directly into the merchant's bank account that would certainly provide an easily traceable income history for the IRS or other authorities. Cash is a wonderful medium exchange as I am sure you will agree. ;-)

[jasoncarter_dfw]

Kevin:

 

I got a paypal business account using a DBA I set up at the county courthouse for $10. The cool thing about the paypal biz accounts is that you can get a debit Mastercard that links to the paypal acct, so you don't have to wait for Paypal to ACH the funds. I just ask that a client either send it right before the appt, or that they do it on my/or their computer upon arrival. I've found paypal to be quite handy for clients on multi-day overnights that don't want to carry around a sizable amount of cash. Let me know if you have any questions!

 

- Jason Carter - Dallas, TX

- jasoncarter53@hotmail.com

- (972) 365-0120

[+ Ace]

Hey Kevin;

I agree with you that cash is THE preferred method of payment. HOWEVER, when booking an overnight/travel or vacation gig, I have learned to ask for a deposit or prepayment. (learned that the hard way, I might add!)...I use a Paypal business acct & am upfront with the client about the fees they charge...9 times out of ten the client will pick up the additional fee...Working out of Vegas, sometimes the cash runs out (or so I'm told)...

I don't use it often, but it IS a NICE luxury to have if needed.

 

All the best;

Ace

http://www.rentboy.com/ACEROCKSTARFANT

http://www.daddysreviews.com/review.php?who=ace_vegas

http://www.maleescortreview.com/index.php?file=escort_review_view&escort_id=106100760

http://www.escort.sexcia.com/escorts/post_20965.html

http://www.rentboyreviews.com/escortOverview.htm?escortID=10043

[Guest zipperzone]

>And from an escort perspective, since these funds are

>deposited by the credit card bank directly into the merchant's

>bank account that would certainly provide an easily traceable

>income history for the IRS or other authorities.

 

Now why would this be a problem? Most of the escorts who post here, tell us (somewhat indigently) that they DO pay taxes on their earnings.:-) :-) :-)

[whipped guy]

RE: Most... escorts... DO pay taxes on their earnings.[/font color=blue]

 

Actually, most of the guys I have spoken with have some sort of Qualified Retirement Plan such as a Keogh Profit Sharing Plan, a 401K, or the equivalent to help reduce the amount of Federal Income Taxes that they are forced to pay due to their elevated income situations which places them in such a devastatingly high tax bracket... Well, at least under such a scenario they can defer tax payments to their retirement years when they will be in a much lower tax bracket due to a reduction in income.

 

Under such an arrangement this is actually one of the few ways to legally screw the Federal Government out of any taxes due… and we all know that most escorts… and especially the ones that post here… would only screw anyone under the most lawful and above-board of situations.

 

There is no way any escort is going to be screwed by the tax collector… unless it is by a big head tax collector…

 

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1486627/2/istockphoto_1486627_big_head_tax_collector.jpg

Big Head Tax Collector

 

:+

[JT Brooklyn]

Mr Whip..I am still of the Opinion "Cash is King" as D.Trump would say! Most of us on both ends... find Cash the safest way to do BIZ!

 

That and of course a FEW "Safety Deposit Boxes" for the Working Guy's Rainy Days! LOL :-)

[gp0560]

>Most of the escorts who post here, tell us (somewhat indigently) that they DO pay taxes on their earnings.

 

But if they're indigent, what earnings do they have in the first place?

[lucky13000]

""But if they're indigent""

 

Hey, we don't make fun of folks with disabilities around here.

 

(Not the Nazi spelling police patrol either)

[whipped guy]

JT... Now what a novel concept... multiple safety deposit boxes for those who run a clandestine, covert, cash only business… I wonder if the concept has been discussed at the most recent IPESA Convention.

 

For those not in the know IPESA is an acronym for “International Pimp and Escort Service Association”.

[Guest zipperzone]

>But if they're indigent, what earnings do they have in the

>first place?

 

So I can't spell worth a shit

:-) :-)

 

You got my drift anyway!

[Guest zipperzone]

>Actually, most of the guys I have spoken with have some sort

>of Qualified Retirement Plan such as a Keogh Profit Sharing

>Plan, a 401K, or the equivalent to help reduce the amount of

>Federal Income Taxes that they are forced to pay due to their

>elevated income situations which places them in such a

>devastatingly high tax bracket... Well, at least under such a

>scenario they can defer tax payments to their retirement years

>when they will be in a much lower tax bracket due to a

>reduction in income.

>

>Under such an arrangement this is actually one of the few ways

>to legally screw the Federal Government out of any taxes due…

 

Hey Whip: How do you figure they are legally screwing the government? It is a government plan set up to allow ANY worker to defer taxes until they retire in a lower tax bracket.

 

We have a similar set up on Canada - called RRSPs (Registered Retirement Saving Plans)

[Guest zipperzone]

>That and of course a FEW "Safety Deposit Boxes" for the

>Working Guy's Rainy Days! LOL :-)

 

I've always wondered just how safe that would be. It is not beyond the realm of possibility for the IRS to obtain from financial institutions, lists of who has boxes and force an audit of their contents, should they be suspious of a taxpayers honesty.

 

Or am I being too George Orwell?

[whipped guy]

Re: Under such an arrangement this is actually one of the few ways to legally screw the Federal Government out of any taxes due…

 

Hey Whip: How do you figure they are legally screwing the government? It is a government plan set up to allow ANY worker to defer taxes until they retire in a lower tax bracket. [/font color=blue]

 

Hey Zip... Of course you realize I had my tongue in my cheek when I posted that! After all I did include the following, “and we all know that most escorts… would only screw anyone under the most lawful and above-board of situations”.

 

Besides, the phrase "one of the few ways to legally screw the Federal Government out of taxes due..." is a direct quote from an IRS agent who used to be a neighbor of mine and gave me some advise regarding setting up a retirement plan.

 

You have to understand the mindset of an IRS agent… they automatically assume most people are “screwing the government” when they try to reduce their taxes. Consequently, when a law is written to reduce taxes an IRS agent still thinks in terms of “screwing the government”… albeit legally.

 

At any rate, I am indeed glad that such screwing is allowed north of the border as well.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Besides, the phrase "one of the few ways to legally screw the

>Federal Government out of taxes due..." is a direct

>quote from an IRS agent who used to be a neighbor of mine

>and gave me some advise regarding setting up a retirement

>plan.

>

>You have to understand the mindset of an IRS agent… they

>automatically assume most people are “screwing the government”

>when they try to reduce their taxes. Consequently, when a law

>is written to reduce taxes an IRS agent still thinks in terms

>of “screwing the government”… albeit legally.

 

Hey Whip - if "screwing the government" is not really "screwing" due to the fact that it's legal.... how about screwing the IRS agent? Would he have been worth it?

 

I have a friend who is FBI and he has introduced me to other agents when I visited him in California. I would screw any and/or all of them and die a happy man. If you're into suits, they are the best.

[+ deej]

You're being too George Orwell. Having cash in a box is not a tax liability and is not illegal.

 

They'd have to prove that it was untaxed income, which means they'd need a record somewhere of you earning that cash as untaxed income. If they have a record of the transaction, they don't even need to know about the cash in the box. Couldn't care less about it, actually.

[whipped guy]

Re: how about screwing the IRS agent? Would he have been worth it? [/font color=blue]

 

LOL! LOL!

 

Hey Zip... I was afraid you were going to ask me about this guy... Yeah! The three piece suite and all... actually he was my next door neighbor for way too long... and a real son of a bitch and then some! The most miserable individual you would ever want to meet… he used to brag that if you were unfortunate enough to get to his desk you were really gonna get screwed!!! When he retired he taught economics at a local university… and not too many of his students had much good to say about him either. Ironically the new neighbor that bought his house was a former student… and you guessed it, he agrees that the guy was a bastard!

 

Now I should also inform you that my backyard neighbor for a number of years was a captain in the State Police… Now before you get all hot and bothered imagining something interesting going down there… cool it… he was a bastard as well… not quite as bad as the IRS guy, but bad enough! Once I got stopped by a state cop… and I used this captain’s name to wiggle out of the predicament… Now, when I told my neighbor what happened, he promptly told me that not only I should have been issued a ticket, but that he was going to write up the officer as well… My crime: I had some I insulation strapped to another neighbor’s station wagon, and on the state highway where I was stopped no commercial vehicles or “trucking” was allowed… a technicality I guess!

 

To bad neither of these guys ever got into S&M as they probably both would have been good at it. At any rate, both were a pain in my butt... however, in the figurative as opposed to literal sense!

[Kevin Slater]

A tax lawyer has told me that a large enough sum of cash raises suspicion on its own. The government has the right to confiscate said cash on the spot and invite its holder to forfeiture court, where she has the opportunity to explain where the Ben Franklins came from. Given a good explanation and supporting evidence, she gets the cash back no further hassle. Lacking such an explanation and evidence, folk have lost their cases when the IRS simply argues that the money itself sans good explanation suggests ill-gotten gains. My understanding is that no criminal cases comes about, the court just confiscates the cash. So I've been told.

 

Kevin Slater

[Guest zipperzone]

>You're being too George Orwell. Having cash in a box is not a

>tax liability and is not illegal.

>

>They'd have to prove that it was untaxed income, which means

>they'd need a record somewhere of you earning that cash as

>untaxed income. If they have a record of the transaction, they

>don't even need to know about the cash in the box. Couldn't

>care less about it, actually.

 

But Deej, if it was a large amount of cash (as presumably it would be if it was to be his retirement money) would you not have to show that you paid tax on it? For example, say an escort was high end and earned 200k (or more)per year. He declared 100k thinking this would make him look legit.

 

If there was an audit which found 500k in a saftey deposit box or boxes, they could then estimate what he spent on living expenses per year - easy to do in these days of credit cards etc. So lets say that after paying the taxes on his 100k declared, he was left with 75k - or what ever. Rent/mtg payments, car payments, food, entertainment, clothes, travel expenses, medical insurance etc came to 65k a year.

Do you think they would not demand to know how he could save 500k when his disposable income after expenses was only 10k? They sure as hell would in Canada. And if your IRS is half as ruthless as I've heard they are, I'd be surprised if they would not take the same approach.

 

Where is my thinking off kilter?

[Guest zipperzone]

>To bad neither of these guys ever got into S&M as they

>probably both would have been good at it. At any rate, both

>were a pain in my butt... however, in the figurative as

>opposed to literal sense!

 

Wow - what total assholes!

 

You sure can pick your neighborhoods. :)

[Guest zipperzone]

>A tax lawyer has told me that a large enough sum of cash

>raises suspicion on its own. The government has the right to

>confiscate said cash on the spot and invite its holder to

>forfeiture court, where she has the opportunity to explain

>where the Ben Franklins came from. Given a good explanation

>and supporting evidence, she gets the cash back no further

>hassle. Lacking such an explanation and evidence, folk have

>lost their cases when the IRS simply argues that the money

>itself sans good explanation suggests ill-gotten gains. My

>understanding is that no criminal cases comes about, the court

>just confiscates the cash. So I've been told.

 

Interesting - this is more or less is what my reply to Deej inferred.

The only thing that surprised me is that they don't lay charges for tax evasion.

[Kevin Slater]

>Interesting - this is more or less is what my reply to Deej

>inferred.

>The only thing that surprised me is that they don't lay

>charges for tax evasion.

 

I suspect criminal tax evasion has a higher burden of proof. As I understand it, in forfeiture court the government doesn't have to prove a thing, just that she can't prove that the money is legit.

 

Kevin Slater

[Guest zipperzone]

>>Interesting - this is more or less is what my reply to Deej

>>inferred.

>>The only thing that surprised me is that they don't lay

>>charges for tax evasion.

>

>I suspect criminal tax evasion has a higher burden of proof.

>As I understand it, in forfeiture court the government doesn't

>have to prove a thing, just that she can't prove that

>the money is legit.

 

I'm not a lawyer but - I would have thought that the IRS could prove there were no taxes paid on it by producing the previous tax returns that did not account for it. Unless the defendant could explain where it came from, his goose would be cooked. Either way it is a bitch that the $$$ would be forfeited. Definately cheaper to declare and pay the taxes in the first place.

 

I have also wondered about people who use undeclared income for large downpayments (or even outright purchases) of real estate. Would this not raise the same type of red flag as large bundles of cash? And if you can't prove it was paid for by after tax dollars, would the property be subject to forfeiture?

[whipped guy]

Re: Definately cheaper to declare and pay the taxes in the first place.[/font color=blue]

 

Either that... or spend it early and spend it often... and especially at a "business" where no records will be kept...

[Guest Wetnwildbear]

For me the attraction of using a CC is that I DO NOT have to

 

carry or keep large amounts of cash in order to spend time with

 

an escort. This is a particular concern when I am traveling

 

and meeting an escort with whom I have not previously spent time.

 

 

 

When dealing with repeat performances the risk of cash mishaps

 

are certainly less.

 

 

I did have one Escort tell me that he took credit cards, but when he

 

arrived at the door, he informed me that

 

his processing service charged him a 20% fee that he would have

 

to pass along to me.

 

 

I suggested that his business accumen was lacking if he was being

 

taken for such a ride by his financial institution and that I was

 

concerned that his Sexual Accument might be similarly impaired.

 

 

He immediately reconsidered his fee. But at that point the trust

 

was broken - I gave him Cab Fare and sent him on his way!