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

21–30 of 307 posts

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#21

Post by djrogers »

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.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#22

Post by notch656a »

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…

I'm guessing they're only trouble because they took the seats out. Probably cheaper just to leave them in, and sell along with wrench to remove them 'in case it's needed for repair.' A friendly source will publish in a trade magazine it's the same van after 12 minutes to remove the seats, and the scheme will continue.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#23

Post by mhh__ »

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-... )

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

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#24

Post by mmcgaha »

fooey wrote: post #14
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…

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.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#25

Post by gumby »

Pasorrijer wrote: post #12
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…

Yeah I remember reading that the Ford employees on the US side got the removal time down to 12 minutes a van.

Given the cost of labor it was probably worth doing some design engineering to make the removal as easy as possible

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#27

Post by stenl »

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.

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.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#28

Post by bko »

matsur wrote: post #15
bko wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fascinating. I remember hearing there about a giant book on import taxes on apparel with various definitions. For instance, "sandals" may be taxed X but "open toed shoes" may be taxed Y. Apparently these rates drive fashion trends to an incredible degree where even small modifications to a product could totally change the economics.

Said giant book: https://hts.usitc.gov/current

The legends are true.

The differences could be huge

> Footwear with open toes or open heels; footwear of the slip-on type, that is held to the foot without the use of laces or buckles or other fasteners, the foregoing except footwear of subheading 6402.99.33 and except footwear having a foxing or a foxing-like band wholly or almost wholly of rubber or plastics applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper:

>> Having outer soles with textile materials having the greatest surface area in contact with the ground, but not taken into account under the terms of additional U.S. note 5 to this chapter 12.5%

>> Other 37.5%

> Sandals and similar footwear of plastics, produced in one piece by molding. 3%

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#29

Post by jrockway »

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…

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.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#30

Post by RC_ITR »

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.

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

Post reply on HN