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

121–130 of 307 posts

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#121

Post by sneak »

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…

> 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.

Yes, indeed. It completely defeats the purpose of the law, which is why the suggestion is akin to your A solution (that it should be invalidated/removed).

The law doesn't encode "purpose" or "spirit", the law only exists as written. When applying the law, and tax law especially, it's counterproductive to speculate as to "spirit" or "purpose", and best to focus just on what the law actually is, because that's the only part that really counts as "democratic". Intentions and ideals weren't voted on, the actual literal text of the law was.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#122

Post by kgc »

magicalhippo wrote: post #73
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…

Here in Norway we have the infamous "E6 ham". We have an import tax on dry-cured ham[1], but not unprocessed meat. Someone figured out it was cheaper then to import unprocessed meat from Spain to Norway, turn the truck around as soon as they were customs cleared and drive the 3000 km or so back to Spain for curing. Once cured they'd re-import the processed meat, which now has a different tariff due to being "Norwegia…

Maybe they could just send an NFT of the meat to save on transport costs.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#123

Post by laurencerowe »

djrogers wrote: post #53
MR4D wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite true. For instance, I could sell my losses in a growth fund only to buy a different growth fund (not the same index though) and I get to stay in the market. Ideally you would do this on day 364 of losses to maximize the tax incentive.

It's not a tax incentive though - an incentive encourages you to do something, nobody is encouraged to lose money . Also, if one were to do the above, and the growth fund went up, you'd wind up paying taxes on that gain which would offset the tax deduction you took on the loss when you eventually sold it, whereas you could have just stayed in, waited for it to go back up, and you'd be at a wash. If someone followed y…

While the benefits are limited, there are advantages:

1. Harvesting your capital losses allows you to offset other gains which may be taxable at an earlier date. $1000 today is worth substantially more than $1000 in 10 years time. 'Tax deferred is tax avoided.'

2. You can offset up to $3000 of losses a year against regular income which is taxed at a higher rate.

For me at least while it seems worthwhile to switch index funds to harvest losses when the market falls substantially the upsides aren't enough to justify the lock in of using something like Betterment's automatic tax loss harvesting features of their platform by having you invest in many individual stocks managed by their roboadvisor rather than an index fund.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#124

Post by babypuncher »

etskinner wrote: post #71
colejohnson66 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I wonder if they could, in theory, sell you the car for 150% of it's final price (so that they seats are there when sold), then buy back the seats immediately for 50% of its price. The invoice would say something like: Car with passenger seats: $15,000; Passenger seat buyback: $5,000; Total after buyback: $10,000. That way everyone gets what they want, and they've technically sold it with the seats still installed.

Frankly I think our justice system should be less tolerant of "hacks" like this. They clearly violate the intent of the law, even if technically following it to the letter.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#125

Post by Gigachad »

acdha wrote: post #48
mhh__ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Preferred, but you often need more nuance than that — for example, if a carbon tax is set high enough to deter profitable heavy industrial activities it would require care not to have a disproportionate impact on people who depend on cars, non-electric heating, etc. Those can be mitigated, of course, but it starts to make the tax policy a lot more complicated. The other problem is that we probably had time for a carb…

Carbon taxes are set up so they cancel regular taxes. So if you use the average amount of greenhouse gasses, you come out equal, if you use more than the average, you come out worse, and if you use less than the average you come out better. So overnight not a whole lot changes but everyone enters a race to use the least greenhouse gasses.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#126

Post by babypuncher »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #107
colejohnson66 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They aren't telling you what you can do with your items. They are telling you what taxes you owe based on the intended function of said item.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#127

Post by babypuncher »

jrockway wrote: post #50
khuey wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How long does the rule apply for? If someone removes seats from their van, is that tax evasion? What if it's temporary? If an individual can do it, why not Ford? The problem I have here is how easy it is to avoid the tax. CBP shouldn't have any jurisdiction over car modifications and repairs; that responsibility falls to different agencies.

The rule applies to the entity responsible for importing the item. Since Ford was importing the vehicle and then altering it immediately afterwards to escape the tax, they are in the wrong. If they instead sold it as-is to a customer, and the customer then made the modification themselves, it wouldn't be a problem.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#128

Post by Gigachad »

sparkling wrote: post #69

Something similar: for the original Playstation 2 that was sold in the EU, Sony included a DVD with a BASIC interpreter to classify the console as a personal computer. This little hack avoided some EU import taxes back in the day. https://www.theregister.com/2000/11/07/sony_adds_basic_to_pl...

Still seems like a win as it made the console more useful.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#129

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

Ford was doing this a couple of years ago with their small van… the Transit Connect (iirc).

They would import from Europe with seats, but remove the seats at the port and ship them right back.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#130

Post by bjustin »

etskinner wrote: post #71
colejohnson66 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I wonder if they could, in theory, sell you the car for 150% of it's final price (so that they seats are there when sold), then buy back the seats immediately for 50% of its price. The invoice would say something like: Car with passenger seats: $15,000; Passenger seat buyback: $5,000; Total after buyback: $10,000. That way everyone gets what they want, and they've technically sold it with the seats still installed.

And collect tax on $20,000 in sales instead of $10,000? Maybe they would be happy if car companies used this scheme.
Post reply on HN