Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons • Hacker News Board

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#141

Post by kingcharles » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:36 PM UTC

philk10 wrote: post #57

bryanlarsen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a great article. Dives into philosophy without getting wishy-washy. Must have been a fun article to write. > And if it's true to say, "a Jaffa Cake is a cake" (or "a Jaffa Cake is a biscuit") then that also tells us something about the world, i.e. about the properties of a Jaffa Cake, as well as about the meaning of the word "cake". And of course it's even more fun because I have to mentally substitute "cookie…

yeh, as a Brit who's been in the US for 10 years now i still have to do the cookie/biscuit chips/crisps fries/chips thing

LOL. Same.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#142

Post by cgriswald » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:42 PM UTC

babypuncher wrote: post #124

etskinner wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I prefer judges and lawyers interpret what the law says, not what they believe lawmakers meant to say. It is lawmakers responsibility to craft quality laws. Such hacks expose weaknesses in the laws as written.

Edit: ...when successful.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#143

Post by nybble41 » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:44 PM UTC

gowld wrote: post #96

jrockway wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, so they're really just getting punished for not dotting their is and crossing their ts. They could create a subsidiary with the same board of directors as Ford that they sell the cars to, and then the subsidiary does the dirty work of repurposing the cars from passenger vehicles to cargo vehicles. They skipped paying the $100 corporate registration fee, so now they're on the hook for a billion dollar fine that…

You are arguing that because it is possible to break the law and escape on a technicality, the law is invalid in all cases.

If they "escaped on a technicality" then they weren't breaking the law. That "technicality" is part of the law.

The indefensible part is tying a large difference in import tariffs to how many seats are installed. Absurd outcomes such as this one highlight systematic flaws in the rules. If the basis for the tariffs were logically sound you wouldn't be able to work around them without addressing the reason the tariffs were imposed in the first place.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#144

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:44 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#145

Post by R0b0t1 » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:46 PM UTC

babypuncher wrote: post #126

R0b0t1 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. The same overzealous power they have to tell me what my usage intent was also allows them to totally ban items that aren't actually banned.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#146

Post by quietbritishjim » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:47 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #131

bentcorner wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the infamous Toy Biz, Inc. v. United States case where Marvel Comics argued that their X-Men toys where "nonhuman toys" and not dolls to avoid an import tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz%2C_Inc._v._United_Stat... The irony is that in the X-Men universe, the X-Men fight for a unification of mutants and humans.

Still, technically true though I'd think. Mutants aren't human. The X-Gene makes them "Homo sapiens superior" and distinguishes them from humans who were mutated by other means (radiation, spider bites, etc). Do X-men want to erase the distinction or do they just want peaceful coexistence between the two species?

I'm not saying this would affect a court ruling, but as a point of curiosity: technically "human" means the homo genus, not just the sapiens species. So Neanderthals for example, or homo erectus, are both human. The X-men would be human too, if they were indeed homo sapiens superior.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#147

Post by noizejoy » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:51 PM UTC

babypuncher wrote: post #124

etskinner wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I agree with your well intentioned sentiment, “intent” is even more nebulous and arguable.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#148

Post by noizejoy » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:53 PM UTC

cgriswald wrote: post #142

babypuncher wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I prefer judges and lawyers interpret what the law says, not what they believe lawmakers meant to say. It is lawmakers responsibility to craft quality laws. Such hacks expose weaknesses in the laws as written. Edit: ... when successful.

And I prefer to see judges and lawyers as safety valves for mitigating badly written legislation.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#149

Post by dataflow » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:55 PM UTC

cgriswald wrote: post #142

babypuncher wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I prefer judges and lawyers interpret what the law says, not what they believe lawmakers meant to say. It is lawmakers responsibility to craft quality laws. Such hacks expose weaknesses in the laws as written. Edit: ... when successful.

> It is lawmakers responsibility to craft quality laws.

Judging by how hard it is for programmers to write bug-free instructions for literal computers, I'm not sure your expectation of flawless legislation is something realistic for mere mortals.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#150

Post by rasz » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 10:58 PM UTC

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...

Same with 29.59 min video recording limit on tons of cameras. https://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/video-recording-limits-in-...

"In 2006, the European Union created a law that added an import duty of 5-12% to any video camera. What determined whether a camera was a video camera? In short, the ability to record longer than 30 minutes. Thus, companies like Canon and Nikon decided to cap their video clip lengths, preventing their enthusiast and prosumer cameras from being considered video cameras."