Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons • Hacker News Board

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#41

Post by MR4D » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 6:42 PM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #21

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.

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.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#42

Post by RC_ITR » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 6:48 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #35

RC_ITR wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No lobbying involved. It’s the remnants of a tariff war with France and Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

The Chicken Wars brought the powerful agricultural lobby in France into direct conflict with the powerful agricultural lobby in the United States. Not surprisingly, France, the largest poultry producer in the EEC, was unwilling to embrace a free trade policy whose benefits would be spread among consumers throughout Europe. The benefits of protectionism were concentrated in France and the costs were borne by consumers throughout Europe. Indeed, the stakes were sufficiently high that France might have quit the EEC had not French agricultural interests been appeased.

That's from the 'further reading' link on Wikipedia.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#43

Post by RC_ITR » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 6:49 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #34

RC_ITR wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> "Why SHOULD a cargo van have higher import taxes than a passenger van, other than to serve the needs of some random private company?" Have you read a tariff schedule? They're full of this stuff, which seem to be protections or favors for specific industries. Anti-dumping protections seem similar.

>It also goes to show how corrupt the import tax system is.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#44

Post by colejohnson66 » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 6:50 PM UTC

RC_ITR wrote: post #42

colejohnson66 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No lobbying involved. It’s the remnants of a tariff war with France and Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

The Chicken Wars brought the powerful agricultural lobby in France into direct conflict with the powerful agricultural lobby in the United States. Not surprisingly, France, the largest poultry producer in the EEC, was unwilling to embrace a free trade policy whose benefits would be spread among consumers throughout Europe. The benefits of protectionism were concentrated in France and the costs were borne by consumers…

Yes, but I meant lobbying from Ford for said tariff as you suggested.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#45

Post by RC_ITR » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #44

RC_ITR wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chicken Wars brought the powerful agricultural lobby in France into direct conflict with the powerful agricultural lobby in the United States. Not surprisingly, France, the largest poultry producer in the EEC, was unwilling to embrace a free trade policy whose benefits would be spread among consumers throughout Europe. The benefits of protectionism were concentrated in France and the costs were borne by consumers…

Yes, but I meant lobbying from Ford for said tariff as you suggested.

At the same time, the U.S. auto industry was suffering its own trade crisis due to competition from growingly popular foreign cars and trucks. During the early 1960s, sales of Volkswagens surged as America’s love affair with the iconic VW “Bug” coupe and Type 2 van shifted into overdrive. By 1963, the situation got so bad that Walter Reuther, president of the United Automobile Workers Union (U.A.W.), threatened a strike that would have halted all U.S. auto production just before the 1964 presidential election.

Running for reelection and aware of the influence the U.A.W. had in Congress and in the minds of voters, President Johnson looked for a way to persuade Reuther’s union not to strike and to support his “Great Society” civil rights agenda. Johnson succeeded on both counts by agreeing to include light trucks in the Chicken Tax.

While U.S. tariffs on other Chicken Tax items have since been rescinded, lobbying efforts by the U.A.W. have kept the tariff on light trucks and utility vans alive. As a result, American-made trucks still dominate sales in the U.S., and some very desirable trucks, like the high-end Australian-made Volkswagen Amorak, are not sold in the United States.

https://www.thoughtco.com/chicken-tax-4159747

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#46

Post by bryanlarsen » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 6:53 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

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" every time I read "biscuit".

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#47

Post by putlake » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 6:54 PM UTC

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 are intentionally designed with tiny pockets near the waistline, which lowers the cost of importing them. One of the company’s shorthands for “pockets below the waist” is “nurse’s pocket.”

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#48

Post by acdha » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 6:55 PM UTC

mhh__ wrote: post #23

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.

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 carbon tax when the idea was first advanced decades ago. It's not clear to me that we can afford a gradual approach now when we really need to be doing things like saying you just can't buy new coal burning equipment at any price, for example.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#49

Post by tshaddox » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 6:58 PM UTC

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.

> Customs & Border Protection should have absolutely no jurisdiction over what an item is used for once it enters the country.

I mean, that's the whole point of the import tariff law, so if the CBP has jurisdiction to enforce tariff law, surely how the item is used (or at least how the item is intended to be used or how the item can reasonably be expected to be used) is the primary factor to consider.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#50

Post by jrockway » Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 6:59 PM UTC

khuey wrote: post #37

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.

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.