|
Phanatic posted:This was egregiously stupid and never ever had a chance of passing legal muster. One of the defining things of a charitable contribution is that you don't receive like value for it. There's no way you could call taxes a charitable donation, since the taxes you pay go to things of value like, oh, road maintenance. I think they can pull this off if you don't receive 100% of the benefit back - e.g. the donation is only for 85% face value of taxes. The legal status with the IRS is very unclear BTW based on precedents sent for charitable donations e.g. the existing state-run charitable funds. I fully expect there to be lawsuits about this next year. The only question, assuming this California legislation passes, for taxpayers is whether you want to be a test case for these lawsuits.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
California is BWL because of Proposition 13. They will forever be in the hole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Evil Robot posted:I think they can pull this off if you don't receive 100% of the benefit back - There is absolutely 0% chance this is a viable strategy, and neither the IRS or the courts will have any sympathy for it in the slightest. quote:The legal status with the IRS is very unclear BTW There's nothing unclear about it. A state-run charitable fund is still a charity, it's not an attempt at mass tax avoision. Charitable donations are *voluntary*, and charitable intent is required for Federal charitable tax deductions. The legal impact on anyone attempting this would penetrate right through the Earth's crust and knock a fault loose. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
The Federal Government gets the final decision about how to allocate state tax basis, which is why for all the griping I do about losing services under the republican administration in my state I'm overjoyed they just gave me a double down tax break on state taxes since SALT deduction is gone.
EAT FASTER!!!!!! fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There is absolutely 0% chance this is a viable strategy, and neither the IRS or the courts will have any sympathy for it in the slightest. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/in-some-states-donating-to-private-schools-can-earn-you-a-profit.html Other states have been doing this for years. If you donate to private schools in Georgia, you get a 100% tax credit. How would this be any different? The IRS allows it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/in-some-states-donating-to-private-schools-can-earn-you-a-profit.html This is vastly, VASTLY different than what California is trying to pull off, which is saying that ALL state income tax revenues are "a charitable donation" "because we say so." The US Federal Gov't has already said they're going to go after this with the long dick of the law, how do you not understand this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
Pointless "No, YOU'RE WRONG" D&D debates in this thread feels BWM to me. I mean, you spent your  why not circle jerk in D&D like normal goons? Because here, who gives a flying gently caress, come on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/in-some-states-donating-to-private-schools-can-earn-you-a-profit.html Because, and this is a big difference, that's not tax evasion. If Georgia wants to give you a 100% tax credit to donate to Georgia schools, that's fine. From the Federal government's perspective it's irrelevant, your Georgia state taxes were fully deductible from your Federal return, Georgia giving you a tax credit for donations doesn't reduce your Federal tax one iota; Georgia could just have raised your taxes by an equivalent amount and you'd have been able reduce your Federal liability thereby. Note also the two other aspects that make that actually a charitable donation: You don't get an in-return benefit, and your doing so is entirely voluntary. What California was suggesting was tax evasion. Instead of paying state taxes, you donate to the State Charity of California. California reduces your state tax liability by an equivalent amount, and this reduces the tax you owe to the Federal government. Moreover, this is not voluntary; if you were to try telling the State of California "No, sorry, I don't feel like donating to charity this year," you can bet they're coming after you for your full liability and charging you with tax evasion. Courts look really, really dimly on trying to define things both ways like that, so "It's a charitable donation if you pay and tax evasion if you refuse to pay" is not something that's going to go very far. Moreover, you do get services and products in return for it (which also means that the state is required to provide you an itemized list, like other charities are; if you donate $100 to PBS and get a free CD of Englebert Humperdinck's All Time Smash Hits to Hum, PBS needs to tell you the value of that CD because you can't deduct that part of your $100 donation). More moreover, you are not doing this with charitable intent, you are doing it with the intent of evading your Federal tax liabilities. It's every bit as laughable and simplistic an evasion scheme as sovereign citizens on the land. We make fun of those idiots a lot in this thread. Anyone seriously positing this as a realistic scheme deserves just as much derision. If not more. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Because, and this is a big difference, that's not tax evasion. If Georgia wants to give you a 100% tax credit to donate to Georgia schools, that's fine. From the Federal government's perspective it's irrelevant, your Georgia state taxes were fully deductible from your Federal return, Georgia giving you a tax credit for donations doesn't reduce your Federal tax one iota; Georgia could just have raised your taxes by an equivalent amount and you'd have been able reduce your Federal liability thereby. Note also the two other aspects that make that actually a charitable donation: You don't get an in-return benefit, and your doing so is entirely voluntary. If your Georgia state income taxes were more than $10k, then no they're not fully deductible from your federal return under the new law. This means that the Georgia scheme could also be used to reduce your federal tax load. Is the difference that it's voluntary? Also, how is getting a 100% tax credit, plus being able to deduct the contribution from your federal income not an in-return benefit? quote:In South Carolina, if taxpayers make a $20,000 donation to a scholarship organization, they not only get a $20,000 state tax credit, but a federal tax deduction valued up to $7,000. The donor could pay $27,000 less in taxes based on a $20,000 donation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:If your Georgia state income taxes were more than $10k, then no they're not fully deductible from your federal return under the new law. At the time the Georgia law was passed, it was, which is one reason why the IRS had no objection to it. And now it isn't, which is why the IRS is objecting to such proposals for new laws. quote:This means that the Georgia scheme could also be used to reduce your federal tax load. Is the difference that it's voluntary? That is certainly *a* difference. That's one of the things that makes something an actual charitable donation instead of a tax dodge. quote:Also, how is getting a 100% tax credit, plus being able to deduct the contribution from your federal income not an in-return benefit? What Georgia's law is doing is basically allowing people to pay taxes by line-item. Like, someone from Georgia can say "I don't want my taxes to go to the state cops because I hate them, or to public hospitals because one killed my mom, but I do like education," and then they can engage in this plan to basically direct their tax payment to a particular avenue they want to direct it to. There's no in-return benefit because if you owe $8000, you can either pay $8000 in taxes or pay $8000 to the Georgia school charity and get $8000 in tax credits. In either case, you paid $8000 to the state; in the former case the money went into the general fund and in the latter case the money went into some other fund and the amount the state has to take out of the general fund to pay for education goes down. But in either case, you paid 8 grand. As for the Federal deduction, it's not an in-return benefit because "can be deducted" is not considered an in-return benefit for purposes of charitable donation. If it were, that'd kind of render charitable donations a Godel statement: "Oh, you donated to charity, so you can deduct it. But oh, since you can deduct it, that's a benefit and that means you can't deduct it." Both instances are clearly distinguishable from the California scheme. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:What Georgia's law is doing is basically allowing people to pay taxes by line-item. Like, someone from Georgia can say "I don't want my taxes to go to the state cops because I hate them, or to public hospitals because one killed my mom, but I do like education," and then they can engage in this plan to basically direct their tax payment to a particular avenue they want to direct it to. There's no in-return benefit because if you owe $8000, you can either pay $8000 in taxes or pay $8000 to the Georgia school charity and get $8000 in tax credits. In either case, you paid $8000 to the state; in the former case the money went into the general fund and in the latter case the money went into some other fund and the amount the state has to take out of the general fund to pay for education goes down. But in either case, you paid 8 grand. What you described is exactly how the California one would work. You donate X to state charity, subtract X from state tax owed, receive X in charitable deduction on the federal level. And it's optional because you can pay your taxes the normal way. Regardless, this is a dumb argument which will be settled definitively before April 15, 2019, so let's let it lie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
Please shutup. I have nothing BWM to add but it's still better than your D&D poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
Real BWM story hot off the presses: One of my good friends has been dating this woman for a little under a year. She's goofy and he's goofy and they're grand together. I like her for the most part. Today though she mentioned when we were talking about finance stuff that given what happened I want to say last year (or she might have said during the election which would make what I'm about to say even worse) that she divested all $40,000 of her invested assets into cash "waiting for the crash to happen" and she poo-pooed what people told her about "time in market being better than timing the market nonsense" because "the crash is coming any day now. You can see it coming." Then she said she's trying to only invest in ethical companies. It was like a perfect storm of BWM investing psychology altogether. I mentioned that the market is still at roughly the same levels it was at the beginning of the year and she's missing out on dividend payments. I am very certain she doesn't even keep it in a HYSA. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:Real BWM story hot off the presses: That’s tame compared to most stories. Not actively losing money is GWM
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
Lol at ethical companies in a capitalist society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
Raere posted:That’s tame compared to most stories. Not actively losing money is GWM inflation? not that there's that much of it now but you know
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
Commonwealth Bank, one of Australia's "Big Four" banks, was just fined $700 million for breaching anti-laundering and terror financing laws (i.e failing to report >$10k deposits to tax office). It is the largest fine in Australian history. Ultra BWM, because these aren't new laws and have been around for years. If they had spent a few million bux on meeting reporting obligations they would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/commonwealth-bank-pay-$700-million-fine-money-laundering-breach/9831064?section=business Also the bank has lost the details of 20 million customers: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43985233 Also2 they charged dead people fees, they knew they were dead: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-43818583  what an rear end in a top hat bank
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:Real BWM story hot off the presses:   Get better friends.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 09:21
|
|
|
Super quick BWM: my parents in law, who I knew were getting toward the end of the tiny nest egg that was meant to last them for a couple of decades of retirement (instead was spent on overpriced trips to Europe every year for the last 3 years as well as random extraneous poo poo because We Have Money For The First Time Ever, Lets Spend It), have just rattled out the dregs of their retirement savings to go on a pilgrimage to Bosnia & Herzegovina to go see the Virgin Mary who has apparently been hanging out there recently. They're in their early 70s, my mother in law has had to go back to working in a supermarket and it won't be long until they'll be back at square one with just enough money to cover food for the week. So much for a mildly comfortable retirement  we can't bail them out financially anymore either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 11:21
|
|
|
Tamarillo posted:Super quick BWM: my parents in law, who I knew were getting toward the end of the tiny nest egg that was meant to last them for a couple of decades of retirement (instead was spent on overpriced trips to Europe every year for the last 3 years as well as random extraneous poo poo because We Have Money For The First Time Ever, Lets Spend It), have just rattled out the dregs of their retirement savings to go on a pilgrimage to Bosnia & Herzegovina to go see the Virgin Mary who has apparently been hanging out there recently. When it's in-laws though, you aren't necessarily the one who says you can't bail them out anymore. Ask me how I know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 12:10
|
|
|
That's depressing as poo poo and a good reminder to save aggressively for retirement
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 12:31
|
|
|
General Probe posted:That's depressing as poo poo and a good reminder to save aggressively for retirement Not being a burden on society and your children is BWM. Elephanthead fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 12:36
|
|
|
General Probe posted:That's depressing as poo poo and a good reminder to save aggressively for the previous generation’s retirement
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 12:36
|
|
|
Socially Responsible Investing is a bad idea but it's not like buying a $45,000 truck and rolling negative equity into it. Good intentions count for something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 13:05
|
|
|
SRI is as much of a bad idea as is charitable giving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 13:05
|
|
|
The problem with Socially Responsible Investing is that once you start putting up ethical targets you realize everyone sucks. Like Ben & Jerry's is pretty ethical and all, until you go to Vermont and get to listen to people bitch about how their factories pollute the water with delicious ice cream run-off or hurt mom & pop ice creameries. There's no such thing as ethical capitalism. Balance risk and ROI in your investments and spend all the extra dollars you earn buying products from companies that reflect your ethics and morality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
Suspicious Lump posted:Commonwealth Bank, one of Australia's "Big Four" banks, was just fined $700 million for breaching anti-laundering and terror financing laws (i.e failing to report >$10k deposits to tax office). It is the largest fine in Australian history. Their stock actually went up today by about 1.6%, last time I checked, who is buying, I don't know...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 13:32
|
|
|
Sorry if this is vague or disjointed, I’m hearing it second- or third-hand and it’s very stressful and upsetting to those involved and I didn’t ask too many questions. tl;dr a distant relative is imploding in spectacular fashion Distant In-laws have a lovely hundred-something acre farm with a herd of cattle, a large modern house, a huge brand new barn, and farm equipment to run it. Easily high six figures if not seven. They pay for it presumably with their well-paying jobs, both working as RNs or NPs, some kind of nursing in the city a short half-hour drive away, and their kids are grown and out of the house. One of the kids bought property a short walk from them, so they get to see the grandkids and can get help on the farm, etc. Except the husband started cheating on his wife, an amazing and beautiful woman with the sweetest disposition and honestly probably out of his league, and devolved further into full blown alcoholism. When she threatened to leave, he said he mended his ways and were getting couples counseling, and things were better for a time. And then he said that no, he loved his girlfriend and it was over, and he’s been cheating the whole time, and exposed her to who knows what. And he’d bought the girlfriend a new Mercedes and himself a new truck. And he wanted to keep the farm, but couldn’t without both incomes, but they tried to sell it and he wouldn’t budge on price so it never sold. So the ex-wife is selling her half to him for less than its value, her share of her beloved 30 year Home just to be clear of it and finalize the messy divorce. Oh, and he decided that his real passion was long-haul trucking, so he quit his job and took classes for his CDL and did it for a few months before realizing he wasn’t making enough. This was during their second round of attempted reconciliation, and speculation was it allowed him to see girlfriend(s) on the side. So now he has to drive two hours one way each day to get to the next-nearest big city to get enough pay. Oh, and he had to file a restraining order against the girlfriend because she assaulted him badly enough to need hospitalization (and he is not a small guy) and she wrecked his Mercedes and racked up his insurance before he took it back. And he just recently traded in his new truck for a more different truck, probably with negative equity. And he just this week fell asleep while driving because of his insane drive and hours and alcoholism, so besides wrecking his brand new truck now he has a court date to determine if he gets a DUI or just a public intoxication (and obviously with a DUI can’t make his ridiculous drive to afford his ridiculous lifestyle) And the girlfriend is around his house again too, as were the police, for who knows what reason. And because of the above, he was not allowed to attend his grandson’s 2nd birthday party and is essentially dead to his son that used to idolize him, the ones that are a short walk away and within spitting distance of his house. And the rumor is that the parents of his daughter’s husband might be moving into his basement - they’re another lovely piece of work that enjoy committing insurance and disability fraud for their income, and get combative with the son for not wanting to talk to his dad any more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
Money can't buy class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:Good intentions count for something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:And he’d bought the girlfriend a new Mercedes and himself a new truck. Seriously why is it ALWAYS a truck in these stories
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Droo posted:Seriously why is it ALWAYS a truck in these stories
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:My guess is the kind of insecurity that leads to infidelity is closely associated with the machismo that these kinds of men believe trucks represent. I think it's turning 50 and realizing you don't have a concrete idea of who you are or what you want. Trucks are a built-in personality to the extent that one truck company's ads had kids putting personalities to photos of guys with cars and trucks and the truck guys were always the cooler ones with the dog. It's the same response when guys buy convertibles, but strangely enough overpriced roadsters are a better financial decision than most trucks, so we don't hear as much about those.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:I think it's turning 50 and realizing you don't have a concrete idea of who you are or what you want. Trucks are a built-in personality to the extent that one truck company's ads had kids putting personalities to photos of guys with cars and trucks and the truck guys were always the cooler ones with the dog.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/nyregion/new-york-film-hub-sale.htmlquote:A $15 million state-built film studio outside Syracuse, which promised to produce hundreds of jobs and bring Hollywood’s glitter to Central New York, hit an inglorious milestone on Friday with its sale to a new corporation set up by Onondaga County to manage it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Sorry New York, all movies and TV shows are filmed in Georgia now. And sometimes Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Suspicious Lump posted:Commonwealth Bank, one of Australia's "Big Four" banks, was just fined $700 million for breaching anti-laundering and terror financing laws (i.e failing to report >$10k deposits to tax office). It is the largest fine in Australian history. They deserve the fine. There's been so much wrong doing by the big banks and it impacts New Zealand as they own their respective branches here. They've blown a substantial property bubble in New Zealand but the Reserve Bank has put restrictions on their activities. Over in Australia things aren't so good with around 1/3 of mortgages being based on fraudulent information. Their house prices are even higher to the point of being drat crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
I just got a targeted email from Huggies Diapers advertising CUSTOM DIAPERS (a pack of 28 size 1's). I admit, my first thought was Zuarg-wife and the monogrammed M&M's or whatever. https://huggiesmadebyyou.com/ For shits and giggles, I put a design together to get a price. $75. Kind of blew my mind! Especially since I have a newborn and 28 diapers would last approximately 2.5 days. For comparison, a pack of 35 size 1 diapers cost $9.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:They deserve the fine. There's been so much wrong doing by the big banks and it impacts New Zealand as they own their respective branches here. They've blown a substantial property bubble in New Zealand but the Reserve Bank has put restrictions on their activities. Over in Australia things aren't so good with around 1/3 of mortgages being based on fraudulent information. Their house prices are even higher to the point of being drat crazy. Being a big bank is GWM. There's practically no real consequences to their actions when "bail us out or everybody else dies" always works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
Palladium posted:Being a big bank is GWM. There's practically no real consequences to their actions when "bail us out or everybody else dies" always works. People here have a dislike for the banks and there's popular support for bailing out the bank customers while leaving bank shareholders as the bag holders. There are calls for an investigation into the New Zealand banks and the Reserve Bank Governor is trying to provide reassurance that we are better regulated than the Australian counterparts. If we have an event similar to the US banking failures there will be calls for prosecution and bailing out the public (which happened when finance companies here went bust in 2007/8). I'd expect a bank failure here to end up with the same result as the following video, protests and dildo throwing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s67qsv8ForA
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 02:55
|
|