Moderators: Rinsaikeru, Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates
Angua wrote:Cathy gave an accurate description of why this is caused avoidance. If you read the article, Osbourne does admit that what they're doing is legal. It's just when they do things solely to avoid taxes (ie instead of doing the behaviour encouraged by the tax to build a business or whatever) it's a bit unscrupulous.
HMRC found the main methods used by people to reduce their bills was writing off business losses, offsetting the cost of business mortgages and borrowing on buy-to-let properties - all against their income tax bills
Angua wrote:Yeah, but if the government say, intended the loan thing to make it easier for poor/middle class people doing start-up companies, and the rich people don't really care if they take out the loan or not but are doing it solely for the purpose of getting the tax break, don't you see a difference in those two scenarios?
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
Angua wrote:Yeah, but if the government say, intended the loan thing to make it easier for poor/middle class people doing start-up companies, and the rich people don't really care if they take out the loan or not but are doing it solely for the purpose of getting the tax break, don't you see a difference in those two scenarios?
Also, the phrase 'all against their income tax bills' makes it sound like the individual is doing it against their income, not the business income, but that could be poor reporting.
Thanks! I didn't realize those were already technical terms. To me "avoidance" and "evasion" both looked like "dodging," and so I wish they were a bit more distinct. ("Mitigation" appears to be the term that tax lawyers use for avoidance to make it sound less bad.)Cathy wrote:Well, tax avoidance is using legal loopholes to pay a relatively tiny amount. Tax evasion is using illegal loopholes to pay nothing or next to nothing.
Avoidance is what we call it when someone pays less than we want but we can't prosecute them. Evasion is what we prosecute gangsters for.
Nylonathatep wrote:http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/04/10/matt-groening-reveals-the-location-of-the-simpsons-springfield/
LaserGuy wrote:Hamster becomes stuck to cage after eating magnet. The lack of good photos in this story is extremely disappointing though.
If you send me a hampster I have a few hundred of those at my desk to test with...SlyReaper wrote:I wonder what would have happened if it was one of those crazy strong neodymium magnets.
Xeio wrote:If you send me a hampster I have a few hundred of those at my desk to test with... :twisted:SlyReaper wrote:I wonder what would have happened if it was one of those crazy strong neodymium magnets.
Xeio wrote:If you send me a hampster I have a few hundred of those at my desk to test with...SlyReaper wrote:I wonder what would have happened if it was one of those crazy strong neodymium magnets.
Qaanol wrote:Nylonathatep wrote:http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/04/10/matt-groening-reveals-the-location-of-the-simpsons-springfield/
Awesome.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.
Nylonathatep wrote:http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/04/10/matt-groening-reveals-the-location-of-the-simpsons-springfield/
ahammel wrote:Fox News is the comment section.
Sorry Oregon, you won't be able to claim Homer, Bart and the rest of The Simpsons clan as your own.
morriswalters wrote:And people tell me that reason is king. Police officer blinded by science, argues physicist.
To understand or poke holes in Krioukov's defense, you'd probably need a degree in math or physics
SlyReaper wrote:What? It's not that hard to understand. The rozzer's view of the yaris stopping was obscured by a larger passing vehicle, and by the time it was un-obscured, the yaris was moving again. That's not high-level mathematics or physics.
Iulus Cofield wrote:Sorry Oregon, you won't be able to claim Homer, Bart and the rest of The Simpsons clan as your own.
We've been doing it for decades and I don't think we'll stop any time soon.
Angua wrote:the article wrote:decelerated at 22.36 mph.
The journalist doesn't seem to be a physicist either.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
lutzj wrote:Angua wrote:Yeah, but if the government say, intended the loan thing to make it easier for poor/middle class people doing start-up companies, and the rich people don't really care if they take out the loan or not but are doing it solely for the purpose of getting the tax break, don't you see a difference in those two scenarios?
If you take out a loan you don't need purely as a tax write-off you're probably losing money, since you still have to pay for that loan.
Technical Ben wrote:lutzj wrote:Angua wrote:Yeah, but if the government say, intended the loan thing to make it easier for poor/middle class people doing start-up companies, and the rich people don't really care if they take out the loan or not but are doing it solely for the purpose of getting the tax break, don't you see a difference in those two scenarios?
If you take out a loan you don't need purely as a tax write-off you're probably losing money, since you still have to pay for that loan.
I'm guessing most loans they take out won't be coming out at 40% cost (unlike the tax could be).
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
Link wrote:Nylonathatep wrote:http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/04/10/matt-groening-reveals-the-location-of-the-simpsons-springfield/
Or not.
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.
morriswalters wrote:Nobody seemed to question if the guy had really run the red light.
Shivahn wrote:I am a motherfucking sorceror.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.
lutzj wrote:Spoiler:
If the tax credit x is less than $1 million, you still lose money. If it's greater than $1 million, the government is apparently subsidizing loans to the point that loaning money is instantly profitable and the economy has already collapsed by now.
Technical Ben wrote:lutzj wrote:Spoiler:
If the tax credit x is less than $1 million, you still lose money. If it's greater than $1 million, the government is apparently subsidizing loans to the point that loaning money is instantly profitable and the economy has already collapsed by now.
PS, I think that IS what happens? At least in some "inventive" banking. Think if you are the bank lending the money to the company you own. Now any cost of that loan is going back into profits of your own lending company. Minus the taxes.
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.
buddy431 wrote:Commercial Pilot dives to avoid Venus. The incident was in January, but the Canadaian Transportation Safety Board released their report about it yesterday.
sourmilk wrote:Well, I'm still technically correct. The best kind of correct.
Users browsing this forum: addams, Sheikh al-Majaneen, Trasvi and 5 guests