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

51–60 of 307 posts

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#51

Post by titusjohnson »

jrockway wrote: post #40
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

It sounds like the age-old market segmentation thing. People driving their kids to soccer practice don't make money with their vans, so they'll notice the higher price (and if they find out their congresscritter was responsible, they'll vote for a different one). Meanwhile, cargo vans are used to make money, so the users can bear the extra cost. There's also overtones of taxation without representation going on here;…

> 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...

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#52

Post by spiffytech »

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…

> what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular like, say, functionally bans gay marriage

That happened in North Carolina (albeit before weed legalization had gained momentum):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Amendment_1

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#53

Post by djrogers »

MR4D wrote: post #41
djrogers wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 your advice exactly and sold on day 364 vs staying in they'd lose even more, as by the time the initial investment goes back up (after day 365) you'd be in long-term capital gains territory, which is a lower tax rate.

That's why I said it only works in the short term - eventually the gov't is gonna get it's money.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#54

Post by Forgeties79 »

spiffytech wrote: post #52
Forgeties79 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular like, say, functionally bans gay marriage That happened in North Carolina (albeit before weed legalization had gained momentum): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Amendment_1

Luckily it was shot down, but yeah, my concern is the serious precedent weed legalization is setting. I like the outcome, I am scared of the precedent.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#55

Post by fredoralive »

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.

It seems that the issue was that Ford, the importer, changed the class of vehicle between import and being sold inside the US. Presumably if you aren't the importer you can go wild (IANAL).

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#56

Post by nathanvanfleet »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #33
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.

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...

So in your view they just felt like adding seats and then removing them later?

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#57

Post by philk10 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #46
philk10 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#58

Post by cromka »

> Without the stiff competition of the smaller, lighter, easier-to-drive, and more fuel efficient import pickups and vans, Detroit automakers were no longer required to keep pace with innovation of foreign brands.

One has to wonder how much this innocent-looking levy contributed to the overall global warming situation, by never having the US automakers to be incentivized to manufacture more efficient commercial fleet, and, as such, inbreeding the culture of buying the overly big pick ups and SUVs with massive engines for private use, too.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#59

Post by e4e78a06 »

RC_ITR wrote: post #45
colejohnson66 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 str…

"American-made" = all the labor-intensive parts are made abroad and only the final car is assembled in the US. The USMCA merely requires that a majority or plurality (depending on the item) of item content come from a member nation.

If there was a war American industry would shut down overnight.

Re: Adding unusable RAM for tax reasons

#60

Post by mc32 »

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 was pretty transparent that they did that to circumvent regulation.

Imagine Coca-Cola getting clearance for importing coca leaves for flavoring but then instead sells it to a third party who processes it for something else.

Post reply on HN