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

261–270 of 307 posts

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#261

Post by billpg »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #101
titusjohnson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 the…

The sort of already happens. Over here, businesses don't have to pay sales tax (VAT) on the goods and services they buy, because when they finally sell the item or service to a customer, the sales tax is charged in full.

So while a business doesn't pay sales on the fuel they need to deliver their goods to me, it gets paid in the end because the cost of the fuel is included in the price I pay and the sales tax is levied on the whole purchase price.

(It is a little more complicated than that. Don't sue me.)

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#262

Post by captainmuon »

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…

I never get why you actually have to put the ham on the truck.

In a slightly less illogical EU you could just go to the appropriate EU committe, and get an exception where you send the ham on a "virtual trip". Just proove that you payed the cost of shipment. The ham benefits, the environment benefits, everybody wins.

I would even go further and introduce a legal principle. Every law that can be circumvented by a ridiculous trick is either void, or the loophole has to be closed.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#263

Post by function_seven »

captainmuon wrote: post #262
magicalhippo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I never get why you actually have to put the ham on the truck. In a slightly less illogical EU you could just go to the appropriate EU committe, and get an exception where you send the ham on a "virtual trip". Just proove that you payed the cost of shipment. The ham benefits, the environment benefits, everybody wins. I would even go further and introduce a legal principle. Every law that can be circumvented by a ridi…

> Every law that can be circumvented by a ridiculous trick is either void, or the loophole has to be closed.

California did something like this with window tint violations. It's illegal to have your windows tinted darker than some amount. In the old days, if you were ticketed for this, it would be a "Fix It" ticket. You get the tint removed, have a cop sign off that the violation was corrected, and pay some nominal fine. ($25, I think)

Almost everyone who got one of these tickets would have the tint peeled off, the ticket cleared, and be back at the tint shop the next day to get it put back on. If you like your tint, then true cost of the ticket was $225 or whatever.

Now the ticket gives you an option! You can still correct the violation, have it signed off, and pay the fee, or you can pay a larger fine and not have to demonstrate that you've cured the violation. They probably figured if the driver was going to go through the expense of removing and reapplying the tint, the state might as well see that money.

Wasn't really a loophole, per se, but it was a circumvention that the state decided to eliminate buy allowing you to buy an indulgence :)

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#264

Post by tacitusarc »

mek6800d2 wrote: post #189
shuntress wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a judge's responsibility to literally judge whether a given application of the law is appropriate. This encompasses every possible input including "what they believe lawmakers meant to say" . Edit: To get out in front of the obvious "Well what about when a judge just decides to do whatever they want??" response, I will say: That is why tradition, precedent, checks & balances, voting rights, and institutional tr…

I'm having a little trouble interpreting (pun a happy happenstance!) your comment. Judging whether an application of a law is "appropriate" basically gives judges free rein to do whatever they want, although I can't think of a better description of what judges should do. (I suppose your use of "literally" is problematic in that, as used, it simply refers to your definition of a judge's responsibillity but is easily c…

For anyone interested but previously unaware of the Gorsuch case:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/neil-gorsuch-and-the-case-of-...

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/gorsuch-transam-t...

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#265

Post by robertlagrant »

adrianN wrote: post #259
robertlagrant wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just get rid of silly nonsense like this rule so people are not incentivised to drive 6000km by the government.

There are about a billion rules. Do you volunteer to assess each one's impact on the climate and balance it against other economic effects of the rule, or do you simply attach the proper price to carbon and let the market figure it out?

I would remove the rules that aren't related to quality and safety and let the market figure it out first. Making things better for people to effect change is a better starting point than making things worse.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#268

Post by jorams »

captainmuon wrote: post #262
magicalhippo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I never get why you actually have to put the ham on the truck. In a slightly less illogical EU you could just go to the appropriate EU committe, and get an exception where you send the ham on a "virtual trip". Just proove that you payed the cost of shipment. The ham benefits, the environment benefits, everybody wins. I would even go further and introduce a legal principle. Every law that can be circumvented by a ridi…

> In a slightly less illogical EU

This has approximately nothing to do with the EU. Norway is not in the EU and not in the EU Customs Union.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#269

Post by rasz »

consp wrote: post #247
magicalhippo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This reminds me of puzzles (as in physical 1000 piece things) in the 90s. It was cheaper to manufacture them somewhere, import them, export them to Spain, import them again than sell them straight from the country of origin which I think was Finland. All the while the stuff never moved and it was all on paper afaik. The lettering had to be in Spanish though but it's a puzzle, you know how it works.

Biggest Polish IT company was bankrupted by this. Optimus SA was called Polish Dell&Yahoo combined in the nineties. They manufactured computers, made multimedia/education software and games, distributed software/games, IT contracts/system integration, POS systems deployments, ERP, consulting, biggest web portal, biggest online communicator, biggest search engine.

.. then one day in 1999 ministry of education announced a huge contracts for school computerization program, and specifically requested "no VAT" prices (22%) from all bidders. The only way to achieve this was exporting/re-importing Polish build computers, something Ministry itself not only suggested, but was publicly proud of securing.

Year later local prosecutor accused Optimus of evading $2m VAT, froze all assets (~$100mil company in 2000) and arranged SWAT to arrest CEO, leading to inability to pay wages/service debt. 3 years and multiple appeals later investigation was closed without so much as "sorry". This wasnt even the only company destroyed same way. Another one was JTT, mayor PC hardware distributor https://pl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/JTT_Computer?...

In 2011 CD Project reverse merger with corpse of Optimus SA to get on the stock exchange. https://pl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/CD_Projekt?_x...

11 years later (2014) CD Project managed to "win" ~$300K settlement for court mistake https://crn-pl.translate.goog/aktualnosci/cd-projekt-dostal-...

Same year mayor shareholder of defunct JTT received ~$10mil settlement, which was immediately overturned. It only took them another 7 years to finally get ~$1mil just last year https://www-pb-pl.translate.goog/mci-otrzyma-5-mln-zl-odszko... for the destruction of a company worth ~$20mil in 2000.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#270

Post by taspeotis »

jorams wrote: post #268
captainmuon wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never get why you actually have to put the ham on the truck. In a slightly less illogical EU you could just go to the appropriate EU committe, and get an exception where you send the ham on a "virtual trip". Just proove that you payed the cost of shipment. The ham benefits, the environment benefits, everybody wins. I would even go further and introduce a legal principle. Every law that can be circumvented by a ridi…

> In a slightly less illogical EU This has approximately nothing to do with the EU. Norway is not in the EU and not in the EU Customs Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area

> The European Economic Area (EEA) was established via the Agreement on the European Economic Area, an international agreement which enables the extension of the European Union's single market to member states of the European Free Trade Association. The EEA links the EU member states and three EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and *Norway*) into an internal market governed by the same basic rules.

Post reply on HN