Do not donate to me (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#61

Post by Zrdr » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 3:19 PM UTC

snazz wrote: post #2

This seems like a very fair policy if the developer doesn’t need the money, as in this example. However, as a user, I hope that setting up a recurring donation keeps the project going and provides motivation to its author.

The author explicitly said it is not motivated by money for this project.

When you have money, you may like the power it gives you to make incentives so people do what you like. However, in some rare cases, someone doesn't need your money and prefers doing thing how himself likes. If you don't like that, that's your problem and not the one of the people refusing your money.

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#62

Post by tim333 » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #50

kurtisc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money laundering?

It's tax evasion, not money laundering. The two are quite different things. Tax evasion: You get some money. (Legally or not; the tax system doesn't care.) You are supposed to pay taxes on it but don't want to. You find a way not to, e.g. by hiding the income from the tax authorities. Money laundering: You get some money by illegal means (theft, blackmail, whatever). You want to be able to use the money without havin…

Tax avoidance doesn't have to be unintended or unfair. You can avoid income tax in the UK for example by investing in official schemes like SEIS. Or in this case he could accept crypto but forward it to charity and argue the money was not his but customer charity donations.

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#63

Post by johannes1234321 » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

9dev wrote: post #38

johannes1234321 wrote: post #23

When I look a different Patreon accounts of people I know, where I have a rough understanding of their dayjob and life situation I often wonder about the sums. The sums listed are often too high to be ignored, but too little to call it a job, even jut part-time. Few hours a month. Me that would put in a strange situation. I would get the feeling of having to return some work for that, which takes the fun out of some…

> declare the axes Forrest shivers in fear

Somewhere I lost a t, it seems

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#64

Post by gjm11 » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #62

gjm11 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's tax evasion, not money laundering. The two are quite different things. Tax evasion: You get some money. (Legally or not; the tax system doesn't care.) You are supposed to pay taxes on it but don't want to. You find a way not to, e.g. by hiding the income from the tax authorities. Money laundering: You get some money by illegal means (theft, blackmail, whatever). You want to be able to use the money without havin…

Tax avoidance doesn't have to be unintended or unfair. You can avoid income tax in the UK for example by investing in official schemes like SEIS. Or in this case he could accept crypto but forward it to charity and argue the money was not his but customer charity donations.

Yes, perhaps I should have said something like "looks unintended or unfair". Usually something only gets called "tax avoidance" when it has something loophole-y about it.

I suspect your second suggestion would actually get classified as tax _evasion_, though.

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#65

Post by gowld » Mon, Feb 25, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

This stinks but also looks like a startup opportunity. Add a badge to your website to take donations via DonateMoney.com, which provides appropriate tax paperwork services in many jurisdictions, shows donors where their money goes (taxes, etc), and provides an option to revert donations if the total donates doesn't meet a convenience threshold within a specifed time range (3-12 months).