Jed! and Katey: Biblically Bunking Together

[auntieminem]

Not sure why but I watched the video. Truett is a cute little guy. His parents seem pretty attentive to him, too bad they didn't wait a bit before the next kid. It is sad to see them become one of many. James seems to do well with his nieces and nephews; it was funny how Truett was fussing with his parents and stopped when James was carrying him. Just don't let any of them get in a vehicle  with him at the wheel.  They didn't show much in the video. Didn't see JB or Michelle there but maybe they were.  Good thing they had Hannah providing cupcakes and fixing the smash cake.  That bedtime bible story, yikes. Good thing Tru is too young to understand the words.  A story about war before you go to sleep; good choice Jed. 

[YupItsMe]

That cake was a mess but I was impressed that they didn’t spend money on a fancy bakery cake just for the baby to take one bite.

[ozziemom]

I was grossed out by Jed!’s manhandling the smash cake, he was massaging like a piece of clay that he was molding into a round shape. Seemed like a smallish crowd and not so many Duggars, at least in the video.

[oliviabenson]

Those Duggar genes are strong lol. 

[Heathen]

On 5/13/2023 at 1:19 PM, auntieminem said:

Not sure why but I watched the video. Truett is a cute little guy. His parents seem pretty attentive to him, too bad they didn't wait a bit before the next kid. It is sad to see them become one of many. James seems to do well with his nieces and nephews; it was funny how Truett was fussing with his parents and stopped when James was carrying him. Just don't let any of them get in a vehicle  with him at the wheel.  They didn't show much in the video. Didn't see JB or Michelle there but maybe they were.  Good thing they had Hannah providing cupcakes and fixing the smash cake.  That bedtime bible story, yikes. Good thing Tru is too young to understand the words.  A story about war before you go to sleep; good choice Jed. 

Is Jed 2.0 only a year now? I had it in mind that he's 14 months. And his mother is due this month? That's a faster rate than even Mullet managed, unless you count the twins and Josie's being months early. 

[oliviabenson]

12 minutes ago, Heathen said:

Is Jed 2.0 only a year now? I had it in mind that he's 14 months. And his mother is due this month? That's a faster rate than even Mullet managed, unless you count the twins and Josie's being months early. 

Yeah T is 12 months old. 

[Salacious Kitty]

Haven't heard from these two in a minute. Katey was due yesterday. 

[AstridM]

1 hour ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Haven't heard from these two in a minute. Katey was due yesterday. 

Don’t jinx it!

[Salacious Kitty]

26 minutes ago, AstridM said:

Don’t jinx it!

Well, she can't keep it stuck up there forever. 😂

[AstridM]

3 hours ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Well, she can't keep it stuck up there forever. 😂

No, but I’d honestly prefer them to keep it private. 

[Gweilo]

5 hours ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Haven't heard from these two in a minute. Katey was due yesterday. 

So she'll be pregnant again in three months!

[oliviabenson]

3 hours ago, Gweilo said:

So she'll be pregnant again in three months!

2 tops 

She will try to beat Kendra in how many kids they will have 

[Salacious Kitty]

5 hours ago, AstridM said:

No, but I’d honestly prefer them to keep it private. 

Won't happen. Jed! seems to like having a public platform. 

[Gemma Violet]

A video about a trip to Hawaii:

 

[floridamom]

That is a very nice maternity bathing suit that Katey is wearing. I guess these two have relaxed the Duggar modesty rules. A good thing IMO.

[madpsych78]

Jed becomes the second Duggar son to be shirtless, at least on social media (after Jason).

[Salacious Kitty]

59 minutes ago, madpsych78 said:

Jed becomes the second Duggar son to be shirtless, at least on social media (after Jason).

Thanks. I just lost my breakfast. 🤮

[farmgal4]

17 hours ago, Gemma Violet said:

A video about a trip to Hawaii:

 

I think Katey is a natural beauty, and she seems to have a good personality.  She certainly could’ve done better than Jed for a husband.

[AstridM]

43 minutes ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Thanks. I just lost my breakfast. 🤮

I almost did and I didn’t even watch it!

[Salacious Kitty]

1 minute ago, AstridM said:

I almost did and I didn’t even watch it!

Neither did I. 😂

[AstridM]

2 minutes ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Neither did I. 😂

All in the imagination! I’m thrilled to hear that I’m not the only one who refuses to give them clicks and contribute to their vacation funds.

[Meow Mix]

Where does the money come from for this long vacation?  Particularly after they just spent almost a month on another vacation?  Does selling junkers really pay this well?

[quarks]

I doubt the car lot is bringing in much money, but:

1. The house is paid off - no mortgage/rent costs.

2. No student loans.

3. No car payments.

4. Off-season travel discounts

If they are using credit card points towards the airfare and/or the hotels, then, yes, so far this is all doable on a low to moderate income, especially if they use credit cards to pay for groceries/gas. It would be different if they were doing this in the summer or at Xmas - but the Italy/Israel trip was in February, when hotels are comparatively cheap, and this Hawai'i trip was in April, also not peak travel season there. They probably were able to score a decent deal at a resort in Hawai'i, and based on their photos/videos, they were staying at budget/moderate hotels in Italy and Israel. 

And they have 61.8K followers on YouTube, which means they are probably earning around $50 to $200 per posted video. That's taxable income - but that also means that as long as they post something about their trips on YouTube, they can expense the entire trip, lowering that tax bill.

It would be very different, of course, if they had a mortgage, but since they don't, they don't need to be making a lot of money from the car lot to be able to afford this.

[AstridM]

1 hour ago, quarks said:

I doubt the car lot is bringing in much money, but:

1. The house is paid off - no mortgage/rent costs.

2. No student loans.

3. No car payments.

4. Off-season travel discounts

If they are using credit card points towards the airfare and/or the hotels, then, yes, so far this is all doable on a low to moderate income, especially if they use credit cards to pay for groceries/gas. It would be different if they were doing this in the summer or at Xmas - but the Italy/Israel trip was in February, when hotels are comparatively cheap, and this Hawai'i trip was in April, also not peak travel season there. They probably were able to score a decent deal at a resort in Hawai'i, and based on their photos/videos, they were staying at budget/moderate hotels in Italy and Israel. 

And they have 61.8K followers on YouTube, which means they are probably earning around $50 to $200 per posted video. That's taxable income - but that also means that as long as they post something about their trips on YouTube, they can expense the entire trip, lowering that tax bill.

It would be very different, of course, if they had a mortgage, but since they don't, they don't need to be making a lot of money from the car lot to be able to afford this.

Do they use credit cards though? I thought they were forbidden.

1 hour ago, quarks said:

That's taxable income - but that also means that as long as they post something about their trips on YouTube, they can expense the entire trip, lowering that tax bill.

I don’t believe this is completely legal.

[Absolom]

My mother could expense their trips from Arkansas to California as long as they had rental property in California.  Of course, if they stayed for two months and they weren't working on the rental property for two months, they could only expense the living expenses for a week or so. 

If the Duggarlings made videos for their established youtube business every couple of days for the trip, I can see them getting by with it although it does seem dancing on the line.  

Edited May 28, 2023 by Absolom

[AstridM]

15 minutes ago, Absolom said:

My mother could expense their trips from Arkansas to California as long as they had rental property in California.  Of course, if they stayed for two months and they weren't working on the rental property for two months, they could only expense the living expenses for a week or so. 

If the Duggarlings made videos for their established youtube business every couple of days for the trip, I can see them getting by with it although it does seem dancing on the line.  

But could they expense every single part of that trip? If they chose to fly there in First Class, and stay in $1000/night hotel rooms, and eat out in expensive restaurants daily, could they simply write ALL of that off because they posted one YouTube video afterward? They were in Hawaii for weeks after a month-long trip to Europe. 

Edited May 28, 2023 by AstridM

[Heathen]

Businesses like the car lot are also ripe for skimming off the top. 

[AstridM]

I found this after doing a quick search.

FAQs

Can influencers write off vacations? 

If you’re a travel blogger, any travel and meals can be written off if the expense is related to your blog. Influencers in other niches can’t write off vacations.

https://www.doola.com/blog/influencer-tax-write-offs/
 

I don’t think Jed! can claim to be a travel blogger.

 

[GeeGolly]

5 minutes ago, Heathen said:

Businesses like the car lot are also ripe for skimming off the top. 

Actually they're not. Buying and selling cars includes producing copious amounts of paperwork which makes a paper trial. The paperwork also has a lot of eyes on it, including customers, insurance companies and the registry of motor vehicles. Unless you have access to 10s of 1000s of dollars in cash you're limited in skimming off the top.

That doesn't mean you can't rip off customers and sell junks though.

[Salacious Kitty]

Well, we now know that Jed! sold Carlin and Evan an SUV that had previously been in an accident. They didn't find this out until the vehicle started having problems. 

That's pretty shady. 

[quarks]

19 minutes ago, AstridM said:

Do they use credit cards though? I thought they were forbidden.

I don’t believe this is completely legal.

What's forbidden is getting into debt. A credit card that's paid off every month, and gives bonuses like free airline miles/hotel stays/whatever? Perfectly ok.

And yes, this is 100% legal. These are travel expenses incurred as part of making a YouTube video that they made money on, which was posted on their official YouTube channel that they gain some income from. They would absolutely be expensed - there's even a specific line for it on Schedule C. They would need to post at least one video, and of course show financial receipts, but as long as they do that, they're fine.

I assume that they are also expensing their cell phones and internet/cell phone coverage for the same reason.

 

1 minute ago, AstridM said:

But could they expense every single part of that trip? If they chose to fly there in First Class, and stay in $1000/night hotel rooms, and eat out in expensive restaurants daily, could they simply write ALL of that off because they posted one YouTube video afterward?

Yep. I suspect their tax advisor would advise them to post a couple of pictures of the actual hotel room/meals just to cover their backs, but, yep. 

If they continually post losses on Schedule C because of these travel expenses, that's another issue, and something that might draw the attention of the IRS, but as long as they report some financial gain on Schedule C and pay income/self-employment tax on it, it's fine.

 

Just now, AstridM said:

I found this after doing a quick search.

FAQs

Can influencers write off vacations? 

If you’re a travel blogger, any travel and meals can be written off if the expense is related to your blog. Influencers in other niches can’t write off vacations.

https://www.doola.com/blog/influencer-tax-write-offs/
 

I don’t think Jed! can claim to be a travel blogger.

 

 

That's mostly correct.  You can't write off vacations. But you can write off expenses incurred as a result of creating a product - in this case, the video. The key is, as Hollywood accountants will be the first to tell you, to make sure that it isn't just a vacation.

And that's exactly what the two of them are doing here.

 

[Heathen]

4 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Actually they're not. Buying and selling cars includes producing copious amounts of paperwork which makes a paper trial. The paperwork also has a lot of eyes on it, including customers, insurance companies and the registry of motor vehicles. Unless you have access to 10s of 1000s of dollars in cash you're limited in skimming off the top.

That doesn't mean you can't rip off customers and sell junks though.

Two hundred here and three hundred here adds up. 

[AstridM]

31 minutes ago, quarks said:

What's forbidden is getting into debt. A credit card that's paid off every month, and gives bonuses like free airline miles/hotel stays/whatever? Perfectly ok.

And yes, this is 100% legal. These are travel expenses incurred as part of making a YouTube video that they made money on, which was posted on their official YouTube channel that they gain some income from. They would absolutely be expensed - there's even a specific line for it on Schedule C. They would need to post at least one video, and of course show financial receipts, but as long as they do that, they're fine.

I assume that they are also expensing their cell phones and internet/cell phone coverage for the same reason.

 

Yep. I suspect their tax advisor would advise them to post a couple of pictures of the actual hotel room/meals just to cover their backs, but, yep. 

If they continually post losses on Schedule C because of these travel expenses, that's another issue, and something that might draw the attention of the IRS, but as long as they report some financial gain on Schedule C and pay income/self-employment tax on it, it's fine.

 

 

That's mostly correct.  You can't write off vacations. But you can write off expenses incurred as a result of creating a product - in this case, the video. The key is, as Hollywood accountants will be the first to tell you, to make sure that it isn't just a vacation.

And that's exactly what the two of them are doing here.

 

See what I posted above about the legalities of writing off travel expenses. Jed! Is not a travel blogger. And they made it very clear that Europe and Hawaii WERE vacations for them.

Edited May 28, 2023 by AstridM

[ozziemom]

As always with the Duggars, they do things a little different. I imagine they use the same shady tax preparer as JimBoob, so who knows what expenses they write off against their YouTube income. 

[Dehumidifier]

At 14:11 in the video he said the trip was "two weeks." At 14:14 she said the trip was "12 days." She may not be counting the travel days.

Her mother had the baby while they were away. She met them at the airport. He turned away from them at first when they returned but later started to smile.

I suspect the reason they did these trips now is that they figure it's doable with one baby but not with multiples. 

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Dehumidifier

[quarks]

2 hours ago, AstridM said:

See what I posted above about the legalities of writing off travel expenses. Jed! Is not a travel blogger. And they made it very clear that Europe and Hawaii WERE vacations for them.

(nods)

I get all this - and I read what you posted above. But, and I say this with genuine respect, since I completely understand how frustrating/wrong this whole tax-write off sounds: I think you and that post are asking/answering the wrong tax question.

Yes, Jed! isn't a travel blogger, or claiming to be one. But he's also not producing a travel blog - he's producing a video, aka a short film. So this wouldn't be a write-off for expenses incurred as an influencer, but for expenses incurred from producing a short film. He is legally allowed to expense the costs of producing/creating that video/film as long as that video/film earned income for himself or a business that he owns.

So the questions are:

1. Did the video make taxable income for Jed!  (Given the 61K following, yes.)

2. Did Jed! have to travel to make that video?  (Since he doesn't live in Hawai'i, yes.)

3. Did Jed! participate in activities that earned taxable income during this vacation?  (Again, since he filmed a video that currently has 42K views on YouTube, yes.)

So they wouldn't be writing off vacation travel expenses. They would be writing off travel expenses incurred as a result of producing a video that earned reportable taxable income from YouTube - the same way a singer/songwriter who headed to Hawai'i to film/record a song to put up on YouTube for taxable income could, or, for that matter, the same way Universal did - on a much larger scale - when they headed to Hawai'i to film Jurassic Park. 

It's a subtle difference, but a very real one. 

I do think that the IRS might ask a few questions if Jed! constantly reports the YouTube income as a loss, but as long as he reports some sort of income/profit, I think he'll be fine. Especially since any tax savings wouldn't cover the cost of these trips - just make them more affordable.

[ozziemom]

32 minutes ago, quarks said:

(nods)

I get all this - and I read what you posted above. But, and I say this with genuine respect, since I completely understand how frustrating/wrong this whole tax-write off sounds: I think you and that post are asking/answering the wrong tax question.

Yes, Jed! isn't a travel blogger, or claiming to be one. But he's also not producing a travel blog - he's producing a video, aka a short film. So this wouldn't be a write-off for expenses incurred as an influencer, but for expenses incurred from producing a short film. He is legally allowed to expense the costs of producing/creating that video/film as long as that video/film earned income for himself or a business that he owns.

So the questions are:

1. Did the video make taxable income for Jed!  (Given the 61K following, yes.)

2. Did Jed! have to travel to make that video?  (Since he doesn't live in Hawai'i, yes.)

3. Did Jed! participate in activities that earned taxable income during this vacation?  (Again, since he filmed a video that currently has 42K views on YouTube, yes.)

So they wouldn't be writing off vacation travel expenses. They would be writing off travel expenses incurred as a result of producing a video that earned reportable taxable income from YouTube - the same way a singer/songwriter who headed to Hawai'i to film/record a song to put up on YouTube for taxable income could, or, for that matter, the same way Universal did - on a much larger scale - when they headed to Hawai'i to film Jurassic Park. 

It's a subtle difference, but a very real one. 

I do think that the IRS might ask a few questions if Jed! constantly reports the YouTube income as a loss, but as long as he reports some sort of income/profit, I think he'll be fine. Especially since any tax savings wouldn't cover the cost of these trips - just make them more affordable.

(Nods)

Also the IRS can’t investigate every tax return and there are people who are less than 100% honest or interpret tax rules very loosely.

[beckie]

Wasn't it said somewhere up this thread that someone from Katey's family financed their latest trip(s)? I may be mistaken,  but thought I remembered reading that.

[ginger90]

8 hours ago, beckie said:

Wasn't it said somewhere up this thread that someone from Katey's family financed their latest trip(s)? I may be mistaken,  but thought I remembered reading that.

I believe that was a theory when being able to afford it was questioned.

[ozziemom]

10 hours ago, beckie said:

Wasn't it said somewhere up this thread that someone from Katey's family financed their latest trip(s)? I may be mistaken,  but thought I remembered reading that.

I think we speculated that the anniversary trip or baby moon or whatever trips they took, were gifted by her father. The trip to Israel seemed to be a church related trip so Boob may have partially funded that, a bunch of kids were baptized, including at least one M kid. But in reality we don’t know. It just seems like a lot of vacations for people with the kind of jobs the Duggars have. 🤷🏼‍♀️🤷🏼‍♀️🤷🏼‍♀️

[Heathen]

3 minutes ago, ozziemom said:

I think we speculated that the anniversary trip or baby moon or whatever trips they took, were gifted by her father. The trip to Israel seemed to be a church related trip so Boob may have partially funded that, a bunch of kids were baptized, including at least one M kid. But in reality we don’t know. It just seems like a lot of vacations for people with the kind of jobs the Duggars have. 🤷🏼‍♀️🤷🏼‍♀️🤷🏼‍♀️

It's a lot of vacations for anybody! Let alone people with Duggar-style "jobs." 

[Jynnan tonnix]

On 5/25/2023 at 9:03 AM, oliviabenson said:

2 tops 

She will try to beat Kendra in how many kids they will have 

I suppose I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt depending how things go from here. I've known a couple or two who ended up with kids a year or so apart for whom it was a real surprise that it was even possible for someone to get pregnant so soon after having given birth. But if that's not part of the plan, I don't imagine it's a mistake easily made twice. Then, there are also people who only plan on having two or three kids, but just want them close in age to grow up together. Two babies doesn't necessarily mean it's a pattern.

[louannems]

1 hour ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

I suppose I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt depending how things go from here. I've known a couple or two who ended up with kids a year or so apart for whom it was a real surprise that it was even possible for someone to get pregnant so soon after having given birth. But if that's not part of the plan, I don't imagine it's a mistake easily made twice. Then, there are also people who only plan on having two or three kids, but just want them close in age to grow up together. Two babies doesn't necessarily mean it's a pattern.

But, but, but, these are the Duggars we’re talking about!  Of course it will be a (competitive) pattern!

[Jynnan tonnix]

1 minute ago, louannems said:

But, but, but, these are the Duggars we’re talking about!  Of course it will be a (competitive) pattern!

Lol. Well, yes, that's pretty much a given, but I still keep holding out hope that some of these new ideas they seem to have slowly been taking on board (such as birth control not being completely out of the question, as with Jinger & Jill) might begin trickling down. While the beliefs of the Duggars as a whole are still comprised of a lot of things ranging from misguided to just plain evil, there do seem to be individual chunks in the armor that I can only hope will culminate in the whole thing starting to crumble by the time the younger ones reach adulthood.

[Salacious Kitty]

I think we'll see more changes with the daughters than the sons. The IBLP is Patriarch friendly, so there's no real incentive for the males to change. The Duggar boys seem to like things just as they are. The only real wild card is Justin, who has been married for over two years with no kids. But the Spiveys are also IBLP, so I doubt his beliefs have changed much beyond apparently using birth control. 

[Snow Fairy]

But maybe they do not use birth control. Maybe they have fertility issues.

Statistics say that 1 in 8 coupel has fertility issues. With the number of Duggars it surprises me that they all conceive pretty fast. 

But then, they start early so there is the advantage

[Salacious Kitty]

1 minute ago, Snow Fairy said:

But maybe they do not use birth control. Maybe they have fertility issues.

Statistics say that 1 in 8 coupel has fertility issues. With the number of Duggars it surprises me that they all conceive pretty fast. 

But then, they start early so there is the advantage

Yeah, I've thought about possible fertility issues. But I think they would have shared that publicly so people in their circle would stop asking when they were going to have kids. 

[Heathen]

6 minutes ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Yeah, I've thought about possible fertility issues. But I think they would have shared that publicly so people in their circle would stop asking when they were going to have kids. 

The Spiveys don't have a freakish number of kids, and the ones they do have are well-spaced. I think they probably used some form of birth control, or maybe they're just not as abnormally fertile as some of the other fundies we snark on. I hope, I hope, that one or both of those applies to Claire and Justin. 

[auntieminem]

Well Jed is really wanting to be the new golden boy for JB.  Jed was "liking" a few negative comments on Jill (and maybe Derick's) IG about how awful she was to talk about her family and their problems.  Someone called him out on liking the comments instead of supporting his sister who was a victim. Being the dolt he is, he responded about not talking about the family's personal lives aka secrets and lies.  I didn't see all the responses but I think he deleted his and slunk out. I feel so bad for his wife; she married Josh lite and she does not seem like an Anna. I hope she wises up and gets away from the Duggars. She does have a mother and brother who are not part of the cult so maybe there is hope for her. I wonder what they (her mom & brother) will see the documentary and what they will think.

[SMama]

Jed, like FF and Jessa, is completely dependent on JB financially. He lives in a house owned by his parents, and “works” at a car lot provided by his parents. Like FF he is an absolute failure to launch by design. Of course he’s going to be a little bitch and side with his equally misogynistic, thieve of a father. But trolling his sister’s IG to throw hissy fits shows how immature, entitled, and willfully ignorant he is.