Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

cpcwiki.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 307 posts

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#31

Post by brilee »

djrogers wrote: post #21
eb0la wrote: post #13

Taxes are one of the most powerful incentives in the world. For instance, dumping positions at loss before new years eve might help you with your tax bill since you have losses. And of course, setting up a company in a country where you did buy a lot of spectrum and you have huge losses, effectively creating a tax credit ( https://www.reuters.com/article/telefonica-germany/update-2-... )

Selling stocks at a loss is only helpful in the short term, or if you don’t think those stocks are going back up. If you harvest a loss for a tax deduction on December 31, and the stock goes back up by the end of January so you’d be even, you are way behind – because the loss only comes back to you at your highest tax rate.

Figuring out how to defer taxes is equivalent to receiving a free loan from the government, which can be used to profit on the float.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#32

Post by version_five »

stenl wrote: post #27
mmcgaha wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need something like the senate filibuster debate rule for taxes. Basically just state that there is this thing I can do to skirt the tax system so I declare a tax evasion without having to actually make people do stupid stuff.

Or maybe we need the opposite: basically just state that you did this stupid stuff only to avoid the tax, so you should pay the tax anyway.

The solution to a bad or poorly written law is not to leave it on the books and have some "oh well we actually meant" thing that means it can be arbitrarily applied in a different way than written.

Courts can interpret laws if the interpretation is the problem. If there is just a stupid loophole, then either the law itself makes no sense (as seems to apply to this Jones Act) or it needs to be reworded to align with its intent.

This reminds me of all the california electricity deregulation games where Enron et al moved power out of state and back, or had plants go down strategically for maintenance in order to gain the system. The correct solution is not to say "play nice, you know what we meant". It's to have a consistent and enforceable set of rules that dont admit gaming.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#33

Post by colejohnson66 »

jrockway wrote: post #29
HeavenFox wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the Ford vs Chicken Tax; basically U.S. import tariff for passenger van is 2.5% and cargo van is 25%, so Ford, which manufactured their Transit van in Turkey, installed seats in factory and stripped the seats once they arrived in the U.S. Now looks like they are in trouble for this scheme. https://jalopnik.com/ford-faces-potential-1-3-billion-fine-f... (And why it's called Chicken Tax is another fascinat…

Wow. I hope the government loses their lawsuit here. Customs & Border Protection should have absolutely no jurisdiction over what an item is used for once it enters the country.

Ford lost in 2019. An appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.[0] My non-lawyer understand of the issue wasn’t so much that they were avoiding a tariff (“tariff engineering”), but that they were removing the seats upon entry. In contrast with the BRAT where the dummy seats were still there when sold.

[0]: https://www.autoblog.com/2021/06/03/ford-transit-connect-imp...

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#34

Post by nickff »

RC_ITR wrote: post #30
jrockway wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. I hope the government loses their lawsuit here. Customs & Border Protection should have absolutely no jurisdiction over what an item is used for once it enters the country.

It also goes to show how corrupt the import tax system is. Why SHOULD a cargo van have higher import taxes than a passenger van, other than to serve the needs of some random private company? Even moreso, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ford lobbied FOR those laws before changing its mind in where to produce a particular sku

>"Why SHOULD a cargo van have higher import taxes than a passenger van, other than to serve the needs of some random private company?"

Have you read a tariff schedule? They're full of this stuff, which seem to be protections or favors for specific industries. Anti-dumping protections seem similar.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#35

Post by colejohnson66 »

RC_ITR wrote: post #30
jrockway wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. I hope the government loses their lawsuit here. Customs & Border Protection should have absolutely no jurisdiction over what an item is used for once it enters the country.

It also goes to show how corrupt the import tax system is. Why SHOULD a cargo van have higher import taxes than a passenger van, other than to serve the needs of some random private company? Even moreso, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ford lobbied FOR those laws before changing its mind in where to produce a particular sku

No lobbying involved. It’s the remnants of a tariff war with France and Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#36

Post by Hokusai »

HeavenFox wrote: post #8
geocrasher wrote: post #5

This reminds me of the Subaru BRAT in the early '80s. There was a 25% tarrif on imported pickups. So Subaru added two plastic jump seats in the back of the BRAT, even making them face backwards. No seat belts as I recall just handles. They weren't even really intended to be used. They were just cheap plastic. But they served the purpose of making the vehicle a four-seater car instead of a pickup, with only a 2.5% tar…

There's also the Ford vs Chicken Tax; basically U.S. import tariff for passenger van is 2.5% and cargo van is 25%, so Ford, which manufactured their Transit van in Turkey, installed seats in factory and stripped the seats once they arrived in the U.S. Now looks like they are in trouble for this scheme. https://jalopnik.com/ford-faces-potential-1-3-billion-fine-f... (And why it's called Chicken Tax is another fascinat…

> Now looks like they are in trouble for this scheme.

All these cheats will never be accepted for working individuals. Corporations get a different flavor of justice. Even then they push it to the limits and dinner times find a burocrat in the pertinent agency willing to push forward a rightful punishment.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#37

Post by khuey »

jrockway wrote: post #29
HeavenFox wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the Ford vs Chicken Tax; basically U.S. import tariff for passenger van is 2.5% and cargo van is 25%, so Ford, which manufactured their Transit van in Turkey, installed seats in factory and stripped the seats once they arrived in the U.S. Now looks like they are in trouble for this scheme. https://jalopnik.com/ford-faces-potential-1-3-billion-fine-f... (And why it's called Chicken Tax is another fascinat…

Wow. I hope the government loses their lawsuit here. Customs & Border Protection should have absolutely no jurisdiction over what an item is used for once it enters the country.

Why? Borders are full of rules of the form "X can cross for purpose A but not for purpose B" for both people and goods.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#38

Post by ethbr0 »

Hokusai wrote: post #36
HeavenFox wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the Ford vs Chicken Tax; basically U.S. import tariff for passenger van is 2.5% and cargo van is 25%, so Ford, which manufactured their Transit van in Turkey, installed seats in factory and stripped the seats once they arrived in the U.S. Now looks like they are in trouble for this scheme. https://jalopnik.com/ford-faces-potential-1-3-billion-fine-f... (And why it's called Chicken Tax is another fascinat…

> Now looks like they are in trouble for this scheme. All these cheats will never be accepted for working individuals. Corporations get a different flavor of justice. Even then they push it to the limits and dinner times find a burocrat in the pertinent agency willing to push forward a rightful punishment.

SMB and sole proprietorships get away with ridiculous tax things constantly! The only difference is they usually don't try to take it to the Supreme Court when the IRS audits them.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#39

Post by Forgeties79 »

mmcgaha wrote: post #24
fooey wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A seafood company in Canada has a 100 foot section of train track, where they load trucks on and right back off, in an attempt to get around the Jones Act requirement that goods shipped between 2 points in the US must use US flagged vessels https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2021/09/15/feds-accuse-...

We need something like the senate filibuster debate rule for taxes. Basically just state that there is this thing I can do to skirt the tax system so I declare a tax evasion without having to actually make people do stupid stuff.

That defeats the purpose of the law. If they’re flagrantly violating the spirit and intent by barely passing the technical requirement, then the law should either A) be removed or B) retooled to address the loophole.

We should never encourage ignoring certain laws or it undermines the whole system. It’s why I don’t support states legalizing weed under the federal government’s nose/while they turn a blind eye. Sure, we like it for weed, but what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular like, say, functionally bans gay marriage and goes, “well you aren’t enforcing drug laws, why should they get a pass but not us?”

I’m sure there are better examples but hopefully I’m getting my point across. Exceptions = weakening of the established structure. I don’t know about you, but I like that “the law is king” in the US. Mostly because we can change them.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#40

Post by jrockway »

RC_ITR wrote: post #30
jrockway wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. I hope the government loses their lawsuit here. Customs & Border Protection should have absolutely no jurisdiction over what an item is used for once it enters the country.

It also goes to show how corrupt the import tax system is. Why SHOULD a cargo van have higher import taxes than a passenger van, other than to serve the needs of some random private company? Even moreso, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ford lobbied FOR those laws before changing its mind in where to produce a particular sku

It sounds like the age-old market segmentation thing. People driving their kids to soccer practice don't make money with their vans, so they'll notice the higher price (and if they find out their congresscritter was responsible, they'll vote for a different one). Meanwhile, cargo vans are used to make money, so the users can bear the extra cost. There's also overtones of taxation without representation going on here; individuals can vote, and so they have lower taxes than businesses, which can't vote. (It's too bad that Ford doesn't dump the seats they take out of the van into Boston Harbor! Someone would probably still get the reference.)

It's the same game that SaaS companies play. Everything is free until you want SSO, then it's $30,000 a year. If you need SSO, you can afford it.

Personally, I hate this in both cases. I think we could save everyone a lot of time if every vendor you did business with just grabbed you by the ankles and flipped you upside down and took whatever money fell out of your pocket. Why tiptoe around what they really want...

Post reply on HN