So it's completely irrelevant to the text you wrote it in "reply" to.
In my post which you described as "the fundamental fallacy", I explicitly stated that was "very relevant":
You wrote:
and I replied to that with:
The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
So it's completely irrelevant to the text you wrote it in "reply" to.
In my post which you described as "the fundamental fallacy", I explicitly stated that was "very relevant":
You wrote:
and I replied to that with:
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,730
- Location
- Auckland
But this is where language doesn't map perfectly to practice (also see Angilion's post #28 relating to 'loopholes'). You can argue the ethical piece -agreed - but it's a bit more difficult to argue when the law itself says x, y, z and a pretty clever team of people make sure that x, y, and z, are all in your favour within the confines of auditable and legal obligations.
Hey if you paid yourself $200m the year before and there is nothing you want/need to buy and you havent spent all of the £200m why take any more money the next year?
No, but until it's sold, you haven't really made any money. A stock rising in value by 100% might well exceed the actual income of that individual, meaning they would have to sell that stock and lose control of the company in order to pay the tax debt, it's not really workable.
SpaceX was entirely privately funded at the beginning, once it was proven viable, they started taking in money for launch contracts, of which 0.4 billion was from NASA. This is money to complete a job, not a subsidy, not a hand out, this is the government paying a private company to do something that it couldn't do itself, and saving money in the process.
That's a very good point. Oh, to be in that position...
I'm not talking about spacex he put 100mil in that not 70
tesla received 0.4b in subsidies
Please provide a source so I can be clear on what you are talking about.
You're such a flirt
Billionaires operate on a different level to most so they have access to income planning at a complexity I'm not close to. Best example would be Dyson family trust for the UK. They have quite a few full time family planning tax experts. My specialism is corporate rather than this kind of planning.
Contractors used to be able to save a fortune but these days IR35 is tight as hell. Scaring a lot of companies into payrolling the contractors. There's still ways to do it but you need to jump through more hoops, specifically being able to prove you work for multiple clients, fixed price contracts, etc rather than working full time for one place.
On the Corporate side, I itch my head at the Microsoft article out that said they paid no tax on $315bn profit in Bermuda a few weeks back... annual group profits are $50bn but it's all just accounting profit relating to liquidation of two entities. Probably some kind of pushdown/revaluation that isn't "real" profit. You can't really do actual profit shifting with crazy schemes in the last few years because of the law changes. Upcoming G7/OECD work will force companies to put profit where the sales are using formula, rather than the recent push to have profits sit where employees are.
Last edited:
Yes, I know about Google, but your statements are so vague and misleading I didn't know what you're talking about.
Yes, they took a loan with interest following the 2008 financial crisis, and paid it back, early.
Electric cars, solar panels and low cost rockets are the future, the government wants all 3, and his companies deliver them.
The government is a customer too.
Translation: Elon co-founded an electric car company using private money, then after the financial crisis, borrowed nearly $500 million from the government, and then paid it back with interest. This ensured thousands of jobs would be saved, and the U.S. would continue to be a market leader in electric cars, benefiting the U.S. economy and U.S. taxpayer in the long run.
Last edited:
A loan from the government isn’t in itself a subsidy. There is also a big difference between a loan and a bailout which every other US car manufacturer got after 2008 with the exception of Ford and Tesla.
The U.K. government is ploughing money into EVs, batteries etc.
NASA didn’t give SpaceX money, they paid for a rocket service (unmanned and manned) to the ISS which SpaceX delivered. SpaceX made something an order of magnitude cheaper than the shuttle.
If you want to moan about NASA spending a load of money for nothing, start looking into SLS.
The U.K. government is ploughing money into EVs, batteries etc.
NASA didn’t give SpaceX money, they paid for a rocket service (unmanned and manned) to the ISS which SpaceX delivered. SpaceX made something an order of magnitude cheaper than the shuttle.
If you want to moan about NASA spending a load of money for nothing, start looking into SLS.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2019
- Posts
- 1,117
- Location
- Channel Islands
It's always difficult, although computer hardware is the go to on my part. New GPU? definatly a work thing, if the PC has been used for home working it's a deducible imo.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,642
If you buy a PC through a business and have it at home, I think you are supposed to pay benefit in kind for any usage that isn't incidental.
In the scheme of things though, HMRC are unlikely to come after you for that. They don't have the manpower.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,667
If a homeless person holds 100,000 bitcoin but has no way to sell those bitcoin, is he rich or is he a homeless bum ?
Not sure how these billionaires manage to buy things if their billions are tied up in assets, they must be liquidating assets some way to afford their super mansions & yachts and as such should be taxed for it no ?
Not sure how these billionaires manage to buy things if their billions are tied up in assets, they must be liquidating assets some way to afford their super mansions & yachts and as such should be taxed for it no ?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,730
- Location
- Auckland
Why not both?
I don't think they liquidate assets; rather they depend upon income from their assets like dividends.
The yachts are often owned by companies owned by the billionaires so they can be rented out when the billionaires aren't using them. Property too is often owned by a company. Beyond that I expect the accounting is complex. But if Jane Bloggs is living in a property owned by XYZ Megacorp then either she is paying a proper rent or she is getting a benefit in kind on which she is taxed, just like cars.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,667
I wouldn't be surprised if they just put everything on the company card and then somehow manage to write it off as losses/expenses for the company lol
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
All those super yachts/private planes etc are owned not by the individuals but by the companies these people run/own.
We have just had a global pandemic where vast amounts of normal people have struggled to make ends meet or even are just a bit worse off, yet the rich get richer.
I agree that the super rich don't really have income as such and it's tied to share value, so that's fair enough as long as their companies are paying their fair share of tax instead...................... oh wait.
