Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons • Hacker News Board

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#101

Post by NoboruWataya » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 8:27 PM UTC

titusjohnson wrote: post #51

jrockway wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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;…

> 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. I'm confused about this statement. Businesses are comprised of individuals, and those individuals (if citizens) can vote. So the business has a vote through the voice of its employees and representation in government through the people employees at a business…

> Or are you saying the legal fiction of business personhood should give the business a ... vote? That just sounds like business owners (individuals) getting 2 or more votes then...

I believe the more common proposal is to resolve the contradiction the other way: remove taxes on corporations, as the individuals comprising the corporations generally already pay taxes. That would be politically quite unpopular, but there is a certain logic to it and it would also make taxes easier to administer and more difficult to avoid. And it doesn't need to be as pro-rich as it sounds - you could just replace corporation taxes with other taxes targeting wealthy individuals, such as a wealth tax or higher income taxes.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#102

Post by vineyardmike » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 8:28 PM UTC

Forgeties79 wrote: post #39

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.

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, w…

> but what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular

Or like abortion. The new abortion rules in conservative states are betting they can sway the federal gov if a lawsuit arises, but its based on the assumption they'll get to ignore the gov.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#103

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 8:28 PM UTC

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.

You're being downvoted but that's actually how tax works in the U.S. and Europe.

Tax is one of the few areas of law where activities can be declared illegal and subject to punitive sanction after the fact. For example, the fictive loss tax shelter scheme that was popular 15 years ago. Fictive losses were technically legal at the time the scheme began (in the sense that they were legal within the letter of the law but violated the intent of the law), and weren't explicitly stated to be illegal until years later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkens_%26_Gilchrist).

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#104

Post by inanutshellus » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 8:30 PM UTC

philk10 wrote: post #20

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…

Are Jaffa cakes classed as biscuits or cakes? https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38985820

now you've got me wondering about those old Fig Newtons commercials "it's not a cookie, it's fruited cake!"

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#105

Post by NoboruWataya » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 8:31 PM UTC

dan-robertson wrote: post #93

mhh__ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why Carbon Taxes should be preferred over the state dictating policies to companies.

Carbon taxes seem to be pretty unpopular and I think it’s a failure of imagination for climate economists to keep repeating the same idea instead of trying to find things that are more palatable.

Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I'm pretty sure any solution that is drastic enough to actually work will be unpalatable. "Somebody else will pay for it" is the only solution anyone wants to hear.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#106

Post by FroshKiller » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 8:31 PM UTC

putlake wrote: post #47

NPR's Marketplace had a fascinating story about something similar in the apparel business. They design pockets in various types of clothing to reduce tariffs. https://www.marketplace.org/2019/05/29/theres-a-reason-your-... Example from the article: Certain women’s garments with “pockets below the waist” get lower duty rates than those without. Because of that, a number of the women’s shirts Columbia Sportswear makes…

Marketplace is produced by American Public Media, not National Public Radio.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#107

Post by R0b0t1 » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 8:38 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #33

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.

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...

This doesn't really assuage his concern. The government is still dictating what you do with items.

CBP is one of the worst infringers upon personal rights, I wouldn't defend them.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#108

Post by bitL » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 8:47 PM UTC

fredoralive wrote: post #64

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…

Recently in Europe we had a kinda reverse - Suzuki removed the rear seats of the Jimny, a small 4x4, to reclassify it as a commercial vehicle to qualify for laxer CO2 emission standards.

Yeah, but they also really dumbed down the interior and lowered roof quality, while selling it for the same MSRP as the previous model (still + 10k from the actual sellers, bringing it to Toyota RAV4 territory price-wise).

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#109

Post by fredoralive » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 9:01 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #108

fredoralive wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently in Europe we had a kinda reverse - Suzuki removed the rear seats of the Jimny, a small 4x4, to reclassify it as a commercial vehicle to qualify for laxer CO2 emission standards.

Yeah, but they also really dumbed down the interior and lowered roof quality, while selling it for the same MSRP as the previous model (still + 10k from the actual sellers, bringing it to Toyota RAV4 territory price-wise).

Ouch, I think I'd seen something about them swapping to steel wheels instead of alloys, but I didn't realise it had generally been downgraded. And that price...

Pity, as I kinda like the Jimny even if it makes no sense at all for me to own one.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#110

Post by young_unixer » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 9:09 PM UTC

dan-robertson wrote: post #93

mhh__ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why Carbon Taxes should be preferred over the state dictating policies to companies.

Carbon taxes seem to be pretty unpopular and I think it’s a failure of imagination for climate economists to keep repeating the same idea instead of trying to find things that are more palatable.

Being against climate change and against carbon taxes at the same time basically boils down to "I want everyone else to work hard on solving this problem, except for me. I want to keep benefiting from the low prices that the pollution economy has made possible, but I don't want any pollution."

I don't think there's any reasonable solution that will appease those people.