Tag Archives: editing

The Missed Tax Opportunity

I’ve got a beef. Now, it’s considered rude to discuss politics or religion in polite company, but y’all readers (who more likely than not are also writers) may share this beef, so I figure I might as well tell you.

It’s about everyone’s favorite thing to hate: Taxes.

First, let me be clear: I actually don’t mind paying taxes. I know, that sounds hard to believe, but it’s true. Taxes are good, in that stuff that the community at large needs gets paid for. I like having schools; I prefer it when my roads are well-maintained; I think it’s a good idea that our service men and women have sufficient armor.

But there is one tax that I think is just wrong-headed and counterproductive: self-employment taxes.

It’s a little tricky, so let me explain. When you work for someone else, some of your income is taken out to go to Social Security and Medicare and stuff like that.  Then, come tax time, you also pay any additional income taxes you may owe–this is set up in income brackets. Generally, it’s a percentage of your income. Mine is about 15% last I checked. At my last job, everyone in my general rate of pay wound up overpaying the IRS, resulting in a nice happy refund.

But I didn’t.

What was the difference? Self-employment taxes.

See, I had been honest on my taxes and reported that I’d earned a little bit of money from my side business as an editor. But I was only using one of those answer-the-questionnaire programs, so I never had any human to actually advise me. If I did, they would have explained this part for me.

Because, as a self-employed person, there is no one to take out those SS and Medicare-type taxes, the government puts that on for you come tax time. It’s aptly called the self-employment tax. It’s about 12-15%, depending on the year. And then, in addition, you pay income tax. And they stack, making my estimated taxes on my side business 30%. That’s a considerably more uncomfortable number, particularly because it’s a very small business.

On top of that, the IRS expects a check from self-employed folks 4x a year, so they are regularly getting the money needed to run the country. Rather than just paying taxes through an employer and once a year, a small business owner has to pay regularly. And if you don’t know that or miss a deadline, you get charged interest.

It can be quite surprising.

So last year, even though I made a very paltry sum in my side business, it threw off my total earnings and meant I had to pay Uncle Sam instead of getting a refund. This was disappointing, so I’ve been doing my homework this year to try to get ahead.

But like I said, I don’t mind paying taxes. My problem is: this kind of tax discourages people from starting their own businesses. And, considering a) how turbulent the economy has been and b) how we as employees can no longer trust that business loyalty between worker and owner goes both ways (ie. that you won’t be fired), encouraging more people to be self-employed–even just partially–is a great idea.

I had the privilege of hearing Dr. Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank, speak several years ago. Grameen Bank is all about providing small loans (microloans) to the poorest of the poor to help them start their own businesses. His work is literally transforming his home of Bangladesh, and his model has been adopted all over the world.

Unsurprisingly, Dr. Yunus is also a big fan of self-employment. It is safe to say that his talk and book inspired me to start my own business, too. But Grameen Bank is really struggling to work in the United States. Why? These kinds of taxes–even just the part about it being difficult to learn about what these taxes are–works against the very small entrepreneur. Sure, all the angel-funded entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley getting millions for an app that earns $0 fit right in, but the Etsy seller, writer/editor, or ice cream salesman struggles.

Personally, I think we need to lower that barrier to entry. We could encourage all those people who are on disability in rural areas to earn income, giving themselves a sense of purpose. It would encourage those who are currently hiding their non-9-to-5 income (you know who you are) to come out and be more honest. And it would give a boost to the overall economy, because, while self-employment isn’t for everyone, it can be as steady as the worker wants it to be. (I’ve found it often means I work more than when I’m working 9-to-5 only, because I’m more committed, more interested).

I think it’s just sort of a shame. Obviously it is important that the country’s bills be paid, but I think the current way self-employment tax is structured is a lost opportunity.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

Leave a comment

Filed under Editing, Publishing, writing

Fun with Grammar: Lessons from DFWCon

This is my cat, Tavi. He is not a Grammaticat. Maybe one day. We all need dreams.

This is my cat, Tavi. He is not a Grammaticat. Maybe one day. We all need dreams.

Five weeks ago (wow, has it been that long already?) I had the privilege of attending DFWCon, where I got to meet Tex Thompson, grammar-clarifier-extraordinaire. She runs www.thetexfiles.com, which, in addition to general greatness, is where she posts “Grammaticats”–cats teaching lessons in grammar.

I know. My mind was blown, too.

It is no surprise, then, that she led an excellent presentation on Grammar and Style. I hadn’t planned on attending, but my schedule worked out and I made it, and I am so glad I did.

I’ve been a copyeditor and proofreader for years, but I’ll tell you a secret: when editing stuff, we don’t typically talk about it in fancy grammarian-speak. Mostly we just say “ugh, you did that wrong.” For that reason, it was great to brush up on my grammar in Tex’s class: I don’t think I’ve heard some of the fancy titles since high school (if then).

Mostly for my own benefit (and because, who knows? Maybe it’ll help you out, too), here are my notes from Tex’s class.

  • modifier:
  • non-restrictive modifying phrase:
    • 1) Can be deleted
    • 2) must be close to the thing it modifies
    • 3) needs a matched set of commas or dashes
  • Types of modifiers and errors: relative clauses; restrictive vs. nonrestrictive modifying phrases; dangling modifiers; misplaced modifiers; ambiguous modifiers (the phrase being modified could be interpreted two different ways); implied simultenaety (which is fine as long as the actions being given really could be happening at the same time, eg. “Sally walked while talking to Jim.”)
  • Pronoun: subs in for a noun or noun phrase
    • Pronoun case error: using the wrong form of the pronoun (I/me, for example)
    • pronoun antecedent agreement: the pronoun needs to go with the thing it refers to (a group = them; he = Bryan)
    • pronoun reference error: it’s not clear what the pronoun is referring to (“I took my boat and my girlfriend for a ride. She’s a real beaut!” –the boat or the girlfriend?!)
    • wandering body parts (this one’s my favorite)-when anatomy causes confusing issues (is the eye literally falling on the jacket? Ew)
    • dialogue tag: said/ asked/hissed/etc. – it should describe how something is said
    • comma splice
  • Fragment: an incomplete sentence; it needs a subject
    • implied subject (ie. “Run!” The “You” is implied)
    • coordinating vs. subordinating conjunctions (rules for whether or not to use commas)
    • Fragments are often okay if you are writing in deep POV–we don’t always think in complete sentences.

Look at all the words you learned! Don’t you feel like a smart cookie now?

2 Comments

Filed under Conventional, Editing, writing

The Grammarian’s Five Daughters

I found this fabulous short story that uses a fairy tale/fable structure to examine the values of different types of words. It’s beautiful.

Once there was a grammarian who lived in a great city that no longer exists, so we don’t have to name it. Although she was learned and industrious and had a house full of books, she did not prosper. To make the situation worse, she had five daughters. Her husband, a diligent scholar with no head for business, died soon after the fifth daughter was born, and the grammarian had to raise them alone. It was a struggle, but she managed to give each an adequate education, though a dowry — essential in the grammarian’s culture — was impossible. There was no way for her daughters to marry. They would become old maids, eking (their mother thought) a miserable living as scribes in the city market. The grammarian fretted and worried, until the oldest daughter was fifteen years old.

Then the girl came to her mother and said, “You can’t possibly support me, along with my sisters. Give me what you can, and I’ll go out and seek my fortune. No matter what happens, you’ll have one less mouth to feed.”

The mother thought for a while, then produced a bag. “In here are nouns, which I consider the solid core and treasure of language. I give them to you because you’re the oldest. Take them and do what you can with them.”…

I’ll let you find out what happens next, but do go read it. It’s delightful.

It made me wish there was a similar story about punctuation. Maybe there is! I’m a fan of the way commas herd words together in small-but-appropriate-sized bunches, and the way periods are always there to give us a break. The interrobang (?!) is rare but mighty, and apostrophes help us cut the crap.

Leave a comment

Filed under Editing, Short Stories, writing

Grammar for Foodies

If you are what you eat, make sure you’ve got a healthy diet of good grammar.

 

Or something like that. …Cookies sound tasty…

2 Comments

June 8, 2013 · 10:09 am

What’s the Diff? Past vs. Passed

A quick visit from your friendly neighborhood grammarian, here today to explain an easy mistake that spellcheck won’t discover!

Past vs. Passed

As with many homophones–words that sound the same but mean different things and are spelled differently–it’s easy for your brain to say “past” and your fingers to helpfully write “passed.”

Quick reminder: Past means “things that happened before” (as in not the present nor the future); or nearby, as in “beyond”; or sometimes, “to be on the further side of”

Passed, on the other hand, can mean the opposite of failing on a test; the past tense of “to pass,” as in “to have gone by previously”

The definition you want will help make it clear which of the two you need.

Examples:

He passed his very important test. He was glad it was now in his past. In the first part, he did not fail the test, but got good marks (passed). The second sentence is about when the test took place; it is no longer in the future or the present (past).

Joanna walked past Betsy, refusing even to look at her; she passed her right by. Betsy, in return, looked right past Joanna.
Joanna walked on the other side of (past) Betsy, and she did it previously (she passed), so that sentence needs both words. Betsy uses a different meaning to look beyond (past), rather than at, Joanna.

Moving from the future into the past, time passed.
This might seem tricky, because both uses involve time, but it’s not so bad. The name we use for time that has already happened (the past) is the place that time, as a noun–that is, as a thing–is moving toward, so in this case it went by previously (passed).

 

So when you’re looking at a statement like “The black cat walked ____ Bryce,” how do you know which to use?

Look at the definitions, and try to fit one in.
-thing that happened before (past)
-nearby (past)
-to the other side of (past)
-to pass a test (passed)
-went by previously (passed)

“The black cat walked nearby Bryce.” The word you need is therefore past.

If the sentence were instead “The orange cat _____ Bryce,” the word “nearby” no longer fits. Now, “went by previously” is a better fit–“The orange cat previously went by Bryce.” That orange cat just passed him.

 

This can be tricky because your spellcheck won’t pick up on this mistake, so look over your text carefully to figure out which word you really need.

Leave a comment

Filed under Editing, writing

Oxford Comma: What is it, and how do I use it?

I’ve had a lot of book reviews lately; sorry about that! I’ve gotten a lot of reading done lately, and that doesn’t even include my recent re-reading (via audiobook) of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, as read by Stephen Fry (short version: it’s great!).

But a friend today was moaning over people who didn’t understand the merits of the Oxford comma, and I said “Aha!” When I worked in newspapers, I never used the Oxford comma–and I may have even snubbed my nose at it a time or two (it’s true! Forgive me!). But when I worked in academia, it was required, and I came to love that little bugger.

The Oxford comma confuses people, but it’s actually very simple: When making a list, include a comma before the “and” in front of the final list item. Example: “Buy apples, oranges, and bananas.” The sweet little comma between “oranges” and “and”? That’s the Oxford comma.

Some people don’t use the Oxford comma–AP style, used by media organizations, rejects it–and that’s fine, most of the time. As long as the list still makes sense, it’s ok to drop it. The list “Buy apples, oranges and bananas” still makes sense without the Oxford comma! As long as you are consistent in your non-use of that third comma, you’re fine.

Except.

Sometimes you really do need that last comma for the sentence to make sense.

This fun little graphic does a good job explaining it:

If you don’t get it at first, read the second version aloud, pausing to take a breath at the comma.

But this is my absolute favorite visual explanation of the Oxford comma. It’s… a little less safe-for-all-audiences.

This has floated around the internet so much, I have no idea of the original source. Whoever you are, thank you! This is my favorite grammar comic of all time.

Strippers JFK and Stalin are just so fabulous.

Anyway, that’s the gist of the Oxford comma. Use it to make your writing clearer, or use it all the time, if you like. It’s just a helpful little tool to keep your lists organized.

And if you need some advanced grammar or style help, you can always hire a pro.

4 Comments

Filed under Editing, writing

The “Easy Path To Publishing” Myth

Since I’ve begun this blog and been contemplating self-publishing, I’ve read a lot–articles, blog posts, books–about “how” to do it. Some of these have been intensely practical how-to guides; some have purported to tell “the way” to do it, with the insinuation that if you follow these steps exactly, presto! your book will be a hit.

I’ve read a lot, and I think it’s time to blow the whistle: that ain’t the truth of it.

Rather, I contend, even amidst this publishing revolution, no one–not the Big Six publishers, not the editors, not readers, not how-to-get-published writers, and certainly not Susie-Q author–has a damned clue of what makes one book a success while the other oozes.

Sure, we have some rough ideas: well-edited copy, a nice book cover, a smattering of time spent on social media, an interesting story idea, write in a popular and accessible genre. But, it seems to me, you can have all of those things AND work your butt off AND spend a bunch of money on supposed aids to success and still not have it take off.

I don’t say this to disappoint you.

In fact, I find this liberating.

Because if the common thread in self-publishing success stories (read Hugh Howey’s excellent piece on his success here, or this short article about yet another rise-from-obscurity author here) is a random blessing from the universe, the pressure is off! I don’t have to follow the rigorous social media schedules, or do the 50-states-book-tour, or dress up in zany costumes. In fact, it almost seems that the opposite is more effective: work on something you love, even if it is sort of crazy (maybe especially so), and just send it out into the universe. Maybe it’ll pick up steam. Maybe it won’t. But you don’t have to stress and labor and allow yourself to work until you hate yourself and your work.

Isn’t that a revolutionary idea? If no one knows exactly how the magic happens, then you are free to find the magic that works for you!

There’s no 12-step plan. There’s just you, your stories you want to tell, and the universe.

Good luck.

4 Comments

Filed under Publishing

What makes a good editor

What makes a good editor.

Great list to help you sort out a quality editor from a poseur. Love her advice, and (as I’m a copy editor, too), it’s exactly what I hope to offer every single time I work with an author. I can’t imagine that there would be an editor alive who would refuse to use Track Changes!

Leave a comment

Filed under Editing

Now with: Editing!

I added something new to my blog. You might have noticed it, but then, perhaps not. It’s discreet and coy, sitting up there on the navigation bar, swizzling its straw in a drink with an umbrella in it, hoping you’ll notice.

Yes, that’s it. Editing.

MEK-edits-logoI’m proud to announce that I now, in addition to my writing and general blogging, am offering editing services.

The truth is out: I can’t hide my infatuation with commas any longer. No more will I hide my affection for clean syntax! I shall no longer cower behind my dictionary!

No, I shall take up my red pen (or Track Changes in Word) and use my powers for good!

In all seriousness, I have worked as a copyeditor and proofreader for 6 years, in newspapers, magazines, and private companies. As I have gotten acquainted with more writers online, I’ve noticed the gap between writers and quality editors; there are a lot of complaints about high prices, a difficulty of access, and unqualified folks.

In contrast, I’m offering reasonable prices (and am open to negotiation, if need be), you’ve already found me and I’m available by email, and I’ve got experience. You can check out my samples on my editing page, or, if you need further convincing, send me a message and I’ll do a few sample pages for you to let you decide for yourself.

I believe an editor can help all of us and, particularly as self-publishing and indie publishing continue to flourish, I’d like to help other authors overcome some of the obstacles to a completed work.

Please drop me a line at mekedits(at)gmail.com if you’re interested. I’m also listed on http://www.writer.ly, which is in beta release. I’d love to work with you.

Leave a comment

Filed under Editing

Interactive Writing: Reaction to “A Book is a Start-Up”

Step right up, ladies and gents, and buy this load of crap! Photo credit: Sumi-l / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA

Step right up, ladies and gents, and buy this load of crap!
Photo credit: Sumi-l / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA

Last week, The New Yorker published “A Book Is a Start-Up: Lessons from Leanpub, NetMinds, and Other Publishing Hustlers.

Basically, the article contends that the e-publishing phenomenon is changing the author/reader relationship–but not in the way we often hear (the “cutting out the middleman publishers” way, that is). No, this article cites several new-wave publishers who want the reader to be able to directly interact with the writer as the writing is happening.

Woah, what?

The idea is that a writer should let readers–with all their interests, editing abilities, and potential future buying power–get involved from day one. No more should the writer complete his first draft “behind closed doors” (as Stephen King suggests); no, let the reader get all up in your biz-nas, because it’s good for business.

“We believe a writer is not necessarily a writer,” Sanders, the Net Minds C.E.O., said. “They are content containers.” At the Net Minds website, freelancers can sign up as writers or ghostwriters, as well as editors, copyreaders, designers, and publicists. The writer, then, arrives with a thought, for manufacture. The mechanics of book start-ups suggest an assembly line at times…

Good for you, I guess, if that appeals to you, but I think it is dead wrong. I am more than just a “container,” thankyouverymuch. Crowd-sourcing has produced some great things–look at Wikipedia, for example!–but it also creates a lot of horrible things–look at Wikipedia, for example! I mean, you only need to glance at Yahoo!Answers to get a sense that a whole lotta people don’t have sufficient grasp of the English language to reliably call others out on their mistakes.

Maybe special-interest books like business guides can be crowdsourced in that way (the business/marketing books for industry that I’ve read are all pretty much interchangeable anyway), but I think this kind of writing/editing fusion is pure snake oil. It can’t be good.

I’ll be with Mr. King, writing privately with the door closed, thanks.

6 Comments

Filed under writing