Slashdot Mirror


Uncle Sam Spoils Dream Trip To Space

gollum123 writes about a dream come true and a dream dashed. Brian Emmett, a software consultant from the San Francisco Bay area, entered a contest sponsored by Oracle in 2005. He answered some questions on Java coding, won a free trip into space, and then reluctantly gave it up. The latter decision came once he had computed the taxes he would have to pay on the $138,000 prize — roughly $25,000. From the article: "Since the Internal Revenue Service requires winnings from lottery drawings, TV game shows, and other contests to be reported as taxable income, tax experts contend there's no such thing as a free spaceflight. Some contest sponsors provide a check to cover taxes, but that income is also taxable."

656 comments

  1. A dream come true? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    It may have been a dream dashed for Brian Emmett, but it most certainly was a dream come true for headline writers. They leave no cliche unturned:

    * There are no free rides to outer space
    * Dream free trip to space brings black hole in wallet
    * Win a free ticket to space? Read the fine print
    * Taxes ... the final frontier for space rides
    * Space tourism yet to take off
    * Free trips to space pose some taxing dilemmas

    etc etc etc.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:A dream come true? by b100dian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention the obviousness that the state does not help you winning things - therefore one shall not be "taxed" for this
      (otherwise, all participants would have to pay an equal share of taxes, since their presence at the "lottery" is a service the state grants, and the winning of it _is not_)

      --
      gtkaml.org
    2. Re:A dream come true? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention the obviousness that the state does not help you winning things - therefore one shall not be "taxed" for this

      Not that I particularly agree with the state taxing winnings, but they don't help you work, yet tax your income. How is winning something different?

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    3. Re:A dream come true? by baldass_newbie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The state doesn't help me earn my paycheck, but they tax that. And then I take whatever is left and I invest it, and they tax that. And if I do a lot of that saving, they tax me more.
      Life sucks when you make money. Or win something of value.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    4. Re:A dream come true? by b100dian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree - take a look here.
      Now, without "enforcement of law and public order, protection of property, economic infrastructure (roads, legal tender, enforcement of contracts, etc.), education systems, health care systems" would you be able to work?

      --
      gtkaml.org
    5. Re:A dream come true? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, without "enforcement of law and public order, protection of property, economic infrastructure (roads, legal tender, enforcement of contracts, etc.), education systems, health care systems" would you be able to work?

      Well, without all that would you be able to collect your prize?. Would Oracle have been able to organise the contest?

      Hmmmmmmn. I still don't really see a difference between govt taxing earnings & govt taxing prizes.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    6. Re:A dream come true? by thefirelane · · Score: 5, Funny

      Missed the obvious: "There's no such thing as a free launch"

    7. Re:A dream come true? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      *snort*

      You sir, have missed your profession. A lucrative career in headline writing awaits you.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    8. Re:A dream come true? by Kaydet81 · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Anti-American Drivel. And I suppose the US is the only country where these sort of taxes occur?

    9. Re:A dream come true? by Cimon+Avaro · · Score: 1

      Missed the obvious: "There's no such thing as a free launch" Also "That depends on what your meaning of the word 'Free' is."

      For my part I call something that puts you out of pocket 25 grand being advertised as "Free" misleading advertising. But I also don't think this is USA specific, happens in less enlightened parts of the world all the time.
    10. Re:A dream come true? by mcvos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Life sucks when you make money. Or win something of value.

      Life still sucks more when you don't.

    11. Re:A dream come true? by fatman22 · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't be so bad if the people spending the tax money provided the same value-per-unit-of-local-currency performance as is expected from the people who provide the tax money.

    12. Re:A dream come true? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll kill you! I've been waiting for a story to come along that fits that quote, and you posted it first. I'LL KILL YOU!

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    13. Re:A dream come true? by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      No; it's just the only country where the prizewinner is responsible for paying the taxes after they win, rather than the competition organiser having to pay them in advance.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    14. Re:A dream come true? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Aren't these taxes easily avoided? The organiser could, instead of awarding him a $138000 pace flight, hire him as vastly underpaid astronaut for $2000. Taxes on that are easily paid.

    15. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, shut up. It was a joke, and your comment about it was worse than useless.

    16. Re:A dream come true? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Win two contests and save up $50,000. In space nobody can hear him scream.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    17. Re:A dream come true? by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      Anti-American Drivel. And I suppose the US is the only country where these sort of taxes occur? What did that post say against America?

      Sheesh, sometimes you Americans get so touchy that you come across as completely ridiculous. Grow some spine for chrissakes.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    18. Re:A dream come true? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The state doesn't help me earn my paycheck
      They don't? I guess you built the road you drive on yourself, personally arrested any criminals who might have accosted you during the journey, and convinced everyone to respect private property so your company could exist in the first place.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    19. Re:A dream come true? by Jearil · · Score: 3, Funny

      Steve? Is that you? Hey buddy.. we're kinda running low on chairs here you know. Could you perhaps maybe use a shoe or something this time?

      Thanks a lot.

    20. Re:A dream come true? by ParrotDroppings · · Score: 1

      LOL:

      T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.

      Even when you win a ticket saying so...

      --
      Free ?! Does that mean I can't get a Discount ?!
      This message was /.'ed
    21. Re:A dream come true? by MartinG · · Score: 1

      Life can be good or bad in either scenario and with the exception of people in absolute poverty, there is no credible established link between wealth and (un)happiness.

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    22. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be too disappointed, I think Christopher Columbus used it when making his pitch.

    23. Re:A dream come true? by naChoZ · · Score: 1

      Some irritable old lady in the human services office handling food stamp applications... "Your occupation sir?"

      I'm sure that answer would go over really well.

      --
      "I can be self-referential if I want to," said Tom, swiftly.
    24. Re:A dream come true? by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      True, but the point is that there needs to be a fair system for paying taxes on winnings. If the company offering the prize wants to pay for the taxes, they should be able to do so simply, and not have taxes on taxes on taxes. Thats just silly.

    25. Re:A dream come true? by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      Now, without "enforcement of law and public order, protection of property, economic infrastructure (roads, legal tender, enforcement of contracts, etc.), education systems, health care systems" would you be able to work?
      Anarcho-capitalists would say yes.

      I would say that there needs to be publicly-funded law enforcement to protect (from your list) public order and property and enforce contracts, and to manage legal tender. The rest can be provided privately (now, are they *likely* to be provided privately? That's a different question).
    26. Re:A dream come true? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      [blockquote]Grow some spine for chrissakes.[/blockquote]
      That's a good one. I was about to write "that's what we've been saying to the rest of the world," but it seems all too true about most Americans, too.

      American's have, in fact, by and large, collectively "lost their spine," but it has nothing to do with winning the lottery!

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    27. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you pompous ass, shut the fuck up! Here, let me help you, you fucking automaton: Missed the obvious: "There's no such thing as a free launch"</joke>

    28. Re:A dream come true? by hjf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I live in a country (Argentina) where you have to pay a 21% tax for almost everything you buy (the Value Added Tax, or VAT, just like in the UK). Some items (Such as milk, or curiously, computer parts, have 10,5% VAT, while most others, like TV sets or CAT5 cable, have 10,5% Tax. Finally, Telephone has 27% VAT). That's when you buy something.

      When you sell something, you have to pay the VAT, but only for what you're earning (that is, buy for $100 and sell for $120, you pay the tax for $20, not for $120). That means, if you're a "computer tech" like me, you don't "buy-and-sell", you just sell. That is, if I charge someone $ 300, I have to pay the tax for $300. Also, besides that tax there's the Gross Income tax, 3,5% (yes PERCENT) of EVERYTHING you earn, whether you have made profit of it, or not. The VAT is for national government, and the Gross Income is for the province.

      As if that wasn't enough, we have a plethora of taxes you could never dream of, such as the Check (UK: Cheque) Tax, the Money Transfer tax, the "sending money offshore" tax, etc. Whenever someone deposits a check in your account, the government just goes and grabs the tax for it out of your bank account (that's right, they just go and grab it). You can write that off your Gross Income tax, but if you, for some reason, got a big check, more than what you declared in Gross Income, all you get is fiscal credit, not money back from the government.

      Oh and don't let me get started on the 'Rich' tax ("Impuesto a la riqueza"). If you're "rich", you pay more. Rich, was someone with $100.000 or more in their bank accounts. Before devaluation, people who had $50.000 pesos (= US $50.000), didn't pay for the tax. Then devaluation came, and people had $50.000 pesos (= $16.000 USD). They sued their banks (the banks, prior to the devaluation, and with the help of the government, didn't let you take out more than $1000 a day on cash). Most people got their original money (USD 50.000), but now it was $150.000. So, people had to pay the "rich tax". That means most citizens here in Argentina are rich. Because not only your cash counts: your car, house, boat, whatever, counts for the rich tax. And a house and a car are worth more than $100.000 pesos, so you pay the tax.

      Also, the tax is higher for new cars than for old cars. So people have no reason to "upgrade" their cars, and you see a lot of cars from over 10 years ago.

      With all these taxes, you'd think we would have streets covered in gold, Xenon street lights, and public employees that welcome you with a big smile and don't make you wait. Not to mention, some of the best colleges and schools in the world.

      But no, we get a terrible education system (the Systems Engineering career hasn't been updated since 1995, and a law project that will allow 1st graders to pass whether they have had good grads or not, because repeating a grade will hurt them psychologically. Also there's no punishment system in the schools. Previously you had points, and when you had too many, you got expelled. Now there's no such thing. You can't even expell a student. My mom was the substitute principal at a school, in her last day as principal, a kid (about 16) shot another kid in the leg. None of them got expelled, or anything. They even tried to blame it on my mom (wtf?). In another school, an 11 year old boy was trying to rape a 6 year girl. The teacher kicked the door down, found both of them half naked, the girl crying. The boy tried to run away, she slapped him so hard, he passed out. They tried to let the kid stay at school and SEND THE TEACHER TO JAIL for hitting him. They managed to get the kid out of that school, and let the teacher stay. All of this because the girl's father was a military general or something, who pulled some strings. If it wasn't for that.. you could imagine.

      Also, there's a lot of "insecurity". In some parts of the Great Buenos Aires area, you could get killed (they kill you first and then they rob you). Streets aren't clean, and a pothole could take years to be fixed

    29. Re:A dream come true? by hackstraw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't? I guess you built the road you drive on yourself, personally arrested any criminals who might have accosted you during the journey, and convinced everyone to respect private property so your company could exist in the first place.

      And printed the money that you are paid with, and most importantly, you made and enforced the laws to ensure that the company that you work for will actually pay you for your work, have decent conditions at work including the number of hours and all of that.

      Yes, I'm as anti-governemnt as anybody, but I'm more anti-selfish dickhead more, and the government keeps those people and themselves pretty much in check.

    30. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't. The gas tax funds the roads, the property tax funds the police. Taxes do not enforce respect of private property, the police do that and that has been covered. So how does the sate come and help us work again? Why should they tax us on wages?

    31. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      In other news, Rogerborg was arraigned for conspiracy to commit murder Tuesday after authorities found a post on slashdot containing the word "kill."


      "We're pretty sure this guy was a time bomb," said Police Chief Ed "Donuts" Warren, "I mean, he had a history of +5 funny moderations which really just hid a deeply troubled person."

      "He should have been modded +5 Scary," said random, uninvolved soccer mom/faceless citizen Gina Tripoli, "Why isn't someone thinking of the children?"

      DA Michael Turnbolt said he'd seek the death penalty. "Try to kill someone, or even use the word 'kill', and we can be 100% certain you are a bloodthirsty murderer. You don't deserve to live in a free society. Oh, I just used it? Well, I don't count, I mean, I'm a DA."

    32. Re:A dream come true? by ktappe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hmmmmmmn. I still don't really see a difference between govt taxing earnings & govt taxing prizes.
      I do. The point of taxes is for the gov't to take a portion of something you win/earn. Taxing him $25K is not taking a portion of his trip, it is taking money he does not and never did have. To me that is not in any way the same thing as the gov't taking a cut of a purely monetary prize and leaving him with the remainder. One scenario leaves him richer and the other leaves him poorer.
      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    33. Re:A dream come true? by fittekuk · · Score: 1

      Sounds just like Norway... There the "rich" tax starts at about $7,500.

    34. Re:A dream come true? by maxume · · Score: 1

      There already is, it's called math. (desired payout)/(1-taxrate). If you are worried about it, make sure to use the highest marginal rate.

      The opposite to your argument is that the government treating different types of income differently is silly, and that they should just tax it all the same.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    35. Re:A dream come true? by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      They could still pay for the taxes for them. Yes, even that payment would be taxed, but you just work in how much. It still ends up a finite amount in the end.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    36. Re:A dream come true? by darjen · · Score: 1

      I disagree - take a look here. Now, without "enforcement of law and public order, protection of property, economic infrastructure (roads, legal tender, enforcement of contracts, etc.), education systems, health care systems" would you be able to work?
      Yes, you would be able to work. Everything provided by taxes can be done better and more efficiently with markets. Now I know that most people will respond to this with accusations that markets fail. But if you study it more closely, you will see that market failure is a myth. Most often it is the result of grave incompetence with the interventionists.
    37. Re:A dream come true? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would open a huge loophole. I could work for a year at minimum wage in a high-tech job and then get "paid" with a luxury car. In your system, I'd only get taxed for the approximately $5/hr and not the $60,000 luxury car. We don't want to go back to bartering. This bad press should be directed toward Oracle - why wasn't their "free" trip really free?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    38. Re:A dream come true? by maxume · · Score: 1

      The stuff wealthy people are unhappy about tends to be more fun.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    39. Re:A dream come true? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Taxes do not enforce respect of private property, the police do that and that has been covered
      No, the whole judicial system, some of which is Federal, does that.

      But who stopped the Russians|Canadians|Mexicans from invading? Who chased the (red) Indians away in the first place?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    40. Re:A dream come true? by lazyl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They could still pay for the taxes for them. Yes, even that payment would be taxed, but you just work in how much. It still ends up a finite amount in the end.

      No, it doesn't work like that. The post is misleading. If they give you a $138,000 check and then a $25,000 check "to pay the taxes", then the government will just consider your income to be $163,000 and then charge you 18% of that, i.e. $29,000. There's no way around it. The more money they give you the more taxes you will have to pay.

      --
      Aw crap, ninjas!
    41. Re:A dream come true? by acwork2 · · Score: 1

      Sadly this happens ALL the time. But instead of the car being yours it stays in the company's name. That way they pay all the taxes etc. I've seen execs that lived in company houses, with company cars, with company expense accounts for all their food and any other shopping they did. As shady as it may be, it is legal.

      --
      I killed 3 men and 2 cats to get this sig?
    42. Re:A dream come true? by yada21 · · Score: 1

      And printed the money that you are paid with
      Aren't you supposed to be talking about the good things that government does? Not that there are any, the market should be left to decide everything.

      But if the Feds didn't print worthless fiat currency, people would go back to using currency with intrinsic value, like gold. And a good thing too.
      --
      I will have a sig when the market demands it.
    43. Re:A dream come true? by rvw · · Score: 1

      They could still pay for the taxes for them. Yes, even that payment would be taxed, but you just work in how much. It still ends up a finite amount in the end.

      No, it doesn't work like that. The post is misleading. If they give you a $138,000 check and then a $25,000 check "to pay the taxes", then the government will just consider your income to be $163,000 and then charge you 18% of that, i.e. $29,000. There's no way around it. The more money they give you the more taxes you will have to pay. Well, those 25K extra will leave only 4K to be paid by the winner. That's a big difference. If they would add another 5K, it will probably be enough to get a free (as in beer) ride.
    44. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Now, without "enforcement of law and public order, protection of property,

      This was done before there was even a federal income tax.

      economic infrastructure (roads, legal tender, enforcement of contracts, etc.), education systems, health care systems" would you be able to work?

      People did for a long time before there was a federal income tax, or any of the bazillion taxes the US has now. Also the two things you listed at the end...education and healthcare are both better handled privatly than through the government.

    45. Re:A dream come true? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most often it is the result of grave incompetence with the interventionists.

      The fundamental problem with your theory is that in the real world, there are always interventionists. It is completely unrealistic to assume that you could somehow eliminate them.

    46. Re:A dream come true? by operagost · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sounds like the Democratic Party's dream version of the USA.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    47. Re:A dream come true? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, it will still converge on a finite amount of money, about $30300 or so.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    48. Re:A dream come true? by Ansonmont · · Score: 1

      No, no, these guys weren't promising a moon trip!

      Mike? Are you there Mike?

    49. Re:A dream come true? by ericlondaits · · Score: 1

      Exactly... a little bit more than 30k (less than 31k) should be enough to pay all taxes at 18%.

      --
      As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
    50. Re:A dream come true? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Life just sucks...

      But it's worse to be dead...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    51. Re:A dream come true? by xantho · · Score: 1

      Is it? How'd you find out?

    52. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Partly true... partly right wing ramblings (I'm Argentine as well).

    53. Re:A dream come true? by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But if you study it more closely, you will see that market failure is a myth
      Taking the words at face value, a true believer. A brainwashed zealot. His mind is made up, don't confuse him with the facts. Truthiness! He feels it's true, with his gut. So don't waste time trying to convince the head with logic or example or reasoning. Digestive by-products would be more effective.

      Or is the author not serious? There is no wit, or grace, or amusement value that suggests it is written as a parody.
    54. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Partly true...

      What part isn't true? I'm curious.

    55. Re:A dream come true? by Directrix1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, I don't like being an ass... but I'm good at, so here I go. OK, lets say there is a 25% tax on gifts. You just won a 100,000 item where they promised to pay your taxes. The equation for the total amount they'd have to give you to cover taxes is as follows:
      x = 0.25(100,000 + x) ---- Thats 25% of the sum of 100,000 and itself
      4x = 100,000 + x
      3x = 100,000
      x = 33,333.33 ----- Thats it, it pays for itself and the gift. Tada!

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    56. Re:A dream come true? by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      Apparently I'm not good at completing sentences though :-P.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    57. Re:A dream come true? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Under the scenario you described, you would still be taxed. You'd have to sell the luxury car to get money (people wouldn't completely revert to barter) and that would have to be reported as taxable income. True, with a little work, exempting non-money compensation from taxation *could* gradually lead barter networks to form, but not in the scenario you've described.

      That said, in order for the trip not to be free, they'd have to pay the $25,000 tax, then (as the summary notes) pay the tax on the $25,000 tax payment (since that's additional compensation), then the tax on the tax on the tax, etc. Luckily, the series converges!

      More importantly, who decided that the trip was worth $138,000? Is there a liquid market in spaceflights? Why couldn't they declare it to be a special, "discount" trip worth $5? Note that this is similiar to the record industry declaring the "value" of "stolen" music -- how much would it really have sold for? And note that unlike the luxury car, this good is not transferrable.

    58. Re:A dream come true? by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      Can we get a +1 "Terrifying" mod?

    59. Re:A dream come true? by Megane · · Score: 1

      Missed the obvious: "There's no such thing as a free launch"

      So is that a "free as in beer" launch or a "free as in speech" launch that there is no such thing as?

      Or maybe "free as in fall"?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    60. Re:A dream come true? by section321a · · Score: 1

      No. Actually this analogy is flawed. You're proposing an exchange of services (your work) for a mixed bag of compensation (low hourly rate and vehicle). This was a contest where the contestants have a chance of winning the prize. Very different economic exchanges. The more correct analogy would be to work for a year at $5/hr and then have a chance (unrelated to you or your company's performance) of winning the car. That would be crazy and a commplete misalignment of incentives.

    61. Re:A dream come true? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Even a tax lover is going to have to roll his eyes at that one.

      Only a small fraction of taxes goes to providing the conditions necessary for an economy to function. The rest is rank favoritism: subsidies, wealth redistribution. What fraction it is, I'll leave up to you to figure out, but it's not 100% that goes to allowing the economy to function.

      Taken to the extreme, your argument would apply just as well to the most corrupt nation possible: say they tax 95% of every exchange and spend 1% of the proceeds on (poorly) providing the "enforcement of law and public order, protection of property, economic infrastructure (roads, legal tender, enforcement of contracts, etc.), education systems, health care systems", and the other 99% on palaces for the dictator. Would you justify exaction of that level of taxation on the grounds that without it, the exchanges it was taxing would be impossible?

      Remember, it's the level of taxation that spoiled the voyage, not the fact that there was taxation all.

    62. Re:A dream come true? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      why is that a problem, you really think the big bankers (the true beneficiaries of the national debt and income tax) are entitled to a cut of everything you have?

    63. Re:A dream come true? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      using currency with intrinsic value, like gold

      And what is the intrinsic value of gold if I can make it in a lab for $10/oz?

      Sure, fiat currency has it issues and its relatively new, but its a completely arbitrary unit of measure like slashdot karma, casino chips, or whatever that seems OK.

    64. Re:A dream come true? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I am not a CPA, but until the ride into space occurs, it would not seem to be a taxable item. No moneys, assets, or actions that generate revenue have happened, yet. I am thinking that the equivalent would be winning the lotto, and not collecting any funds, but I am still liable for the taxes of the winnings? Would I still be taxed on the funds I have not received yet?

      Also, the space suit is ad space, pardon the pun, the revenue generated by renting that out would more than pay for the taxes, and a tidy profit also.

    65. Re:A dream come true? by Skal+Tura · · Score: 3, Informative

      That sounds A LOT like here in Finland, except here isn't that kind of insecurity. Insecurity yes, but not deadly.
      Here, there's a lot of talks, stories etc. (rarely gets to the press, but a few does) about security companies employees beating people for no reason, but that's the top of the iceberg. You gotta watch over your shoulder on our capital city and nearby cities
      when going to trainstations, there's people who might try to beat you off just because you don't give them a cigarett or you look
      too good for their liking or rich.
      None of those are Finnish, but mostly immigrants and such. (Now i will be called a racist).
      If you are jumped and you defend yourself, you will at bare minimum get fines, probably jail. I did this once, i was 16 (that day
      actually was my birthday!), and that guy was ~35yo weighing ~150kg. Defended myself at all means possible, i got sued by
      goverment, initially with attempted kill. Finally, they decided i was innocent, but still fined me for 120euros... and all i got
      was 180e per month back then. What saved me was that i was still a teenager, but it did require a very good lawyer.

      Back on the subject, taxes are insane here too.
      If you are an employee, you will pay personal tax of upto over 60% + unemployment fees (2,5%) + church (1%) + health (1,5%) (hope i remember those right), if you happen to have money in the savings account, 28% tax from interest.
      Everything has VAT 22%, except food 17%. Gasoline has total tax of ~70%, Diesel a lot less but don't remember the pct at all, it
      costs ~30% less, while in truth it costs more to manufacture.
      If you buy a 2000e car from Germany, you might have to pay even upto 8 000e of taxes on it if you are unlucky.
      If you are entrepreneur, minimum total taxation is almost 50%, for other company form it's ~30% but then you get also personal
      tax on top of that.
      Also, from all sales you have to pay VAT, but fortunately if your payed VAT (when you buy something, loss) exceeds the amount of
      stuff you sold or equals no VAT to pay, and i think they even pay you back if you've paid too much in VAT taxes.

      A real life example: monthly salary ~1350e, you get in your hand ~1050euros, apartment (cheap but spacy for one, about 50m2)
      ~450e, food for the month (1person) 150e, cheapest work travel 40e, and electricity ~30e/month, internet connectivity ~30e/month
      and ~+220e for apartment from goverment.
      I would think that's the minimal requirements for somewhat enjoyable life, and you are left with 570euros/month.

      Currently, if you own a car minimum payments for the year are yearly inspection, car tax and traffic insurance.
      Traffic insurance is lower for newer and more expensive cars. My -84 Corolla yearly insurance is ~880e, car tax ~100e, inspection
      is ~50e. That's over 1 000e just to keep the car, and the car costs ~1200e. Now they are trying to remove the car tax, install
      GPS on every car (or some other tracking method) and issue a tax for every km you drive + add an emissions tax, which naturally
      be higher for older & cheaper cars. Top that of that driving with natural gas (aftermarket installation) as a civilian, not
      working on transportation business and not a car used for work is not allowed, and what i understood from department's texts,
      the fine is over 300euros per day!

      For all the taxes you pay here, only thing working somewhat well is social safety net (you will always have apartment etc. if you
      are even somewhat sane, and bother to fill out couple forms). Education is bad, healthcare seems to be more like deathcare etc.
      Oh yeah, own a house & some land? You own that land only 1m deep, someone finds gold under 1m and wants to digg it, they are
      allowed to. City wants the land? No worries, you'll still get something like Market Value -40% for it.

      To top that off, summers they lay on the roads saltwater "to keep dust down", which actually makes the roads slippery, and what
      when it dries? You get dust + salt!
      During winters, they lay ou

    66. Re:A dream come true? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, everything in the list can be provided privatly. The problem is that policing and such would tend to favor those paying for it. Thats why the government is better at providing it. We didn't always have a government providing these things but we have did always have businesses and the ability for people to make a living.

      But to the story, the government should treat winnings like income becuase that is what they are. If you were to go and purchase the prize seperatly, be it a trip to space or just a bag of groceries it would need to be paid for by income that you recieved at one point in time and that income was subject to the tax code (taxed). Just because you won it doesn't mean much other then your luck into a good source of income.

      The freeman stand off a while back resulted from the government going to a comunity were people were trading work for work. Someone would paint a house and that person would fix the roof for his house. sometimes they would trade a pig or somthing for the roof getting fixed. the government said that because something of value changed hands even though it wasn't money, it is still income and they needed to pay taxes on it. So I guess one of them wrote a check for three hogs and a chicken and passed it to the/a tax agency promting visit that ended up in a standoff.

      The point is that the government claimed that whenever something of value passes from one person to another, unless another law prevents it, it still counts as income. There doesn't apear to be a law preventing winnings from being income. Certain incomes like gifts giving in the family aren't considered income to a degree (I think if they are over a certain amount they might be income).

      Something thats confusing is the question of why he has to pay the taxes now? It will be some time before the prize/trip is even remotley possible and therefore paid out. I know the prize was won last year but there is no guarentee it will ever be anything then a symbolic gesture. A number of things could happen stopping the delivery of the prize. A test flight could blow up killing hundreds resulting in bankruptcy for the company or the government could ban all comercial space flights carrying passengers or they could place some requirment on health that the winner cannot meet by the time it is actualy feasable.

      Surely if there are possabilities for not getting the gift/prize, then why isn't it being treated like stock options? You don't pay taxes when your company gives you a stock option until you take those options, if you ever doo. This would give the guy enough time to save for the taxes and if certain political parties gain control of the house ad senate, the tax burden might even be lower by then. If sun would just release a voucher to claim the prize when it becomes possible, I doubt it would be a winning that counts as income until it is redeamed. Surley he can save the 25 grand needed in 4 or more years or so. Maybe even take a morgtage out on the house and deduct the interest for the tax burden on his taxes.

    67. Re:A dream come true? by rbannon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's is no fundamental difference between the two main political parties in the USA. Basically they are both expansionists, and they need your income to achieve that goal. Bush for example is spending money faster than did his predecessor, and the chain goes on ad infinitum. If you want to stop this nonsense you'll just have to end their income stream. Spoiled Rich Kids. And right now we have two massively out of control political parties, and a legion of mindless supporters to vote them in. If it were up to me, there would be NO taxes and all those Republicans/Democrates would have to go elsewhere. Oh, I guess we could convince them that utopia is over there . . . possibly in Bush's Middle East.

    68. Re:A dream come true? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      But if the Feds didn't print worthless fiat currency, people would go back to using currency with intrinsic value, like gold. And a good thing too.

      I keep hearing this, but I am still missing why it is a good thing. First, why does gold have an intrinsic value? It's a good conductor, and quite shiny, but apart from that it's just a metal that doesn't corrode particularly easily. Secondly, why is it better to be passing around tokens made of gold than using it for, for example, integrated circuits? Surely if something has an intrinsic value, that value comes from using it, not from storing it or using it as a proxy for value.

      Are you just repeating a line fed to you by the Liberty Dollar crowd, or do you have some actual reasoning to back up this point of view?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    69. Re:A dream come true? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not that I particularly agree with the state taxing winnings, but they don't help you work, yet tax your income. How is winning something different?

      The answer is the same in both instances. Neither the contest nor your employer could even exist without the force of law to protect them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    70. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If it were up to me, there would be NO taxes

      What are you, 12? When you become an adult, you'll realize what bullshit that is.

    71. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard the state I'm in (Texas) doesn't tax lottery winnings, however, it sounds like this guy is being taxed on a federal level.

    72. Re:A dream come true? by darjen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Taking the words at face value, a true believer. A brainwashed zealot. His mind is made up, don't confuse him with the facts. Truthiness! He feels it's true, with his gut. So don't waste time trying to convince the head with logic or example or reasoning. Digestive by-products would be more effective.
      Right... and I would presume that your version of truthiness is that elected public officials really care about your current state of well being. After all, that's what they teach in public school textbooks, so it must be correct.
    73. Re:A dream come true? by Runefox · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but if I had to rely on, for example, a private sector police force to come help when something's happening, I don't think I'd be in the country for much longer. I can see it now:

      "Don't settle for the competition - Call Excessive Force Police Force! Because you wouldn't want anything to happen to your family, right? Only $199.99 per call, $500 per visit, and if an arrest is made, your next call is free!"

      "Need to stick it to the heathens? Want to take back the land that truly belongs to America? Then look no further than Reality Squad! Our elite team of weapons experts, tank battallions and airpower combine to give that special someone overseas a gift to remember! Act now and get a free Reality Squad beanie! Rates starting from only $1,999,999.99! Act now before your enemies do!"

      "Your president demands payment for his services. Please send $5,000 per household to the White House immediately, or we'll call Reality Squad and make it a civil war. You have thirty seconds to comply. We do accept Visa and Master Card. Operators are standing by. Thank you, and may God Bless America."

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    74. Re:A dream come true? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      I could work for a year at minimum wage in a high-tech job and then get "paid" with a luxury car.

      A luxury car is a tangible asset that can be sold, and holds it's value. A trip to space is likely not transferable (you can't sell it), and has no value once you actually take the trip. It's not the same thing at all. That's the basic problem I have with taxing this trip. The government wants a cut of "income" that's not really income. Sure it's something that you were given by someone that costs someone else money.. but how is it income if you're not benefitting from in financially?

      --
      AccountKiller
    75. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if the Feds didn't print worthless fiat currency, people would go back to using currency with intrinsic value, like gold. And a good thing too.

      I keep hearing this, but I am still missing why it is a good thing. First, why does gold have an intrinsic value? It's a good conductor, and quite shiny, but apart from that it's just a metal that doesn't corrode particularly easily. Secondly, why is it better to be passing around tokens made of gold than using it for, for example, integrated circuits? Surely if something has an intrinsic value, that value comes from using it, not from storing it or using it as a proxy for value.

      Are you just repeating a line fed to you by the Liberty Dollar crowd, or do you have some actual reasoning to back up this point of view?

      I think the bold text explains why gold has value to the rest of the world. If you take that reason and extrapolate it should be easy to explain why so many people pay for designer clothes (or at least, clothes with designer tags on them).
    76. Re:A dream come true? by cg · · Score: 1
      Actually, there is.

      Are we happy yet?

      From the article:

      ...remember grandma's aphorism about money not buying happiness? Well, brace yourself, but dear ole grandma may have been misinformed. Our survey shows that nearly half (49%) of those with an annual family income of more than $100,000 say they're very happy. By contrast, just 24% of those with an annual family income of less than $30,000 say they're very happy.
    77. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not the grandparent, but I was going to post just the same thing. What isn't true? Well, when he says Systems Engineering hasn't been updated since 1995 he must be talking about a particular university, since each university has a different programme, mine had a major update in 2001 (or maybe more recently, I'm not sure), and a few minor ones as well. The VAT part is true, it's way too high, and it should have been lowered years ago. As for the taxes, well, they are meant to lower the difference between the rich and the poor, which is rather bad (and getting worse) here. The old car complaint is typical of right wing people. I even heard one military say that all pre-1985 cars should be banned from the streets. Truth is, it's not so bad in some ways. Currently there is something called the VTV (vehicular technical verification, same acronym in Spanish) which is a sort of certification for your car, it used to be that if you didn't pass it, your car couldn't be used on the roads, but that has changed now, I believe. I think whether a car works well or not is more important than the year. Some cars are badly beaten up, a few months ago I saw a car that was twisted 20 or 30 degrees when going forward, so from behind it looked like it was about to turn left (I saw it right before we reached a left turn, so it confused me badly). Of course, VTV is good in theory, in practise there is a lot of corruption, but hey, that's everywhere here. The education system is not so bad, although it used to be better, and there is no gold plating anywhere save some places for the rich. That teacher that knocked an 11 year old unconscious, sounds like he was out of line, unless he was abnormally small and the 11 year old abnormally large, he could have pulled him aside with a single hand. He might have deserved the slap, but we have laws and a court system. The 11 year old obviously had some mental issues, and he should be treated. What is needed is less corruption, often we have good laws but they are applied selectively or not at all. Most drivers here don't use signal lights, and when they do, they often use the wrong ones anyway... Some people don't even know we're supposed to drive on the right side of the road, which is not the left one ;) Oh, and that guy who thinks that's similar to Norway (or the other one comparing Argentina and Finland), he's nuts. Argentina is nowhere near Norway (yeap, I've been there, and not on a tourist trip or anything similar). Jeg kan snakke norsk ;)

    78. Re:A dream come true? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, though I still think that it would get abused... a contest where the rules state that you can play as many times as you want, but only one winner is allowed per year or something like that.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    79. Re:A dream come true? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm not a big fan of income tax, but I'm also not a big fan of income tax loopholes.

      I like consumption taxes, though with certain items exempted to help alleviate the regressive nature of the tax. Clothing and food should get taxed on some progressive or reduced schedule, as should other necessities like electricity, water, and soap. Poor people currently pay little or no tax, and I'd hate to see their real income go down as a result of income tax abolition. It would also complicate systems that are set up to help the poor, as proving your income level would become more difficult.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    80. Re:A dream come true? by soft_guy · · Score: 0, Troll

      The opposite to your argument is that the government treating different types of income differently is silly, and that they should just tax it all the same. Maybe if the government would stop wasting money on stupid shit, they wouldn't even need to tax people's incomes at all.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    81. Re:A dream come true? by cfx666 · · Score: 1

      Ever spend a week without internet access???

      --
      You have 2 nucular Moderator Points! Use 'em or loose 'em!
    82. Re:A dream come true? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but owing $4K on the flight is a lot more doable for your average paycheck-to-paycheck worker than $25K, and they could have given him $29K in which case his out of pocket is only $720, etc.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    83. Re:A dream come true? by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You could sell a car or get a loan on it to pay the taxes on it. In fact the $60k car would have you paying personal property taxes and license on top of federal and state taxes. It's physical property. You could possibly sell the trip, but since a trip couldn't be used as collateral it's not really "property" is it? No it's a service. If you won a free termite inspection would the government come at you for the taxes on a service valued at $100? Hookers charge for sex, if you get it free from someone do you now need to declare it? Oracle should have used an office outside the US to bestow the winnings. That's how John Kerry got to pay less taxes than Bush on millions more. Tax shelters in the Cayman Islands.

    84. Re:A dream come true? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "Currently, if you own a car"

      You don't own that car, the government of Finland does. They're just allowing you to use it under specific rules and guidelines in exchange for payment. It's basically a rental car.

      It's the same thing in the US, depending on where you are. Most states require inspection, some tax you just for owning the car. Every state (as far as I know) requires that you have auto insurance that's paid up to date. When you get into "owning" a house and/or property, things get much, much worse.

      People seem to think it's an extremist right-wing viewpoint that the concept of personal property is being destroyed. That's ridiculous - it's as plain as the nose on your face that when it comes to personal property, you "own" nothing.

      Perhaps when the governments of the world merge and start oppressing people equally around the world, the people will finally rise up and take things back. Sadly, I doubt I'll be alive to see that happen.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    85. Re:A dream come true? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Do you dispute that many market-failure allegations are phony on closer inspection?

      1) Corporations offer people the opportunity to insure against catastrophic conditions.
      2) Only people who know they're about to get those conditions sign up.
      3) Health insurers pre-screen people to avoid this.
      4) Government bans pre-screening or requires insurers to provide this coverage to all clients.
      5) Insurers stop offering this service or offer it an insanely high prices.
      6) Wise-ass economist: "See, in health insurance, there's a big problem called adverse selection: only people who will need it, buy the insurance. That's why it's impossible for anyone to buy insurance. This is called a 'market failure' because obviously markets can't handle this sort of thing."
      7) Irrational zealot: "Actually, this was more due to banning pre-screening and regulating what an insurer can offer..."
      8) You: "A brainwashed zealot. His mind is made up, don't confuse him with the facts. Truthiness! He feels it's true, with his gut. So don't waste time trying to convince the head with logic or example or reasoning."
      9) Repeat for numerous examples.

      [Note to nit-pickers: the point here is to show a case where failure of the market to provide reasonably priced catastrophic insurance was more due to invervention. Failure to provide health care for people that already have a condition could still be called a "market failure", if indeed, failing to buy insurance before it was revealed you would get this condition is the fault of the market.]

    86. Re:A dream come true? by Bastian · · Score: 1

      But if the Feds didn't print worthless fiat currency, people would go back to using currency with intrinsic value, like gold. And a good thing too.

      There's a reason why nobody uses the gold standard anymore. For one, the whole thing fell apart under its own weight (yes pun intended). For two, in a modern economy a gold standard would be nothing but a cute little puff of smoke to hide the fact that it's all still a fiat economy.

      If we continue to hold onto our credit cards, paper checks, electronic fund transfers, and the like, then under a fiat economy all monetary transfers are just shuffling around numbers that are theoretically tied to a value, but only because we all trust that the system will keep working.

      If we do this under a gold standard, then since you can't shove gold through a copper wire, we'll have to leave the gold in a big pile somewhere and have monetary transfers be nothing but shuffling around numbers that are theoretically tied to a chunk of this pile, but since you never get to see the pile then it only works because we all trust that the system will keep working.

      Add to that that there simply isn't enough gold in the USA to equal in value the amount of money in the USA, as well as the multitude of other reasons why the gold standard collapsed in the first place, and we're forced to conclude that a gold standard in modern times is nothing but a nostalgic farce that may look good on paper but doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of working in the real world.

      Besides, if you really want some durable goods that will retain their value in the event of an economic crisis of sufficient magnitude to cause fiat money to collapse, I'd suggest you try canned food instead - it's actually useful, and it will probably appreciate in value if such an event were to occur. Gold - being useless to most people - won't be so useful for barter in such a situation, since even a block of metal is only as valuable as people are willing to agree it is, and you can't eat a block of metal any more than you can eat little green scraps of linen paper.

    87. Re:A dream come true? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I understand where you are coming from, but I still feel like this would get abused. I'm also not sure why finding money on the street or winning a contest should grant better tax treatment to someone then if they had done a lick of work to earn it.

      As for the cost of the trip, it should be based on what Oracle paid for it. The accountants have that trip marked off on a balance sheet somewhere - that should be the value. As you say, there isn't a secondary market, so the "street price" or "retail price" is not really significant.

      In any case, Oracle should be the ones in the news for not cutting a $30,500 check to this guy. "Free" trip, indeed - it's not like the US tax laws were different when they started the contest.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    88. Re:A dream come true? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      I don't know about you, but if I had to rely on, for example, a private sector police force to come help when something's happening,

      If you'll think about it for a minute, you'll realize that the police come after you get mugged, robbed, raped, etc. At that time, you will be subject to paperwork, veiled accusations of complicity one way or another, and then reassured that there is no certainty that anything can be done. Personally, I'd rather have a private sector force who I knew was actually on my side, rather than some constitutional nightmare who is looking around my house for drugs when he should be trying to figure out who broke my window.

      Police haven't done squat to stop crime since they stopped walking beats, because they're never around when anything happens. Now they're just (expensive, annoying) clean-up agents.

      Unless you're talking about traffic cops. They're not the same kind of service, though, and a lot of what they do is play mommy for people who have no need of a mommy.

      The system is broken.

      "Your president demands payment for his services. Please send $5,000 per household to the White House immediately, or we'll call Reality Squad and make it a civil war. You have thirty seconds to comply. We do accept Visa and Master Card. Operators are standing by. Thank you, and may God Bless America."

      Yeah, we call that the IRS. A "legal system" unto themselves, complete with property, freedom and funds seizures. Only it's a lot more than $5000 per household, unless you work at McDonald's. I've not had a tax bill as low as $5000 in several decades. And of course, then they use that money to invade other countries, take more rights from you, torture people, wiretap without warrants, pursue a completely unwinnable and illegitimate "drug war" (AKA the war against personal choice), bribe the states to do federal bidding (for example, the federal speed limit laws where they withhold funding if the speed limits aren't to their liking.) yeah, the IRS. A sterling bunch of characters. They take from the citizens and give to the criminals.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    89. Re:A dream come true? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      An airplane ride is a service, granted. What if my employer gave me a free all-inclusive vacation, paid my utilities, maintained my property, and sent my kids to private school?

      Others have mentioned that these would not be considered contests, so my example is irrelevant. I'll concede that, but you'd still have a situation where someone who did no work is treated more favorably by the tax man than someone who worked for $180,000. That hardly seems like a tax system that I'd support. The logic in my head is "Okay, I can give someone $180,000 and they get to keep all of it. If they clean my kitchen first, they only get to keep 2/3 of it." Wha??? Why reward the one who hasn't done any work?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    90. Re:A dream come true? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The price for a space flight on Virgin Galactic is $138,000. No doubt the ticket is "non-transferable", making the secondary market non-existent. Just take your tax rate and use this formula:
      EXTRA_PAYMENT = ( award_value * tax_rate ) / (1 - tax_rate)

      In this guy's case, the award value was $138,000 and the tax rate was apparently 0.18 (since he had to pay $25,000). That means Oracle would have had to write him a check for $30,487.80 to cover taxes (and taxes on the tax reimbursement). I mean, I just made that formula up, but I'm pretty sure that's correct. You don't have to do this iteratively - it would be silly to keep writing checks! If you only do it once, the government can only tax you once.

      I don't really have a problem with the "value" of the spaceflight, as long as it is accurately reflected all the way down the line in the accounting. Presumably, Oracle would write off a $138,000 expense and Virgin Galactic would receive a $138,000 check. If that's not how it works, then yeah - I have a problem with it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    91. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, somebody who doesn't get it. If you think something is bad, and you run away or ignore it, you're a coward. If you think something is bad about your country, and you try to fix it, you're a patriot. The way to do that in a democracy is to first inform voters of the problem.

      If you keep catching that short bus to school like a good little boy, you'll learn about all of this. You may not come from a long line of it-getters, but you can be the first.

    92. Re:A dream come true? by lazyl · · Score: 1

      Oops. I stand corrected.

      --
      Aw crap, ninjas!
    93. Re:A dream come true? by WetCat · · Score: 1

      A difference here: you can sell the luxury car - so it has a value. But you cannot sell a space trip, designated for you. only.

    94. Re:A dream come true? by MikeJ9919 · · Score: 1

      Oh please...if there's anything the government's good at, it's getting their money. You don't think the IRS would be prosecuting you for tax fraud if you tried this? They've been collecting a tax for the past century intended to fund the Spanish-American War!

    95. Re:A dream come true? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what they're doing now. If they didn't tax contest winnings, then they wouldn't get their money. Oracle would write off the contest payout and the government would lose that revenue.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    96. Re:A dream come true? by phil.bachman · · Score: 1

      I don't see how that's a loophole. Assuming you're not working for GM or some other auto manufacturer, the party providing you with the car will have had to pay the appropriate sales taxes on said car. Thus, the government gets its cut. It doesn't really matter who pays the taxes as long as someone pays them. The problem is that things have been twisted not to be that way. In the current system, the car would be taxed twice, with the "prize" tax occurring at a ludicrous rate.

    97. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Education" most definitely isn't "bad". According to the OECD it's pretty much the best in the world.

    98. Re:A dream come true? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      if they wanted to give you $138,000 after taxes then they'd give you $168,293 as they probably have some half-way competent accountants. it's not that hard.

    99. Re:A dream come true? by gkhan1 · · Score: 1

      I am the number one google search result for mac fanboy

      You're also a top result for whiney.

    100. Re:A dream come true? by hjf · · Score: 1

      well, yes, but in the end you get to have a pretty decent life. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ GDP_(PPP) ), but with our salaries, we cannot afford to have many luxuries. Sure, we get paid 1/10 of what they pay in Europe, but still it's enough to have cable (US$20 a month, 80 channels), cell phone (US$ 0,33 a minute, US$ 0,03 each SMS), broadband (US$ 40, 1,2mbps to 5mbps --dont remember that price), and eating meat (one of the world's finest, mind you) every day of the week. But, we cannot afford luxuries such as good education, security, decent politicians, etc.

      Not calling you a racist, but when you talk about the immigrants, I totally understand you. It's annoying to have people who aren't even supposed to be there, and they get you in trouble. We have some of that here too, people from Paraguay or (most of them) Bolivia. Poor people who have been through hell and want some decent living for them too, and they come to live here in Argentina. People from here, go instead to Spain.

      You'll see on the news that spanish people are doing some demonstrations in Spain against the immigrants. A trend that's repeating all over Europe now. But they do it for all the wrong reasons. Many of them are in there just "against the immigrants", who will ruin their race or whatever (which is not true, for example we in Argentina are 90% white, immigrant-descendant, mostly from Spain and Italy). That's not right, you may claim that immigrants increase the delinquency or something, which may be true (but that's because the system won't allow them to "legalize" themselves. If government finds them, they get deported. That doesn't happen here in Argentina, you could ask for citizenship and you are likely to get it). That's a shame, Europe is in serious need for workforce, and the Xenophobia is doing nothing for them. We in Argentina received the Europeans when there were wars, and Argentina was a MUCH better country than European countries at the time (1910-1950). Now Europe is good and people want their piece of the cake, but no, you cannot have it. That's wrong.

      I was trying to say, you (not you in particular) should try to understand why immigrants go to Europe, or the US. I wouldn't like to leave behind everything I own and everything I know, to go to another country, where they don't even speak the same language, and where they will treat me as trash just because I wasn't born there. Even less if, because of that, I would never be able to be part of that, living in the underground, hiding from the police, etc. There should be a VERY GOOD reason why people would do that. Sure, there are the smart-asses who think they'd go and make a lot of money right now, and those are the ones that fail and sooner or later come back. But there's people who really need the money, and they go, out of desperation. Most of them are lied to, they find out Europe is not the paradise someone promised. But they're stuck there, because it's even worse at home.

      That's why manifestations against "immigrants" make me sick. You should make them against crime, against violence, or even better, pro-integration of the immigrants. But why AGAINST them? There's room for everyone. Not being born in some place is not a reason to hate someone.

      Forgot to mention, Europe is moving their "dirty industries" to Latin America and other poor countries. Finnish Botnia is making a H U G E paper pulp mill in Uruguay (and keeping their Paper factories in Finland). Is that because they want to share their wealth with us, the poor, or is it because they're going to pollute so much that Europe won't let them build that factory? Why don't they make the paper factory in Uruguay too, so Uruguay can sell paper to Europe (and no the cheap paper pulp)? Anyway, when pollution gets more serious, expect to see more immigrants in Europe.

    101. Re:A dream come true? by Aptgetupdate · · Score: 1

      No, that isn't true at all. If you received the car as a bonus, you didn't "win" it by gambling -- it's "compensation" for work you've done, so the value of the car would be taxable income just as your paycheck, your stock options and your other assets.

      If they tried to pretend it's a contest that you're "winning" they'd be prosecuted for rigging a gambling system.

      Of course, this comes down to the simple flaw that no one who really wants a luxury car would be willing to have only enough cash in the bank to rent a studio apartment.

    102. Re:A dream come true? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      We are waiting to win the spine lottery.

      Hopefully it will not be too taxing.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    103. Re:A dream come true? by KagatoLNX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, in higher mathematics it has already been determined that, under the right circumstances, a sum with an infinite number of values can converge to a finite number. In the case of a simple percentage like this, I believe as long as it is less than 100%, the sum will converge.

      Why not just pay him $168,292.68. 18% tax on that yields $30,292.68 leaving $138,000.00. How is this not possible?

      Even if there are other taxes, as long as they don't go over 100%, a finite sum must exist. Furthermore, there are numerical algorithms that can be used to optimize the most stubborn of these sorts of problems by doing trials with differing values attempting to calculate this.

      Infinite sums aside, banks, real estate agents, and title companies make the same calculations every day. It's really not rocket science.

      --
      I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
    104. Re:A dream come true? by aoeuid · · Score: 1

      That would open a huge loophole. I could work for a year at minimum wage in a high-tech job and then get "paid" with a luxury car. In your system, I'd only get taxed for the approximately $5/hr and not the $60,000 luxury car.

      I'm pretty sure that in Canada, where I am from, all contests specifically exclude employees or relatives of employees. If a company has a contest with a free car being the prize, no employee or immediate relative of an employee is eligible by law to win this car. So not taxing prize winnings does not really open up this loophole in countries that don't tax prize winnings.

      Additionally, in Canada, you must be able to answer a skill testing question in order to win the prize. Supposedly, this changes things from mere gambling, and also, most contests must be open to everyone, and there is usually a process for non-customers to be involved in the contest for free by sending in for a ballot by mail.

    105. Re:A dream come true? by Supermuttonpie · · Score: 1

      That's what fringe benefit tax is for in most the UK and other countries, I'm not sure if the US has it.

    106. Re:A dream come true? by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 1

      Is it logical that because you can't pay the tax on a trip, you don't get anything nor does the government since nothing gets transfered? I could then have a lottery for a trip to Mars put the money in a fund and keep the interest. Since nobody could pay the taxes on such a trip, I don't ever have to send them. So because the government won't get money from you, you can't go and the government still gets nothing. Except maybe the tax on the interest from my fraud. How logical is that? That's like a child deciding since he can't have a new bike, he should then smash his neighbor's so they both can be deprived of a bike. Now if ORACLE had to pay the tax it's a different matter. Then you wouldn't be able to fraudulently claim a contest and the government still gets its share. The real problem with the current system is the government gets every penny eventually anyway. Say I pay you $100,000. You pay 1/3 immediately in taxes. Now I buy something, the governments gets 1/3 of the sellers profit, plus sales tax etc. Every time any piece of that money changes hands the tax man takes more. Eventually the entire $100,000 gets paid to the government. In many cases, property you buy will continue to earn taxes eventually in excess of what you paid for it. Especially when as in my case the tax assessment goes up every single year.

    107. Re:A dream come true? by Roman+Coder · · Score: 1

      MOD PARENT UP!

      --
      "The future can only affect the present if there is room to write its influence off as a mistake." - Yakir Aharonov
    108. Re:A dream come true? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Where does all this money go, then? It can't just evaporate into thin air...

    109. Re:A dream come true? by Directrix1 · · Score: 0

      Its a common mistake. At first glance it does seem pretty illogical.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    110. Re:A dream come true? by deadweight · · Score: 1

      Do you REALLY want to be on the road with uninsured unregistered cars? I understand your sentiment, but there is also real life. I used to live in Florida, where they were very lax about insurance and registration on top of having no safety inspections. Uninsured piece-of-shit cars were a constant menace. My state only requires a tax and inpection when you buy the car, not every year. Airplanes require a yearly inspection by federal regulation, but no insurance is required.

    111. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A trip to space retails for $10 Million, so why is he being taxed as if his prize was only worth $130,000?

    112. Re:A dream come true? by hjf · · Score: 1

      Well, a friend of mine sells networking gear. Every week we get quotation requests for such things as Motorola Canopy wireless links, or 3com 10G Ethernet switches. Almost USD 500.000 a week in network gear alone. And that's for the province alone. The national government spends more even. The government-owned bank recently spent USD 38.000 on a Fluke protocol analyzer. They thought they could use that for certification of the network. Well, they can't.

      But the real spending is in, let's call it "unemployment insurance": the government just gives away $150 a month (USD 50) to basically anyone who shows up and asks for it (they get the votes that way). Also, the gov't is saving a lot of money too. Recently we finished paying our debt with the IMF (international monetary fund) for USD 10 billion. Now we are recovering from that payment.

      The government is proud to announce that they reduce spending every month, and that there's even more and more "superavit". But they don't reduce taxes, no sir. They are even more aggressive now in enforcing the payment of taxes. But they are just aggressive, they don't make it any easier for you or your pocket.

      So the short answer is: they steal all that money. And when they don't steal it, they "give it away to the poor". They give them fish. They don't teach them how to fish. An ignorant person is another vote in your pocket.

    113. Re:A dream come true? by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

      WoW, that's interesting view on things!

      Everything is heavily taxed left and right, that's true. But i don't think in case of a car govt. doesn't own it, what you pay
      for is right to use public roads so to speak.

      Yeah, as long as car is registered --> there's a tax just for owning it here.

    114. Re:A dream come true? by tdelaney · · Score: 1

      Australia makes this very simple.

      If you are not a "professional gambler" you do not pay taxes on winnings of any kind. So if you win the lottery, you can happily keep it all.

      A "professional gambler" is someone who is in the "business" of gambling, decided on a case-by-case basis (by the courts if the gambler challenges the decision). There are not many people classified as "professional gamblers".

    115. Re:A dream come true? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "Everything is heavily taxed left and right, that's true. But i don't think in case of a car govt. doesn't own it, what you pay
      for is right to use public roads so to speak."


      My Federal and state income tax dollars are what build the roads. My vehicle registration and vehicle taxes are what pay for the offices, water, electricity, and employment required to run the offices in charge of vehicle registration and vehicle taxes, with enough left over to line someone's pocket higher up in the food chain.

      "as long as car is registered --> there's a tax just for owning it here"

      In most US states, you can't have an unregistered car, regardless of whether you drive it or whether it even functions.

      If you think you own your car, try not driving it for a year and refusing to register it or pay taxes on it using that as your reason. If you think you own your home, try not paying property taxes on it.

      If you had a word to describe an individual or entity which allowed you entry and use of a house in exchange for a monetary fee paid to that individual or entity, and who/which could force you to vacate the premisis on the basis of your failure to maintain payment for entry and use of that house, what would that word be?

      Landlord.

      Buying your own home means you have one less landlord - it does not mean you own anything.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    116. Re:A dream come true? by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

      I'm not against immigrants in whole, but many of them cause problems. I'd like to just see that certain groups wouldn't get as
      easily citizenship here as they do currently, and that they would be kciked out of here more easily if they cause harm.

      There are good immigrants too, and many of them really put effort in to their life etc. That's good, more immigrants like that are
      welcome!

      But those, who come here, get the citizenship automatically, exploit the social welfare to the maximum, hell, some even get free
      BRAND NEW cars, and they seek them BRAND NEW apartments for rental etc. and then they go out at night with knives and their herds
      to rob people, that ain't right.

      Infact, not even the extent what they get from social welfare ain't right, just because their culture is different, shouldn't
      give them immediately right for everything they want to! That ain't right, they are being treated BETTER than native Finnish
      people. Oh yeah, i'm from a immigrant family line too, our family came to Finland sometime in 1800-century, thru Russia from
      Germany. Afaik, couple generations was spent in Russia. Oh yeah, there's some people carrying the same last name as i do, who
      have made a difference to the good, in Finnish history.

      It's good that immigrants come to Finland, let's Finland grow. Hell, i'd say that upto 5% of total population should be increased
      each year via immigration! Makes us stronger as a nation. But those bastards who exploit & abuse the system and rob, rape and
      kill Finnish people should be hanged! But no, they just get more from social welfare ! ! >_

      Finland has one of the best social welfares, which brings to here many of those *holes. Here, if you don't want to, you don't
      necessarily need to do ANYTHING but fill in couple forms each month and you'll get by, no luxuries tho, but if you are immigrant,
      you just might easily get some luxuries also.

    117. Re:A dream come true? by 2short · · Score: 1

      "If you'll think about it for a minute ... Police haven't done squat to stop crime ... The system is broken."

      If I think about it for a moment, I note that I live in a society where my chances of being the victim of violent crime are radically lower than any other place or time known to man. You'll forgive my limited enthusiuasm for completely junking our current law enforcement system.

      "a private sector force who I knew was actually on my side"

      Why would they be on your side, if I hire them and say (falsely) that you stole from me?

    118. Re:A dream come true? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Is it logical that because you can't pay the tax on a trip, you don't get anything nor does the government since nothing gets transfered? I could then have a lottery for a trip to Mars put the money in a fund and keep the interest. Since nobody could pay the taxes on such a trip, I don't ever have to send them. So because the government won't get money from you, you can't go and the government still gets nothing. Except maybe the tax on the interest from my fraud. Actually, some company, somewhere down the line has to have this trip as a line item in their expenses. That comes out of profit, which the government taxes. As long as the cost of the trip is consistently accounted for, the government doesn't really care if you keep the money in the bank or give it away - they get to tax it as income either way.

      On the other hand, if we let this guy get away without paying any taxes, then Oracle still gets their write-off, but there is no compensating revenue for the government.

      I'm not sure what you are getting at with the income tax/money changing hands thing. If you buy an investment house for $100,000 and then sell it for $400,000 you will only get taxed on $300,000. That $100,000 has already been taxed and will not be again. The only example of double-taxation that I can think of from the Feds is when a corporation pays out a dividend. The dividend is not counted as a cost, so the corporation must pay taxes on it. Then, the holder of the stock pays taxes on it a second time. The same thing will happen if you consult as a C-corp.
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    119. Re:A dream come true? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, read the above comments - my example was pretty poor, but I expanded on my original comment later in the thread.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    120. Re:A dream come true? by renfrow · · Score: 1

      I've heard of people complaining about dying, but, never a complaint about being dead.

    121. Re:A dream come true? by rkanodia · · Score: 1

      I'm so glad that Lord Foggypants is here to protect the fiefdom! Sure, I have to labor in the fields for 12 hours a day, but what's that compared to the cost of safety and security?

    122. Re:A dream come true? by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

      Here you can have an unregistered car, altho, you cannot drive it in public roads, only closed areas, and i think you can drive it
      on your own private road too and of course on your own yard. Many here has unreg cars, mainly for "field cars" (for kids to learn to drive somewhat safely and have fun), race cars and of course show cars.

      My grandpa is a car enthusiast, and it goes in the blood ;) That's not a problem, but it costs 160e to re-register that car, and
      they are VERY TIGHT on what they allow back to the roads.

      But the rules on what you can do to your car and drive it at public roads are VERY TIGHT, they loosened it couple years back
      fortunately to allow enhancing safety without modified percentages.

      Also here costs when you own a house and mortgage is paid, living costs under half of what on rental, and many do so that they
      get mortgage to buy a house and they pay about the same as rental would be but paying away the debt. Personally, i hate all
      debts to a great degree.

      But rights are quite limited as you say, and it would be really good if those would be relaxed, and you REALLY owned what you
      owned, meaning you could do anything with your house as long as it's not hazardous to neighbours, but nope.
      So you are right there, only thing you've paid for is to have one less landlord :(

    123. Re:A dream come true? by 8472 · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for the American tax system but in the UK there has been a number of anti-avoidance rules added throughout the years to stop people avoiding tax by receiving goods as a form of remuneration. It did actually use to be the case in the UK that people would be paid in speed boats, race horses etc in order to avoid income tax (and national insurance contributions).

      Interestingly enough the situation you describe above where an employee is "paid in cars" but is then taxed on the sale of the car does not hold true in the UK... cars are specifically exempted from capital gains tax. Even if this was not the case, saying that the sale will be taxed elsewhere has never stopped governments in the past. You only have to look at inheritance tax in the UK where income an individual has earned throughout their lifetime (and paid income tax on) is then taxed again on death.

      On a slightly more on topic note... betting, gambling and lottery winnings are exempt from income tax in the UK :-)

    124. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "See, in health insurance, there's a big problem called adverse selection: only people who will need it, buy the insurance.

      Right. And thats why I buy fire insurance, because I need to burn down my house. Or car insurance, because I need to ram my car into walls at high speeds.

      There's a big problem in health insurance, but that isn't it.

      reasonably priced catastrophic insurance

      Health insurance hasn't been catastrophic insurance for decades, and that's the big problem.

    125. Re:A dream come true? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Health insurance hasn't been catastrophic insurance for decades, and that's the big problem.

      I agree.

      Right. And thats why I buy fire insurance, because I need to burn down my house. Or car insurance, because I need to ram my car into walls at high speeds.

      The analagous situations (to someone with a serious condition shopping for health insurance) would be someone shopping around for fire insurance while his house is on fire, or for car insurance just after crashing his car.

      There's a big problem in health insurance, but that isn't it.

      I agree adverse selection itself is not a big problem.

    126. Re:A dream come true? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      You're also a top result for whiney.

      Hmmmmn, doesn't work for me.... I'm on the second page of results...

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    127. Re:A dream come true? by Frogbert · · Score: 2, Funny

      when going to trainstations, there's people who might try to beat you off just because you don't give them a cigarett or you look
      too good for their liking or rich.
      Sounds great to me.
    128. Re:A dream come true? by hjf · · Score: 1

      well, that's true. It happens here in Argentina too. The problem, as you state, don't seem to be the immigrants, but the system that lets them do whatever they want. In any case, the problem with anti-immigration is the reason that drives people to go and hate the immigrants: xenophobia. Not insecurity. They, with the excuse of "immigrants are murdering and raping us", try to kick out every immigrant, even the ones that work and help the country grow.

      You can see that in the Spain thing I was telling you about. A bunch of kids are gathering all over Spain to beat the hell out of immigrants, just for the hell of it, under the premise that "immigrants are killing all of us". So, vigilante justice seems to be the solution. I wonder what they will go after they have killed all the immigrants.

      Soon, you'll see the movie "American History X" repeating itself in Europe, like when they destroyed the chinese guy's store because he used illegal immigrants to run the shop.

      I found that part very funny: it keeps happening in the US, many Americans justify that kind of violence, because they think they deserve to have the job (just because they are Americans), not the immigrants because these are illegal (illegal or legal, they are all illegal to these narrow-minded kind of americans). Yet, they blindly promote liberal capitalism, which is basically to do just anything you need to do, to get what you want. Well, having immigrants is cheaper than Americans. Sorry. That's just the way it is. If you want to work, you'll get paid what a Mexican gets paid. Else, you can go to hell. That's basically what American companies do in Mexico: this is what you'll get paid. If you don't like it, well fuck you. We won't pay you more. There's someone that will do the job for this money. That's what americans call "eat your own dog food".

    129. Re:A dream come true? by gay358 · · Score: 1

      Forgot to mention, Europe is moving their "dirty industries" to Latin America and other poor countries. Finnish Botnia is making a H U G E paper pulp mill in Uruguay (and keeping their Paper factories in Finland). Is that because they want to share their wealth with us, the poor, or is it because they're going to pollute so much that Europe won't let them build that factory? Why don't they make the paper factory in Uruguay too, so Uruguay can sell paper to Europe (and no the cheap paper pulp)?

      I don't know about other industries, but as far as I know, modern paper industry doesn't have to be that polluting anymore. And I think paper industry is mainly interested earning money for their shareholders and it is not that important for them whether they do it in Finland or in Latin America. If there will be mass movement because of pollution, the source for that must be something else than modern paper industry, which hasn't caused too much troubles even in Finland, which has relatively clean environment.

      Nowadays Finland has Nokia, but paper industry is still quite important source of money for Finnish society. Paper industry pays lot of taxes directly and the wages at paper factories are known to be quite high even for those with low education level. And that is why most Finns are afraid that pulp and paper industry is starting to move to other countries. We don't want them to leave Finland, but with globalisation and international stock markets, moving to countries where the distance to cheap raw material source and/or customers is lower, wages are lower etc is inevitable.

    130. Re:A dream come true? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      As for the cost of the trip, it should be based on what Oracle paid for it. The accountants have that trip marked off on a balance sheet somewhere - that should be the value.

      But...The company that Oracle paid for the trip has already declared that as income. Why should the income be taxed twice? Because the income tax system makes absolutely no sense, of course!

      But at least it does make a little bit of sense. Looking for a precedent in a case like this, I was able to find one... Turner vs. Commissioner. Someone steamship tickets from a radio station. The tickets were non-transferable. The court agreed to value the tickets at only 2/3 of the fair market value, "because [the taxpayers] would not have purchased them for themselves". This is an even more pronounced case of the same thing. Not only would the guy not be willing to purchase the trip for himself at fair market value, he wouldn't even be willing to purchase the trip for 18% of the fair market value.

    131. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just some clarification - when he said 70% tax on gasoline, he meant 70% of the price on the station is tax. In other words, it's about 233% tax added to the raw price. To my knowledge, it's required by the European Union, so all countries in the EU have this tax on similar levels. The price of gasoline on stations is about ~1.5$/liter - all you american folks translate it to whatever volume measure you use.

      And for the real-life example - I (here in Poland) have to deal with a monthly income of ~150euros. Take that you rich bastard! >:^( The taxes to pay are (roughly) the same... That's what you get with a lousy (euro)socialist government...

    132. Re:A dream come true? by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you are getting at with the income tax/money changing hands thing. If you buy an investment house for $100,000 and then sell it for $400,000 you will only get taxed on $300,000.

      No you get taxed without even selling the house every single year. Then get taxed again when you do . What I was getting at is the government gets all the money no matter if they tax you on a trip or not. The government makes money even if no money actually changes hands. Taxes are assessed if they even think you could get $400,000 on a house. You don't get your tax assessment back if you can't sell it for that.

    133. Re:A dream come true? by Mean+Ass+Troll · · Score: 0

      actually 6 an 7 are the same thing...

      insurance companies only want to offer insurance to people that dont need it. is this adverse selection too? you dont hear any wise assed economists lipping of about how insurance companies rip off everything they touch.

      you do hear about people with disproportianate life insurance policies referred to as lottery winners, or criminals, but when the policy was bought insurance gladly took the premium, they just cry foul to try an weasel out of paying--the gambit is a poor beneficiary may not be able to afford court to enforce payment. this is very old sophist technique

      term life insurance is the pinnacle embodiment of this principle

      rationally speaking, why would anyone buy something they dont need?

      solution ? simple. amke health coverage mandatory offering, at set price, hire a government actuary to do it, one that is accountable to the public.
      if cost of providing such healthcare insurance is less then massive profit insurance companies usually make
      then result = no "market failure" just pissing and moaning about paper losses, cost etc.
      the true test? insurance can claima loss, but if they were really losing money they would close up shop. when was the last time you ever heard of an insurance company going under?

    134. Re:A dream come true? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      More importantly, who decided that the trip was worth $138,000?

      Presumably that's how much Oracle paid for it. In this case the trip is being given away by a different company than the one who is providing the trip.

    135. Re:A dream come true? by gay358 · · Score: 1

      You gotta watch over your shoulder on our capital city and nearby cities when going to trainstations, there's people who might try to beat you off just because you don't give them a cigarett or you look too good for their liking or rich. Well, of course things like that happen and railway station during nightime is probably not the safest place to be, but IMHO you are exaggerating. Even during nightime at railway station the risk for getting into that kind of troubles is quite low and most people aren't afraid of being there even during nightime.

      None of those are Finnish, but mostly immigrants and such. (Now i will be called a racist). If you say that none of those troublemakers are Finnish, then you are clearly racist.

      Education is bad, healthcare seems to be more like deathcare etc.

      Of course there are some troubles, but I don't think you give accurate information. For example the PISA study ranked Finnish school system among the top countries.

    136. Re:A dream come true? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but if I had to rely on, for example, a private sector police force to come help when something's happening, I don't think I'd be in the country for much longer.

      Do you actually have any stories of times when a public police officer, while on-duty, has helped you? In my experience I think I've got to conclude that my interactions with on-duty police officers, mostly during traffic stops, has been a net negative.

      "Your president demands payment for his services. Please send $5,000 per household to the White House immediately, or we'll call Reality Squad and make it a civil war. You have thirty seconds to comply. We do accept Visa and Master Card. Operators are standing by. Thank you, and may God Bless America."

      As was pointed out by another poster, this isn't very far from where we currently are. Fortunately, most income taxes aren't imposed on poor people like me, though.

    137. Re:A dream come true? by gkhan1 · · Score: 1

      You're last on the first page for me.

    138. Re:A dream come true? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Ahh. The Feds are a totally different system than the county/city that you pay property tax to. AFAIK, the Feds cannot collect a property tax. For better or for worse "The Government" is not a single entity in the US. Very little coordination exists at all when it comes to taxes.

      I thought you were arguing that the Feds get a piece of every dollar that gets transacted, which isn't really the case.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    139. Re:A dream come true? by hjf · · Score: 1

      Partly true. But still, corporations are moving their "dirty industries" elsewhere. You see, here, we don't have ROHS, so we don't worry about lead in solder. Our legislation isn't that tight regarding ecology, and if it is, you can always pay to make it a little more relaxed. Or pay someone to look the other way.

      So, suppose you have a pulp mill. In Europe, you'd need to make a lot of processing to your waste so you'd keep the rivers totally clean. Down here, you don't need to make it clean. Check out this quote:

      "The most widely used pulp bleaching technique in the world today-and the one used by Botnia and ENCE is Elemental Chlorine-free, or ECF. While cleaner than older technologies, it still releases dioxins, furans and other toxic substances. Safer yet is Totally Chlorine-Free (TCF) process which uses oxygen-based compounds instead of chlorine-based compounds.

      Botnia has chosen not to go with this cleaner technology in its Uruguayan mills, says agricultural engineer Carlos Faroppa. The Botnia spokesperson says that the decision was based not on cost, but on quality and effectiveness. The oxygen-based "TCF is hardly used around the world because the technology has not continued to advance," he said. "The fibers it produces cannot be used to manufacture quality paper."

      But Botnia does, in fact, use TCF technology at its pulp mill in Rauma, Finland, according to Arrarte. The company has not denied or confirmed this version. Botnia and ENCE's choice of the less safe process means that "Every day, millions of liters of wastewater will be dumped into the river, which will degrade it," Fray Bento activist Delia Villalba told CorpWatch."

      Source: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13111

      In short, you can see why they move here. Besides.. "The oxygen-based "TCF is hardly used around the world because the technology has not continued to advance," he said. "The fibers it produces cannot be used to manufacture quality paper.". Yeah, right. And they won't invest anything on R&D to make it better, either. Seems that it's easier to go screw someone else than to do your job.

      But the worst thing is that Uruguay and Argentina signed a treaty where they agreed not to place polluting industries in the Uruguay River. Now they ignored that and allowed the plants to install there. So you can see how things work here.

    140. Re:A dream come true? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      You are imagining a society without principle; I am imagining one with far more principle.

      Today, government systems don't have to perform. They don't have to make a profit, they don't have to solve cases, they don't have to earn their money, they don't have to make good law, and they don't have to unmake bad law. The results are obvious if you simply look: legislators do the wrong thing. Cops beat civilians and otherwise abuse them. Your social security funds were outright stolen. Campaign promises are worthless jaw flapping. We make war on innocents. The FCC crushes free speech, both by controlling the ownership of outlets with an iron hand, and via direct censorship. The 2nd amendment has eroded to a shadow of what it was intended to accomplish. The 1st amendment now has "free speech zones" and numerous other restraints, especially in print. The commerce clause is the laughingstock of the legal community because it has not so much been eroded, as parodied. Religion and its perverse, regressive views of sexuality run rampant in legislation; discrimination is enshrined in multiple state's legislation in the guise of "protecting marriage." Manners are a thing of the past. The ability to even raise children in a reasonable fashion has succumbed to the ridiculous idea that physical punishment in response to exceeding hard boundaries is a bad thing. Even very minimal criminal behavior makes citizens completely unredeemable, condemning them to a life at the very lowest levels of earnings, respect and even insurance. ex post facto law is the rule of the day. Search and seizure w/o a warrant is now law, as is breaking and entering. Land is regularly stolen by local and federal governments without even a nod towards reasonable compensation for one's ancestral home or even your scenery. Your right to a speedy trial is gone, as is your right to representation, even a phone call. Cruel and unusual punishment - even torture - is enshrined in law (see the Military Commissions Act.) The powers of the states are being subsumed by mafia-like federal tactics; for instance, state speed limits outside the bounds of what the feds want result in the withdrawal of highway funds; we used to call such actions "bribery." Judicial limits? See the above reference commerce clause and ex post facto laws for precise examples of the complete lack of such limits. The 13th amendment enshrines slavery as a federal right, the most disgusting clause in the entire constitution. The very president of the country is breaking laws left and right, and there he sits, protected by the apathy of idiots. But hey... amendment 3 remains intact. They can't make you accept soldiers for "sleep-overs." Aren't you glad?

      Your world is crashing all around your ears; why you are deaf to this, I cannot say, but I can certainly say that I am not.

      A society certainly needs guidelines, and the police need them more than anyone. I'm not saying they should be without them, as you appear to be imagining; I am saying they need to be motivated to do the right thing. The current system doesn't do that (and neither do cops, naturally enough) and this is the basis forming my urge to see the system change. It is my opinion that a positive version of change could come from the conjunction of advancing technology and security forces that are highly motivated to protect the flock (rather than to write tickets or pretend that ruining some poor teenager's life for drug use or sexual experimentation across some stupid age boundary serves a purpose.) Soon, we'll actually know if people are lying or not, and that will change the entire face of criminal law, or at least, it should. I am both tired of innocents being found on death row -DEATH ROW for fucks sake - and of obvious criminals being let free because the cops can't be bothered to follow a few simple frigging rules.

      As things stand, the areas that need the most coverage - ghettos and run down neighborhoods - get the least. Businesses get the most, because they leverage the system from

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    141. Re:A dream come true? by gay358 · · Score: 1

      So, suppose you have a pulp mill. In Europe, you'd need to make a lot of processing to your waste so you'd keep the rivers totally clean. Down here, you don't need to make it clean. This is of course a risk, but one shouldn't be techno luddite, but to work for implementing tight enough regulation system for industry instead of banning it. And by industry I mean pulp and paper industry and also the production of trees (or some other source of raw material). I don't know well enough Uruguay or Argentina to comment how that kind of things could be established -- and what kind area we are talking about. But I would say that most Finns are more than happy that there is still a lot pulp and paper industry in Finland and even though there are some negative effects because of this industry, those effects are really small compared to to the money that the industry creates. Perhaps it would help if some skeptical Argentines would come here to see themselves how little negative effects these plants cause if they are modern.

      But Botnia does, in fact, use TCF technology at its pulp mill in Rauma, Finland, according to Arrarte. The company has not denied or confirmed this version. Botnia and ENCE's choice of the less safe process means that "Every day, millions of liters of wastewater will be dumped into the river, which will degrade it," Fray Bento activist Delia Villalba told CorpWatch." I think Rauma pulp mill was 10 years ago the first pulp mill that used only TCF technology to bleach pulp. But about a year ago year they announced that they are starting to use also ECF processing at Rauma pulp mill. And one should remember that using ECF or TCF technology is just part of the picture. The amount of pollution depends to large part on that particular plant how those technologies they are implemented -- and I think this is something you should perhaps be more concerned about.
    142. Re:A dream come true? by 2short · · Score: 1

      You imagine a lot of things...

      I do not imagine, but observe, that while there are many things about our current society that I do not like (some of which you touch upon), it is, on the whole, working better than any other society ever has. Of all real societies that do exist or have existed on earth, I would like to live in the one I do (or at least, in some modern, industrialized, western democracy; which one makes little difference)

      You it seems, would desperately prefer to live in the world as you imagine it would be after your radical reforms. As I do not think it would work out so well, I'll take the real, pretty good world I've got.

      You seem particularly incensed about the horrors of crime. Statistically, I can expect to live my entire life without ever being the victim (or perpetrator) of a violent crime. Historically, that is unheard of. Any thoughts why the society you see as so disfuctional is so fabulously successful on this front?

    143. Re:A dream come true? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      Any thoughts why the society you see as so disfuctional is so fabulously successful on this front?

      Yes. First of all, it's largely an illusion; crimes are being perpetrated in your general direction, you just fail to notice - you kept paying the excise tax on your phone bill, right? Ever catch on that it was being levied for the Spanish American war? That's just the tip of an iceberg of abuse you've been paying coin to all your life. Secondly, the overall stats are averages, and while some segments of society are indeed very robbery/mugging "personal" crime free, that is not true of the least fortunate levels of society, who are suffering as the resources they need, are all being spent on other levels of society. Thirdly, to say that a nine strap beating is better than the ten, eleven, and fifteen strap beatings others are receiving, is in no way sufficient to discredit the idea that no beating at all is the target, and that reducing from 9 is still the way you want to go to get there.

      The US is chock full of injustice. For instance, there's this guy. Just because it hasn't crossed your path, doesn't mean it isn't out there, that it isn't pervasive, that it isn't important. it just means you're not paying attention. You've bought the cool aid, and you're happy to drink it. I'm not. I truly believe you are living in an imaginary world, in the sense that things are not what you think they are. That goes for most of the middle class.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    144. Re:A dream come true? by ckedge · · Score: 1

      Crap! Looking at the weather reports for Argentina while sitting here in Toronto during a blizzard, I was really really hoping there'd be a nice place or two in Argentina to take a 2 or 3 week vacation next Jan/Feb. (I really like the idea of sunshine from 5am till 8:30pm along with the warm/hot weather - as opposed to places closer to the equator where the sun still goes down at 6pm despite it being warm out. Nothing better than living in a place where the sun doesn't set until 9/9:30pm in the middle of summer.)

    145. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lies! I'm from Finland, too.

      Back when I was working, I only had around 30% income tax I recall. That 60% figure is the default used if you don't give your employer your tax information, they're required by the law to take 60%. Also, you can opt out from part of the church fee if you don't belong to church. Not all of it, though, which I find ridiculous. Progressive taxation sucks anyway, if man in the family earns more than woman (or the other way around), the family gets taxed more even if the sum stays the same. For yearly wages of 47500+7500 versus 27500+27500, which both sum up to 55000, the latter is almost 3000 euros more money after the taxes.

      Also, living in the central capital, my 40m2 apartment costs me around 600 euros per month. It's a little cheaper in more distant areas, but 450e for larger than mine sounds crazy. This cannot be anywhere around the capital area, right?

      Social security works but isn't all that good. Some of my friends have had their payments delayed and nearly gotten thrown out of their apartments. One lost a month of social security money because he was late from the appointment with the social security people by a whole 5 minutes, and they decided to leave work early instead of waiting. There are also some 11000 homeless people in Finland with around 6000 them in capital area. Only a few of them sleep on the streets/parks, though, due to cold winters. They tend to find some place to go, and there are cafes that allow people to stay in overnight if they can sleep while sitting on a bench/chair. Then again, there are warm spots in some of the parks near some electric facilities which vent out hot air. Those are quite nice during the winter if you can't get indoors.

      Also, social security gets reduced if you refuse to do work, but it can be tough to do work when you're homeless. There aren't always apartments available, and when there are you might get one with mold growing in it. Go ahead and complain that you have a medical condition that prevents you from living there, either you live there and suffer or you don't get an apartment at all.

    146. Re:A dream come true? by 2short · · Score: 1

      I specifically referenced violent crime in a desperate attempt to focus the discussion. I do not beleive I am the victim of any violent crime of which I am unaware.

      I pay a variety of taxes which our society originaly instituted for a variety of purposes. Some are stupid. Describing them as "crimes" pointlessly confuses the issue.

      All levels of our society are, by historical standards, very "personal" crime free. When I said before I would prefer our current society to any other that had really existed, I did mean for someone in roughly my social position. But if I were going to be in the lower strata of a society, would I prefer it be ours than any other? Definitely; many times more so.

      "The US is chock full of injustice."

      Compared to what? Your imagined libertarian paradise, or some society that has actually existed in the real world? I'm not disputing that modern US society could use improvement. Certainly there is work to do.

      But you are advocating junking what I percieve to be the best system achieved so far, in favor of something entirely untested with what look to me like obvious problems. Based on emotional appeals to individual tragic cases in opposition to clear and massive statistical trends. Thanks, I'll pass.

    147. Re:A dream come true? by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

      That's very much true. In fact, that's happening here too, those kids are called Nazis & Skinheads.
      They sometimes achieve making places secure, but i think they attack immigrants because they like to pick a fight mainly, and that
      they have done some bad stuff just justifies their means. Fortunately, by time, many of those grow up, and stop doing shit like
      that.

      A nearby town was very insecure for a period of couple years, LOTS of immigrants, you name it, they were there, from any part of
      the world. The thing was that part of them hated Finns, so there was A LOT of robberies & fights and a few rapes got into the
      newspapers etc. Finally skinheads came in, beated the hell outta of those guys doing the main stuff, and they haven't come back.

      There was also a lot of action on another nearby town, it was for months every now and then on the news, immigrants called us
      racists, media went along with them, except some smaller newspapers dared to release some statistics of that area AFAIK. Couple
      years later i moved to this very same town, i once saw a black guy running like hell, 1 minute later couple skinheads came from
      same direction, looked around and started running again and then 5 minutes later a police car drove by.

      I've been attacked by immigrants too, almost without a reason, he stole something from me of value of under 1, and i said him
      to give it back to me, and he attacked me, directly jabbed with his forehead to my nose, i was lucky that my nose didn't break.
      Then again, i do know a few of those who are nice guys, they do their work, support their families and live their lifes like good
      people, like anyone else. It's just that, those people ain't visible to the masses! And thus the whole group is hated, as no one
      sees the other side of coin :(

    148. Re:A dream come true? by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

      Are you Finnish? Have you gone thru the Finnish schooling system? Have you seen someone close to you have a fatal illness?
      I've been there, i've done that.

      It really isn't that rosy as the studies give impression.

      Best part of Finnish school system? Free warm food every day.
      They say it's free, which is untrue completely! You pay it in form of education debt, low interest yes, but no one except you
      pay for the debt, and it's 300 per month. Plus you gotta spend your every vacation working, just to get by, but dare you earn
      too much! You gotta also work at higher education, to get points, to get to graduate at all.

      Also, many of Finnish schools are riddled with mould, causing diseases, illness and allergies. My high school was one with mould,
      plus bad plumbing, and heating not working on one part of the school, now remember, here in (southern) Finland we might even see
      -30celsius. The school smelled terrible for A LONG time because smell locks for some reason either didn't exist or didn't work
      anywhere in the school, so many times during the class we had water running to stop the smell.

      Plus mould caused cough for myself, and i know one who got allergy due to that and had to leave his job, he was assisting a
      handicapped person. Fortunately, after they got the kitchen redone, the food was EXCELLENT! That was the main thing i bothered
      to be there, i got my paper outta there, but worse numbers than promised me just couple months before graduation, and i DID work
      hard for the last couple months.
      You would think that those educating themselves would be supported better, as the money spent there will be returned with
      interest later on, in the form of taxes.

      Remember, that's just the top of the iceberg!

      As for the healthcare, even smallish things might take ages to be looked upon. For example, it's very common here that cancer
      isn't getting diagnosed as soon as it should be, because doctors can't be arsed to diagnose! You are in the neighbour region? Cut
      your finger so deep it hits the bone, goto a clinic, and all they do is say "goto your home region, you've got couple hours to get
      that fixed or you'll loose your finger", and travel alone takes approx. 30minutes, perhaps 45minutes, IF you have a car. Taking
      a train will take you over an hour to get to your area's clinic.

      After a surgery, you can barely breathe and talk, and you have asthma. You gotta know to tell them to give your asthma medicine,
      and not only that, but HOW as one cannot hold the air in the lungs, and even after that you get 1 medicine at a time, even
      all of them were promised, and you gotta ask for every single one separately, and you get it after many hours of waiting. Fun?
      Try yourself to hold your breath 10secs, then breathe normally 10secs, hold 10secs and so forth.

      And yes, there are Finnish troublemakers too at the trainstations, and they are always drunk and you can just walk by, or if
      they stop you, they usually tend to be quite funny guys and it can be a fun 30minutes :) It's rare they are going to attack you.

    149. Re:A dream come true? by aarrieta · · Score: 1

      Hi. Come to visit Misiones province, on the northeastern tip of the country. We have the Iguazu Falls here, a great place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iguazu_Falls

    150. Re:A dream come true? by hjf · · Score: 1

      Avisale que se lo van a morfar los mosquitos, seguro que ni conoce lo que son jaja!!

    151. Re:A dream come true? by hjf · · Score: 1

      Sure, but what I meant was that they're starting with the wrong foot. There is a cleaner solution, but they don't use it. So, there may be cleaner ways to process everything else in the plant... they just won't use them. I'm sorry for being skeptical, but life has taught me not to trust companies that come and do business down here. They pay the government and the government looks away and they can do whatever they want. That happens all the time here in South America.

    152. Re:A dream come true? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      This used to happen in the UK back when we had high taxes. Rich people would pay themselves with gold bars or cases of vintage wine, then the government twigged and started taxing benefits in kind.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    153. Re:A dream come true? by hjf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some of that happened in Brazil a couple of years ago. Only it was a paramilitary force, the Death Squads. They came out at night with their AK's and gunned down the kids that were in the street. Hundreds of kids were murdered that way in São Paulo. They got to that situation, I think, for different reason than the Skinheads. The nazis do it just for fun. These guys did it for real, they saw it as a solution to the problem, and they systematically did that every night, for months.

      How did Brazil got to that situation? Well, years and years of ignoring the law, judges that let people free because they were minors, drug lords buying the police, etc. This is happening in Argentina too, but at a minor scale (I think because of the less dense population in the Great Buenos Aires area).

      The right-wing is trying to lower the age that minors can be judged for a crime (currently, a 17 year old kid can commit murder and basically walk free the next day, because he's a kid and he can't understand what he did, so he can't be held responsible for his own actions. Well, he doesn't actually walk free the next day. Most times, the police makes sure he can't walk the next day. Many times, they can't walk ever again.

      But the lefties hate the idea of people going to jail. They want laxer laws, they make you look like a criminal if you say minors should be in jail. And it's all going to hell, because the president is kind of a leftie. 2007 is a presidential election year, so the government is making a lot of announcements of how they managed to reduce unemployment (they count "unemployment insurance" as employment, and that way they reduce unemployment in a 2 or 3%), etc. But the media that is against the government, as usual, shows the reality. Murders, robberies, etc. Now the trend is to go into old people's houses and beat the crap out of them to rob them $200 or something, which is all they have.

      I remember a particular case. A 12 year old kid robbed an elder person. The man didn't have money, just change. He gave it to the kid. So the kid told him, so you don't have any money? Then I have to kill you. And he did. The kid just killed a man just because he didn't have money. Or kids that beat (or kill) other people and then go to the cyber-cafe around the corner to play some counter-strike!. But the lefties justify all of that. They're poor, they don't fit in society, they come from a violent background. Yeah, right. That's bullshit. They're poor because they parents don't work and have 7 to 10 kids. They don't fit in society because they have BAD MANNERS: you can see that in their houses, they throw the garbage out of the window, they yell and have loud music all the time. They come from a violent background because the father drinks and he gets violent. It's bullshit that they can't get decent education. Schools here are FREE, they even give FOOD to the kids. But no, they don't like school. So, they don't get education because they DON'T WANT TO. Seems that your right to play counter-strike is more important than my right to live, down here in Argentina.

    154. Re:A dream come true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, without "enforcement of law and public order, protection of property, economic infrastructure (roads, legal tender, enforcement of contracts, etc.), education systems, health care systems" would you be able to work?

      Not a very good question in the USA. Here we allow anyone to cross our borders, we pay for their medical care, allow them to work with forged documents and allow them to ship their money to Mexico and other countries. Even terrorists can safely cross into our country to do their dirty deeds. I must guess that the only answer to your question must be YES! Please note that every cent of every dollar we pay in Income Tax goes to the Federal Reserve Bank (a private corporation) to pay part of the interest on our national debt. So we don't have "enforcement of law" little "public order" and no "protection of property". As a country we are in debt above our heads, we have fiat money, failing educational systems and health care for the rich.

    155. Re:A dream come true? by lion2 · · Score: 1

      Can they make him pay for the trip at a "heavy" discount instead? What if the contest was to win a discounted trip to space and only charge him $1? All he would have to pay is sales tax. Would that situation be allowed?

    156. Re:A dream come true? by gay358 · · Score: 1

      Are you Finnish? Have you gone thru the Finnish schooling system? Answer is yes for both questions.

      It really isn't that rosy as the studies give impression. Best part of Finnish school system? Free warm food every day. They say it's free, which is untrue completely! You pay it in form of education debt, low interest yes, but no one except you pay for the debt, and it's 300 per month.

      Nobody said that there aren't some problems, but everything is relative. And nothing changes that on the education level covered by PISA study, the Finnish school system got quite good results compared to most other developed countries.

      BTW, it is quite common that students have to pay some of their expenses usings loans, in almost all parts of world there are buildings with mould problems, it is quite rare tha the temperature would drop to -30 Celsius in southern Finland etc. You complain so much about things that are common pretty much everywhere in the world, so I am not sure if you are serious.

    157. Re:A dream come true? by John+Fulmer · · Score: 1

      We don't want to go back to bartering. Speak for yourself.

      /me takes a dozen eggs to the bank...
    158. Re:A dream come true? by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

      Some contest sponsors provide a check to cover taxes, but that income is also taxable.

      So taxes are like rocket fuel: you need to carry money to pay the taxes on the other money, plus the taxes on the big briefcase to hold the money.

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
    159. Re:A dream come true? by Runefox · · Score: 1

      I had forgotten about the criminal organization known as the IRS; Sorry, Americans.

      Police haven't done squat to stop crime

      When is it possible for a policeman to stop a mugging in a dark alley? When is it possible for a policeman to keep a bullet from entering your skull?

      Granted, there is a lot of corruption in both the Canadian and US police/judicial systems, but I would be more wary of a system wherein police forces are actual companies (think Microsoft/RIAA having a legal police force) that are trying to compete with one another. Think about that - If these private police forces rely on crime to exist, isn't it then obvious that they would create crime to keep themselves afloat? If they "stopped crime", as current police forces are supposedly incapable of doing, wouldn't that, then, mean that they, themselves, would cease to exist?

      What's to stop them from simply taking your money and brushing you aside? The law? They ARE the law. And in the case that the judicial system is replaced with a private one, as well, that would then mean that the law is in the hands of whoever has the money to buy the courts, which in turn means that whoever has the cash can change the law as he or she sees fit.

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    160. Re:A dream come true? by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      If it were up to me, there would be NO taxes and all those Republicans/Democrates would have to go elsewhere. If it were up to me, it would rain marshmallows, and donuts would grow on trees.
      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    161. Re:A dream come true? by bdln · · Score: 1

      | The state doesn't help me earn my paycheck

      "They don't? I guess you built the road you drive on yourself,"

      I pay a Gas Tax to build the roads (at least in Oregon) that I use to get to work and back.

      "personally arrested any criminals who might have accosted you during the journey"

      Income taxes to the state for State police and property taxes for county and city police. Guess that means I pay their salary in a round-about way.

      " and convinced everyone to respect private property so your company could exist in the first place."

      Well we did pass a bill a year ago that rolled back private property land use rules to those that were in place when the property was purchased by the owner at the time the law was passed. Since then it's been a uphill battle to get the various jurisdictions to actually allow folks to use their land to build a house on or sub-divide a piece of property to build a house for each of their kids. Damn local governments are hellbent on denying the land rights of everyone because they are the "only ones smart enough to know what to do" about land use planning.

    162. Re:A dream come true? by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      No one "deserves" public infrastructure, law enforcement, or a welfare state. I do not appreciate a large institution with many people payed by my own money I earn telling me I will pay them or else... Without this "so called high state of civilization" from our taxes you so espouse as being the greatest thing ever... I would still work, I would work for myself. I would still survive, and still probably be generally happy unless I was depressed or something... Granted with an anarchistic low level privative civilization I doubt the human race would be exploring space or have the capabilities to do so. But we should work towards less tax employees/accountants and more scientists. So you are incorrect in saying that we humans are dependent on taxes. We really aren't only a certain cross section of our species is dependent on taxes let me list just a few: Lawyers - to enforce laws mandated by the people doing the taxing as well as to enforce specific tax related laws Presidents - cause they are the big boss man figurehead of our lovely tax system they exist completely at the behest of the people they lead Soldiers and police cause they come and take you out of the system if you don't pay your taxes and they are the primary argument for needing taxes cause no one can protect themselves appearantly Priests ala tithes the original tax cough... its a vicious cycle and the communists are good at taxing 120% Personally I think some taxes are acceptable - I wouldn't want to live in total chaos - however i think taxing someone 3 times on a prize they won without expending any of societies resources to achieve it is a little excessive and socialistic (i.e. since one person won a trip then everyone should get a piece of his or her pie too). The human race is defined on competitiveness and he has just been taught that being smart and able to answer Java questions is pointless cause he has to take care of 100 nameless strangers through his taxes... which probably would have went to go fund our now corrupt and defunct government here in the USA (state or federal or what have you).

  2. About this taxes... by Jak+Crow · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The companies offering the prizes should be paying the taxes. 'Nuff said.

    1. Re:About this taxes... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Some contest sponsors provide a check to cover taxes, but that income is also taxable."

      Last line from the summary.

    2. Re:About this taxes... by OCedHrt · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "...owe $25,000 in taxes. Unwilling to sink into debt..."

      If $25,000 puts a software consultant into debt, it's time he looks for another job. But more likely than not, the story is just exaggerated. The issue is more of whether not the trip is worth $25,000 to Emmett.

    3. Re:About this taxes... by jeisner · · Score: 1

      ... tax experts contend there's no such thing as a free spaceflight. Some contest sponsors provide a check to cover taxes, but that income is also taxable.
      Iterate to convergence, folks.

      Do tax experts also claim that this doesn't work? The only issue I can see is that to compute the total amount needed, you must know the rest of that person's adjusted gross income for the year (so you can compute their tax rate at each step of iteration).

      I believe I've often read about corporations paying the taxes on perks they give to their senior executives. I always just assumed they iterated.
    4. Re:About this taxes... by xtracto · · Score: 0

      If $25,000 puts a software consultant into debt, it's time he looks for another job. But more likely than not, the story is just exaggerated. The issue is more of whether not the trip is worth $25,000 to Emmett.

      Personally, I think it is more about how fucked up taxes are. I agree on taxing cash prices but taxing these kind of prices is stupid. It is similar to what happens in countries like the Netherlands (or other nordic countries) where people *avoid* pay rises because sometimes having a rise of 10% they have to pay more taxes and end earning less than what they earned before the "raise".

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    5. Re:About this taxes... by Jak+Crow · · Score: 0

      I can't say I know many people with $25,000 in cash reserves to cover the cost of taxes on a trip to space prize. Can you?

    6. Re:About this taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is more of whether not the trip is worth $25,000 to Emmett.

      How is poor Emmet supposed to pay $25000 in taxes when he can't even afford his own washbasin for the jug band?

    7. Re:About this taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK:
      "this": singular
      "taxes": plural
      "about this taxes": inconsistant

    8. Re:About this taxes... by bytesex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You sound like one of those (indicted) CEOs that goes public with messages about 'people making normal living wages, you know, like 100,000.00 or so, per year'. 25K is a lot of money to just have lying around, especially if you have a family.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    9. Re:About this taxes... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is similar to what happens in countries like the Netherlands (or other nordic countries) where people *avoid* pay rises because sometimes having a rise of 10% they have to pay more taxes and end earning less than what they earned before the "raise".
      1) the Netherlands is not a "Nordic" country.
      2) there's no way that under the Dutch tax system a higher gross pay results in less net income. There used to be one threshold where that effect occurred: when you had to switch from the state health insurance to private insurance because of a pay rise, but these days it's all one insurance.

      With that said.... $25000 would definitely put this software consultant in debt. But for a trip into space I'd still be able to come up with the money.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    10. Re:About this taxes... by OCedHrt · · Score: 1

      $25,000 is a lot of money, but resulting in debt is quite extreme. At the most, maybe a dent in the retirement plan that could be made up within the year. For a childhood dream, or any dream for that matter, I think it's a small price to pay.
      And yet people wonder why opportunities always pass us by.

      Plus, he should've known that he would need to pay taxes. They're nothing new.

    11. Re:About this taxes... by Matje · · Score: 2, Informative

      Personally, I think it is more about how fucked up taxes are. I agree on taxing cash prices but taxing these kind of prices is stupid. It is similar to what happens in countries like the Netherlands (or other nordic countries) where people *avoid* pay rises because sometimes having a rise of 10% they have to pay more taxes and end earning less than what they earned before the "raise".

      Care to point to a specific example?

      You do know that the Dutch income tax works with income brackets right? you only pay the higher tariff over the income above a certain threshold. So if the pay rise bumps your income into a higher tariff group, then the higher tariff will only apply to the excess income. Since the highest tariff is 52%, there is no way that you can end up earning less.

      A quick example: You earn 49,000 euros. You get a pay rise that bumps your income to 51,000. the 52% tax bracket starts at 50,000, while you pay 42% up to the 50,000 limit. You'll pay 42% over the first 1,000 and then 52% over the next 1,000. So the 2,000 pay rise will cost you 420+520 euros in tax (47% of the pay rise). After taxes you have 1060 euros more to spend.

      I think there is a very good reason to tax these kind of prices. Quite simply if you would not tax prize money, then people would set up fake lotteries and awards to cheat the income tax.

    12. Re:About this taxes... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It is similar to what happens in countries like the Netherlands (or other nordic countries) where people *avoid* pay rises because sometimes having a rise of 10% they have to pay more taxes and end earning less than what they earned before the "raise"."

      That's an urban myth for people who employ other people who don't understand tax brackets. You can never lose money by increasing your pay unless the higher bracket is taxed at greater than 100%. I seriously doubt that is the case, anywhere!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:About this taxes... by jeisner · · Score: 1

      ... tax experts contend there's no such thing as a free spaceflight. Some contest sponsors provide a check to cover taxes, but that income is also taxable.
      Iterate to convergence, folks.

      Do tax experts also claim that this doesn't work? The only issue I can see is that to compute the total amount needed, you must know the rest of that person's adjusted gross income for the year (so you can compute their tax rate at each step of iteration).

      I believe I've often read about corporations paying the taxes on perks they give to their senior executives. I always just assumed they iterated.
      Followup: Confirmed in at least one scenario. I did a little poking around with Google. In the case of a life insurance perk, there is something called a Section 162 Double Bonus Plan. Here the company pays not only the premium and employee's tax on that benefit, but also the tax on the tax. Is this process really iterated further? Yes, judging by the $166,667 example in this article (since 1 + 0.4 + 0.4^2 + 0.4^3 + ... = 1.66667):

      What are the alternatives? The so-called 162 Double Bonus Plan is one. The company agrees to make an annual bonus of the after-tax amount necessary to pay the premium on an executive-owned life insurance policy. The company also makes a "double bonus" to cover the taxes the employee must pay on the bonus(es). Because the participant is paying taxes on the bonuses, the regulations otherwise applicable to traditional NQDC (and, in particular, the Act) are irrelevant. However, since the employer is expected to "gross up" the bonus to cover taxes, this concept is expensive and tax-inefficient. Assuming a 40% marginal tax rate, the gross cost to a Company is $166,667 to yield an after-tax bonus to the employee of $100,000.
    14. Re:About this taxes... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      You can never lose money by increasing your pay unless the higher bracket is taxed at greater than 100%.

      When multiple jurisdictions are taxing you (like federal/state/local in the US), it is possible.

      And besides that there are some corner cases. For instance, the retirement savings credit drops from 50% to 30% when you hit an AGI of $30,000. So if your AGI is $29,999 and you contributed $4000 to a Roth IRA you probably pay no taxes, but if your AGI is $30,001 and you contributed $4000 to a Roth IRA you probably do owe taxes, and more than $2 of them at that. Tax brackets generally don't work that way, but credits sometimes do.

    15. Re:About this taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think there is a very good reason to tax these kind of prices. Quite simply if you would not tax prize money, then people would set up fake lotteries and awards to cheat the income tax. Hmm. To the best of my knowledge, most countries don't tax prizes or betting winnings.

      Certainly my country (the UK) does not - and I've never heard of anyone evading tax via fake competitions or lotteries.

      There used to be a tax on sports betting winnings - but nowadays the bookmaker pays a tax on his profits.
    16. Re:About this taxes... by HistoricPrizm · · Score: 5, Funny

      Trip to space: $138,000 Taxes on trip to space: $25,000 Making a spelling error when complaining about someone else's grammar: Priceless

    17. Re:About this taxes... by mangu · · Score: 1
      companies offering the prizes should be paying the taxes.


      And how would they work out how much to pay? Income taxes are subject to so many variations that they would also need to pay for an accountant. Then they should add the value of a professional tax consultation to the prize, which would increase the tax owed, etc... I don't think this series will converge

    18. Re:About this taxes... by drsquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I think it is more about how fucked up taxes are. I agree on taxing cash prices but taxing these kind of prices is stupid.
      It's not stupid at all. Otherwise people could avoid taxes by being paid in cars, food, houses, etc.
    19. Re:About this taxes... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If $25,000 puts a software consultant into debt, it's time he looks for another job. But more likely than not, the story is just exaggerated. The issue is more of whether not the trip is worth $25,000 to Emmett.
      It must be lovely to have so much disposable income. Some of us have mortages, kid's school fees and bills to pay. My pay day means I just drift out of being overdrawn for a few days then back to debt. Heck, I had jam sandwiches for lunch today because that's all I can afford and that's with 2-3 jobs on the go. Not everyone has your options or abilities so don't diss someone because they can't magically cough up $25k.
      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    20. Re:About this taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are not a nordic country, and our tax system isn't as fucked up as you seem to think it is.

    21. Re:About this taxes... by Morosoph · · Score: 1

      Followup: Confirmed in at least one scenario. I did a little poking around with Google. In the case of a life insurance perk, there is something called a Section 162 Double Bonus Plan. Here the company pays not only the premium and employee's tax on that benefit, but also the tax on the tax. Is this process really iterated further? Yes, judging by the $166,667 example in this article (since 1 + 0.4 + 0.4^2 + 0.4^3 + ... = 1.66667): Which is, of course, 1/(0.4), ie. the sum which a 40% tax would restore unity.

      Most likely, this process isn't iterated, so that you're still left paying over 10% on the original sum. Paying "tax on tax" is a clever way of shirking that last bit, IMO, since they could instead have offered to pay enough to cover the loss in benefit, after taking tax into account.

      In Britian, calculations for VAT involve an awareness of ratios when processing turnover (7/47 of the sale price instead of 7/40 of the original); using a different perspective and applying the fraction that applies for the first perspective looks to me to be a simple con.

    22. Re:About this taxes... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Care to point to a specific example?

      I've got one in the US. It involves the retirement savings credit. When your AGI crosses the magic thresholds into a lower credit, you pay a lot more in taxes. For a married couple, the biggest threshold is at $30,000. For a single person it's at $15,000. Your credit drops from 50% to 20% at these thresholds, which equates to a maximum of a $1200 tax (for a married couple, or $600 for a single person).

    23. Re:About this taxes... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "the retirement savings credit"

      Ahhhh, yes, well...I wasn't thinking about "social welfare" type discounts, I agree that for some borderline cases (+/-$2K) a raise can sometimes mean an overall loss at tax time, paid overtime can also be "problem" in that respect.

      OTOH: You could spend the extra (in your example) $2 on unpaid leave and still retain the better tax deal! No offense, but I can't help thinking "what's for lunch" when my accountant talks about these things for more than 3min. It's kind of like financial ADD, I have to force myself to think about tax, super, ...., ummm, what's for lunch?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    24. Re:About this taxes... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      All the same, tax bands are messy. They were originally invented as a bodge, so as to provide a rough approximation to a polynomial regression without requiring a computer to work out everyone's taxes. Since then, computers have become more plentiful. I propose that tax bands should be replaced by a "simple" (for a computer; and still do-able on paper, to enable checking) polynomial regression.

      Unfortunately, this will make some people worse off and so probably is an automatic non-starter.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    25. Re:About this taxes... by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      the Netherlands is not a "Nordic" country.
      It is compared to Italy.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    26. Re:About this taxes... by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not a myth...

      There are plenty of examples where earning more money, means you end up having less to spend. For instance college expenses, over a certain income level you no longer qualify for need based aid, that means you are footing the entire bill yourself.

      Retirement contributions decrease or eliminated over a certain income level. Making more money can throw you into a higher tax bracket, or worse get you caught up in the AMT (believe me, you don't want to go there).

    27. Re:About this taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most places have employee discounts as an incentive. The difference in price is not taxed AFAIK.

      So, if you work at a car dealership you do get paid in cars, or at least part of one. Same with MS and software or most places you care to work in.

      Me? I work at a steel manufacturer :-(

    28. Re:About this taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Waterloo, Ontario (you know, University of Waterloo, etc), $25,000 would be a starter gross salary for a software consultant, and a "normal" gross salary for a computer technician consultant (my soon-to-be-changed career). $40,000 - $50,000 is a normal gross salary for a software consultant here. A very few would top $75,000.

      After taxes, $25k becomes about $20k, and $45k becomes about $33k.

      Housing here is about $700 monthly for a decent 1 bedroom. Add in food, health care, (Canada only covers you for things that kill you, not dentistry and most eyecare, for example) transportation, phone and entertainment and you're easily up to about $1300 monthly.

      On the $25k you end up with about $5k a year in your pocket to save for retirement (The government's plan will just barely feed you, and will house you in single room occupancy).

      So, here, this guy would have worked many, many years to pay those taxes. Joy...

      1 month until my electrical appreticeship! Goodbye dead-end job, 10 years ago nobody would have said that about computers... *sigh*

    29. Re:About this taxes... by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      since 1 + 0.4 + 0.4^2 + 0.4^3 + ... = 1.66667 Obviously it's the sum of the geometric series. It may be a little less surprising if you look at it like this:
      Money after taxes = money promised = M
      M = money promised * constant - taxable money * tax rate
      M = M * k - (M * k) * x
      1 = k * (1 - x)
      k = 1 / (1 - x)
    30. Re:About this taxes... by Matje · · Score: 1

      Interesting indeed. One objection though is that this example involves an optional tax credit. In effect, saving for retirement becomes more expensive. You could simply choose to save less for retirement. That wouldn't help you in the long run, but it would ensure that your disposable income didn't decrease due to a pay rise.

    31. Re:About this taxes... by MartinJW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would have thought a sponsorship deal would have been easy to come by. if he had covered himself in logos he would have had the money in no time.

    32. Re:About this taxes... by walgurf · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't be taxed in the first place.

    33. Re:About this taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, I had a jam sandwich for lunch today and I'm NOT in debt and have a wallet full of $20s. Don't knock jam sandwiches, man...

    34. Re:About this taxes... by udderly · · Score: 1

      Another example: some years back, the combined income that my wife and I earned pushed us just past the the AGI for student loan deductions. Losing that deduction actually cost us more than the increase in income.

      The other side of the argument is that eventually most people will move to an even higher income level and, in a lifetime, will recoup that loss and more.


    35. Re:About this taxes... by Knutsi · · Score: 1

      Nope, nordic in general refers to the scandinavian nations + their territories (Greenland, Spitsbergen etc.), so even if the Netherlands is more to the north than Italy, it still doesn't make it Nordic(tm).

      This is partly due to the shared history and culture of the nations labled "nordic", and the term can equally well refer to the peoples of the nordic nations. Anyone who have been both in the South of Europe and Scandinavia will tell you that culturally, the difference is quite big... (:

    36. Re:About this taxes... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >Don't knock jam sandwiches, man...
      It was the lack of butter that really ruined my day but yup, jam sandwiches aren't all bad ;-)

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    37. Re:About this taxes... by autophile · · Score: 1

      Well, you could always fit the new polynomial to the lower bound of the tax band curve. That would make many people very, very happy!

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    38. Re:About this taxes... by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Nope, nordic in general refers to the scandinavian nations
      I'm perfectly aware what the word means, thanks all the same, Poindexter.

      Anyone who have been both in the South of Europe and Scandinavia will tell you that culturally, the difference is quite big...
      So the Netherlands does resemble a Nordic country more than Italy does, which is what I said.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    39. Re:About this taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      It must be lovely to have so much disposable income. Some of us have mortages, kid's school fees and bills to pay. My pay day means I just drift out of being overdrawn for a few days then back to debt. Heck, I had jam sandwiches for lunch today because that's all I can afford and that's with 2-3 jobs on the go. Not everyone has your options or abilities so don't diss someone because they can't magically cough up $25k.

      Flame away but I'll diss them all I want. It's all about choices. Some of us are smart enough to hold of on having children until we have enough income to afford the larger home and all of the additional expenses that come along when you make the decision to have children. So don't bitch and moan and wine about how you have to have 3 jobs to make ends meet when you are there due to poor decision making. Some day I'll have kids but I'll chose to do so responsibly, when I have enough income to comfortably make ends meet without having to work so much that I never see and take part in raising my own children. If you've got to work so much to make ends meet when you have kids and as a result you never see them and can't properly raise them why did you have them in the first place? I don't look forward to having my tax dollars used to keep them in prison when they grow up to be criminals as a result of daddy issues. If you don't make enough money to support your children with enough free time to be able to raise them do us all a favor and don't have them.

      Before the advent of birth control you'd have my sympathy but not today. Having children today is a choice. Options are readily available to allow you to have children when and if you choose. Of course, if you're a man that can also mean depending on your significant other to have the same priorities as you but come on. Find someone who has the same priorities as you. If you don't want kids until your ready use a condom, make sure the women you're with is on birth control and never get involved with a women who won't have an abortion if it came down to it. Problem solved.

    40. Re:About this taxes... by coredog64 · · Score: 1

      I'm still bitter about that one. By the time it was rectified we'd already paid off most of the interest and were hitting principal, hence a mostly worthless deduction.

    41. Re:About this taxes... by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      With taxes alone it is unlikely that this would ever happen, but since so many other programs are based on these income numbers, you're right.

    42. Re:About this taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever think that maybe you should get rid of the SUV, sell off the McMansion, and yuppie prep school long enough to get your head above water. Ohright, that's the American way...living way beyond your means and declaring bankruptcy like clockwork every 7 years.

    43. Re:About this taxes... by Captain+Rotundo · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who doesn't have children, and is most likely in for a big surprise when/if they get them. Now granted I am not working nearly as hard as the first poster implied he is, and I am not in nearly as much debt, but you sir are in for a shock. Children have a funny way of consuming as much "extra"/"cushion" income you think you can foresee needing, regardless of how much it is. People with more money tend to have higher standards of living, and greater expenses, the children also do, and the same for people with less.

      People that pretend they are waiting to have children until they have built up a fortune are one of two things: 1) making it up, or 2) horribly mistaken about the way the world works. Personally I would have had my kids even younger if I could go back and do it, money be damned. I see older parents and they have gotten set in their ways and simply aren't as good as the younger ones when the kids come along. (BTW- I'm 29 with a 5 year old and one on the way)

    44. Re:About this taxes... by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 'cos everyone who's tight on finances just has to be a greedy bastard that fits your stereotypes?

      A lot of us have $25K in terms of savings, but that money isn't for firing myself off to space. Having the money and being able to afford spending it are two separate issues.

    45. Re:About this taxes... by isorox · · Score: 1

      Hmm. To the best of my knowledge, most countries don't tax prizes or betting winnings.

      Certainly my country (the UK) does not


      Always used too, the lottery is taxed at the point of buying a ticket, and with horses you used to have the choice to pay tax on your bet, or on the winnings.

    46. Re:About this taxes... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Then you'd have to increase taxes year-by-year to make up for this. And people would still think they'd been ripped off.

      Like service ducts under the streets, compressed-air mains and a truly integrated transport infrastructure, it's just not going to happen because the transition would be (mis-)perceived as worse than the problem it would be solving. Maybe when we colonise another planet, we can get its population used to polynomial taxation along with all the other good stuff we will have to put in from day one when we build the new cities.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    47. Re:About this taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but getting paid for the ads would count as income, which would be taxed...

    48. Re:About this taxes... by xantho · · Score: 1

      College tuition is not a tax. It is entirely voluntary, barring some crazy contractual agreement.

    49. Re:About this taxes... by phil.bachman · · Score: 1

      Someone still has to pay taxes on the cars, food, houses, etc. This is not a valid argument. If corporate entities can "write off" this sort of purchase, then that is what should be changed. A purchase is a purchase. Whether it's made by Phil Bachman, or Phil Bachman incorporated.

    50. Re:About this taxes... by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Can I have $25,000?

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    51. Re:About this taxes... by OCedHrt · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Apparently being able to manage my finances makes me public enemy #1. I have "so much" disposable income as you put it because I set aside 50% of my salary. That means, when something like this comes up, I can afford it. It may be breaking news, but there are ways to not live off of credit.

    52. Re:About this taxes... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      Flame away but I'll diss them all I want. It's all about choices. Some of us are smart enough to hold of on having children until we have enough income to afford the larger home and all of the additional expenses that come along when you make the decision to have children
      Boy, are you in for a shock. I started a family at 38. I lived in a fair sized house and had *paid off* the mortgage. I had tens of thousands in saving (GBP, not USD i.e. lots). We had the nice home cinema, landscaped garden, new car.
      Then kids happened, We lost my wife's income for 5 years. You would be surprised what a huge hit those two make. Then the local school went down hill badly so we had to change to a private one - that was an instant unexpected and very large hit.
      We then moved house, partly so my wife could live in the country but mainly because new neighbours moved in who were frankly nightmares. Anyway, we ended up in a nice 400 year old cottage in a village but despite having 3 surveys, 4 specialist additional surveys and multiple estimates for all the work, it turned out the house had more issues than we thought so wiped out the remaining savings. Since then my wife has been made redundant twice.
      Bottom line is, no matter how smart you think you are (and you clearly do) you have no idea what the future will bring and your nice cosy life may not be as cosy as you thought. No amount of planning and fiscal care can prevent things happening.
      I suggest you kindly fuck off until you grow a clue about the real world and would strongly suggest you stop suggesting people's kids are going to be next years criminals just because their parents are trying very hard to give them the best start in life.
      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    53. Re:About this taxes... by OCedHrt · · Score: 1

      You also forget to note that he is a software consultant.

      Looking at the following average pay (national US):
      Consultants & Contractors Information Services Consultant

      This guy should be making upwards of $75k, if not nearly $100k+. Yes, after taxes that doesn't leave much, maybe $40-55k. Then after you factor in family, mortgages, all the works, there's potentially nothing left over. But if he's been in the industry for nearly a decade, he better have at least $25k saved up. Setting aside $5k/yr would've already done it, let alone the often recommended 10-20% of your base salary.

      The truth is, it's because he picked the dream of family over space.

      Sorry if this doesn't sit well with those who make less, but this is his situation, not yours. And $25k should not be putting him in debt.

    54. Re:About this taxes... by OCedHrt · · Score: 1

      http://www.eminentbrain.com/

      I would also like to point out that apparently he just got married, never had family before then, and doesn't own a house. Pulling in that kind of income for nearly $10 years and yet not be able to afford $25k? I don't know where he is blowing $3k+ per month on. Additionally, no where in his blog post does he mention going into debt. Basically, exaggeration done by CNN to make a no story into something midly news worthy.

    55. Re:About this taxes... by Villageidiot9390 · · Score: 1

      It's not stupid at all. Otherwise people could avoid taxes by being paid in cars, food, houses, etc. People get paid in all sorts of interesting manners. I get a company car, which I pay nothing for, not even the taxes on, and my company writes it off as an expense. I'm sure that corporate owned houses work in the same manner.
    56. Re:About this taxes... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      Apparently being able to manage my finances makes me public enemy #1

      Not at all. I used to have loads stashed away and invested in various tax efficient schemes. What makes you public enemy #1 if having an attitude of superiority that stinks.
      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    57. Re:About this taxes... by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 1

      You missed the point...

      College tuition is not a tax, but in the US tax system there are tuition credits that above a certain level of income you no longer qualify for. So a raise in earnings may actually result in lower take home pay, since I now have to make up for those lost credits.

      Outside of the tax system, there is need based assistance, which is usually based on your AGI from your tax returns, and also has income limits. Once you move above a certain income, you no longer qualify for these, and would have to make up the difference out of your raise.

      Certainly college is voluntary (and a separate issue from above), but anybody that doesn't encourage their children to attend and try to support them anyway they can is setting them up for failure and disappointment.

    58. Re:About this taxes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      This guy should be making upwards of $75k, if not nearly $100k+. Yes, after taxes that doesn't leave much, maybe $40-55k.

      Huh? I'm curious where you are paying 35k in taxes on 75k of income. I make 75k, and I pay less than $20k a year in income tax (including SS and Medicare), property tax (I own a $400,000 home), sales tax, tax on my cars, tax on my capital gains, etc. Take into account that a consultant will be able to write off many more things than me (but may have to pay double my SS tax) and it should be a wash, or have the consultant come off a little better than a salary worker like myself.

      Forgive me for being soft on taxes, but $20k on $75k does not seem like too much. The thing I hate most about taxes is that 25% of all federal taxes are paid for interest on the debt. Get Washington to pay off the debt (even by a temporary increase in tax) and I'll save thousands every year.

    59. Re:About this taxes... by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Are you living in Alaska? If you are you might not be considering state income tax, which is a hazard of the lower 48.

    60. Re:About this taxes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And I moved from TX to AK, so no income tax to no income tax. Though there was a 5.25% state sales tax in TX, and local sales taxes variable around the state in both states. And no, I didn't count my PFD (the money the state of AK pays to residents) as a rebate on my taxes. But the property taxes here are as bad as the worst in the lower 48 (excepting CA, who has a system mostly uncomperable to any other).

  3. Still Not a Bad Deal by 0rionx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...all things considered.

    I mean, we're talking about a trip into space. Considering the normally prohibitive cost of recreational spaceflight, $25k almost seems like a bargain. I've seen people blow that much on timeshares for goodness sake. If nothing else he could write a book about the experience and recoup some of the expense.

    1. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by delt0r · · Score: 1

      But if you won the trip, you simply mite not have $25,000. Then what? What about which tax year it lands on? Since he can't take the flight yet.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    2. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, a year at many private colleges costs a lot more. He should've worked at the financing, maybe could've swung a book deal as you said, with some of the book devoted to the money problems he had to wrestle with.

      Maybe he didn't deserve the trip after all.

    3. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by bazorg · · Score: 1

      perhaps he's already writing a book about this episode and earning a lot of money without risking his life on some crude flight technology?

    4. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      It might be difficult, but I think most of us would beg, borrow, and steal (well, maybe not that) in order to take this opportunity.

      I mean, I was about to write "once in a lifetime," but even that is misleading - how many of us will ever have an opportunity like this. I'd sell my house to do it! Luckily I'd have the resources (borrowing from 401k), but I can't imagine giving up an opportunity like that.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    5. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      This guy must be a renter. If he owned his home and had some equity, he could have taken out a tax-deductible home equity loan to cover (at least part of) the taxes. Another poster mentioned sponsorships.

      He obviously didn't want it badly enough.
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    6. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by Harlockjds · · Score: 1

      so instead of paying 25K to the gov he pays 25K (minus a deduction for the interest) to the bank? what's the difference, you'r still out 25k (or there abouts)?

    7. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by Tom · · Score: 1

      If nothing else he could write a book about the experience and recoup some of the expense. He'd have to pay taxes on that income as well...
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by hackstraw · · Score: 1


      If I were single, even if I didn't have 25k laying around, I would find it and go.

      If I were married with no children, I would either "ask permission" or possibly just find the money and go anyway.

      Going to space is a little cooler than any exotic vacation here on earth, and 25k is not pocket change, but it is manageable.

    9. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so instead of paying 25K to the gov he pays 25K (minus a deduction for the interest) to the bank?
      No, you financial whiz, if he takes a 25K loan from the bank, he is going to pay the bank back more than 25K. Even if the interest is deductable on his taxes, the effective rate is still going to be greater than zero. That is, he may be charged 8% interest and get back 3% on his taxes, for a net rate of 5%. The point is, if he's not a bum and he wants to go, there is financing available. The fact that somebody his age can't readily come up with $25K in cash strongly indicates that he is a bum, though.
    10. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Some people just can't afford it. I wonder if he could've sold the prize at an auction though... Probably not, or he would have.

    11. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by Harlockjds · · Score: 1

      hey i'm not the idiot who said that taking out a loan on his house to pay taxes was a smart idea, go bitch out the parent :)

    12. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by Luyseyal · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wow, you're a complete idiot. Obviously, I did not say he wouldn't have to pay the 25000. Nor did I say he wouldn't have to pay more for a loan. A loan is a fucking loan. Why the hell would I suggest that a loan does not have interest?

      My POINT, which you were apparently too dense to grok, was that if he were a homeowner, he could convert his equity to cash for the current tax burden and receive a tax discount against the interest.

      Jesus, get a brain man,
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    13. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      The point is, if he's not a bum and he wants to go, there is financing available. The fact that somebody his age can't readily come up with $25K in cash strongly indicates that he is a bum, though.

      Exactly. And I, for one, am one jealous motherfucker and I am completely flabbergasted that this guy isn't going.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    14. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by Harlockjds · · Score: 1

      hey you are the one suggesting that he put up house equity for a silly space ride and a tax break... I'm not sure I'm the one that needs a brain

    15. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      Financing is available. Operators are standing by.

      I'd do it in a heartbeat. I hope you have some passion in your life.
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    16. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Well....that's how you pay a $25k tax bill when you don't have the money. I really don't follow you.

    17. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by saltydogdesign · · Score: 1

      By you maybe. In my household, we have trouble coming up with $250 for new tires.

      --
      // This is not a sig.
    18. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by niktemadur · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I mean, we're talking about a trip into space.

      I find it distressing that it took three pages in this thread to touch upon this point.

      A friend of mine took an economy trip to India, and once there, the opportunity arose for her to go to the Himalayas, but to get there, she had to dig into a part of her bank account she hadn't counted on. Stuck in this dilemma, she called her mom for advice ("I gotta pay the rent when I get back, light, water, etc...", you know the drill), and her mom said: "Honey, you're going to be paying bills the rest your life, but you're probably going to be in the Himalayas just this once". On that cue, my friend went for it, and she now describes the excursion as the best and most spiritual experience of her life.

      When I was a university student, the opportunity arose to go skydiving, and even though I couldn't afford it, I tightened my belt for a while before and after (ate only fruit, bread and water more nights than not, parked the car for a few weeks and took the bus instead) and went out and did it anyway, a forty-five second solo freefall, even passing through a cloud!

      I know that $25k is a helluva lot of money compared to the cost of the experiences I write about above, and that the sweepstakes company will take a lot of deserved flak for not including the taxes on the prize, but goddam it, look at the payoff if the guy does it! To be in a zero-G environment for a prolonged period of time, looking down at the Earth? He might be in debt for a couple of years, but he's also gonna be transformed in unimaginably positive ways, it's a childhood dream come true!

      If nothing else he could write a book about the experience and recoup some of the expense.

      That might take some time. In the short term, it's definitely worth a couple of appearances on talk shows at least (I'm thinking this is even Oprah material), giving him a prestige worth a salary increase or even a new, better paying job elsewhere. I haven't RTFA, but from what I'm getting, this guy, instead of being creative and gutsy and really making the effort to go for it, is thinking linearly (with horse blinders) and thrown in the towel. If I did that under similar circumstances, I'd never be able to forgive myself, I'd see myself as failing a supremely significant personal test and opportunity.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    19. Re:Still Not a Bad Deal by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      For what, a little roller coaster ride (with a higher chance of death than a normal on), and a pretty view? He would have to retire at a later age. Wouldn't you rather retire earlier, even if it was just a little earlier, and be able to do whatever you wanted for a little bit longer?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  4. Discount by T-Bone_142 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What if instead of giving him a free trip they gave him the chance of take a discounted trip, only charging him $1?

    --
    "In Soviet America, Passport Stamps You!"
    1. Re:Discount by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not sure about in the US, but here in Australia you are required to charge taxes (the GST) on the value of the item, not on the sale cost of the item. These laws are created to prevent tax avoidance through such schemes as you describe.

    2. Re:Discount by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Post below is correct for the US.

      "Discounted" = "Free plus a dollar", right back where he started.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    3. Re:Discount by jamesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think someone already probably thought of that loophole. Couldn't they hire him in some capacity though? Even if it was just to blog about the experience or something.

      Worst case they could hire him for an amount such that it was $25000 after tax, which would then give him enough to pay the tax bill with.

    4. Re:Discount by THESuperShawn · · Score: 1

      Good idea. However, for a single dollar, your spaceflight is going to consist of some sort of slingshot system right out of a road runner cartoon.

      --
      Repant. Thy end is sheer.
    5. Re:Discount by MrCopilot · · Score: 1
      Worst case they could hire him for an amount such that it was $25000 after tax, which would then give him enough to pay the tax bill with.

      Except, he'd be taxed on that 25k too.

      --
      OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
    6. Re:Discount by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Except, he'd be taxed on that 25k too.
      Which is why, as I said, they would pay him an amount that was $25000 _after_ the tax was taken out.
  5. possible loophole by SethJohnson · · Score: 5, Interesting



    If they award him the prize while he's in space, do US tax laws still apply?

    Seth

    1. Re:possible loophole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US citizens are taxed on their "worldwide income". If outer space is outside the realm of "worldwide", perhaps not. :P

    2. Re:possible loophole by will_die · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, however if he spend 330 days out in space then he would get the expat tax break.

    3. Re:possible loophole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. A friend of mine has to fill in a tax return even though she's neverlived in the US, because she's legally a US citizen. You don't have to pay US income tax if you've already paid more local income tax on that money, but if the income taxes are lower than the US, then the US government demands the difference.

    4. Re:possible loophole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he does some software consulting while in space, does that make it a business trip?

    5. Re:possible loophole by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, at a nominal .50c per mile, I suspect he could get the maximum writeoff shortly after launch.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:possible loophole by arth1 · · Score: 1

      If they award him the prize while he's in space, do US tax laws still apply?
      The poor winner would then have to pony up the money to pay for a trip to space to claim his prize. How is that an improvement?

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    7. Re:possible loophole by DataBroker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about another loophole? Don't award him a prize, or even a discounted prize (which is a taxable gift). Instead, how about hiring him to work on the crew? Heck, you could even hire him as a waiter and pay him less than minimum wage and let him work for tips!

    8. Re:possible loophole by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      If they award him the prize while he's in space, do US tax laws still apply?

      I'm one of those guys that looks for loopholes to get ahead all the time, and believe it or not these government guys actually take care of 99.999% of those loopholes in the laws.

      There is probably an importation tax that is greater than the regular one, or something.

      Its just like thermodynamics, you can never win.

    9. Re:possible loophole by manekineko2 · · Score: 1
      Yes, it's not that easy to escape taxes for US citizens. US citizens are taxed on income no matter where they are. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in Cook v. Tait.

      The theory is that even when US citizens are outside the country, they are still enjoying the privileges of citizenship, such as the fact that the US would help if they got into trouble, etc.

    10. Re:possible loophole by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      I know that when i was in the Marine Corps i didn't get taxed on my income when i was in Afghanistan or Iraq.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    11. Re:possible loophole by manekineko2 · · Score: 1

      There is a deduction allowed for US citizens abroad for the first approximately 80k of earnings received abroad, for US citizens overseas at least something like 330 days a year. However, this is given out of the generosity of Congress' heart, and as a general rule, US citizens and corporations are taxed on any income received from wherever it is received, and it just happens there is that carve out. In your case there could also have been a military exception I am unaware of.

      It seems unlikely that the winner in this case could qualify for this simply on this basis. Besides which he would have been awarded the prize already by the time he was in space. Contrary to popular media depictions, it's actually pretty difficult to easily escape taxes. This is of course why only the rich are capable of doing so. The government has already plugged all the loopholes that are easily accessible, and the low hanging fruit is gone, leaving only rewards for those with enough incentive to spend a lot of effort to reach them.

    12. Re:possible loophole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Combat pay isn't taxable.

  6. Come to Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most winnings are not included as part of your income.
    Australian Taxation Office

  7. Fool... by D-Cypell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I find it unbelievable that a 'software consultant' cannot stomach a $25'000 fee for something he wanted so badly. TFA even says he would have a strong case not to pay until he receives his flight, and could pay in installments.

    If the guy is worth his salt, and with the publicity he would get from winning the Oracle competition, I see no reason why a decent consultant could not have that paid off in a year.

    1. Re:Fool... by gutnor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I find it unbelievable that a 'software consultant' cannot stomach a $25'000 fee for something he wanted so badly"

      Maybe there was a lot of thing that he wanted so badly: like $200,000 sport car, $1,000,000 house, ... Regarless of how much you earn, you goes into debt when your lifestyle cost you more that what you make.

      Also the guy is 31. That means he started to work in the last years of the internet bubble yet, so there is also strong possibilty he had trouble adjusting. I have a colleague here at work that went from a 700GBP/day contract to nothing for a year followed by 300 GBP/day. This worked ok for him but at the same time, there are tons of stories of consultant buying 1,000,000 GBP houses that had a difficult reality check in 2001.

    2. Re:Fool... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      25000 is alot of money for anyone but the rich. 25,000 is a car! When was the last time you bought a car with cash??

      --

      Gorkman

    3. Re:Fool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my case, December 11th 2006. And no, I'm not rich (though I am a programmer and therefore make good money) - I'm just prudent with my money and work hard to save.

      I just laugh whenever I see these articles on saving. They say things like "Make sure you max out your 401k and IRAs". And I'm thinking... "Duh!!! That is the very least you should be saving"

    4. Re:Fool... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      25,000 is a car! When was the last time you bought a car with cash??

      Back when I worked as a software engineer, actually :).

    5. Re:Fool... by The+Dobber · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, just about 4 years ago. Toyota Tacoma TRD. Cash on the barrel.

      Previous truck had just rolled 10 years, might have had something to do with the ability.

    6. Re:Fool... by fishyfool · · Score: 1

      06 tacoma sr5, wrote a personal check.

      --
      Enjoy Every Sandwich
    7. Re:Fool... by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty confident that my wife and I make a lot more than the guy in the article and there is no way we could justify $25K on this. After we give over more than a third of our income to three different government entities, we still have to use half of what's left to put two children through school, that doesn't leave a lot left to live on, let alone $25K for something that would only benefit one of us.

    8. Re:Fool... by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      One year ago. It cost 750 and still works finely, doing almost 40mpg.

    9. Re:Fool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy the dogfood when you're 70. Or is your plan to leach off those of us who save for our "declining" years?

    10. Re:Fool... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1
      Maybe this guy has kids and decided their college education could use that $25,000 more than he could? He could have a sick parent he's caring for? Maybe he's sick himself? Perhaps his car was totaled recently and is fighting his insurance company for a large sum of money?

      Nothing like a myopic slashdotter assuming the rest of the world has the same non-life they do...

      Just because *you* were able to scrap together that much does not mean everybody else is so fortunate.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    11. Re:Fool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, for what I paid for mine, that $25k could be three cars. I still ended up paying it off over three years.

    12. Re:Fool... by StrahdVZ · · Score: 1

      Although I'm a sucker for these types of "how dare they beat the poor man down" types of articles, and that was my first instinct, if it was his life's dream as the media make it out to be, $25,000 to achieve your life's dream seems worth it.

      Maybe I am a cynicist but I can't help but think this story (and if you read his blog, that too) has the disguised smell of "political agenda" written on it.

    13. Re:Fool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For real.

      He has a dream for all these years, and what happens when it comes true? HUH?
      He takes a big stinken' cr*p all over it!

      I don't how how this makes other readers feel...I don't, but I have an urge to go beat some sense into this sissy pants.

      Right after I stop watching 80s movies on TBS...

    14. Re:Fool... by jotok · · Score: 1

      Wait. Did you just boil this down to "The reason the guy didn't go on the trip is because he's stupid?"

      You, sir, lose the thread.

    15. Re:Fool... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      If you need a loan to buy a car, you suck at finance.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    16. Re:Fool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's the great part about Social Security, you can leach off the younger generation, provided there is enough of them to pay for all of the folks on the system at that point...

    17. Re:Fool... by xantho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Besides that, who said he wanted it so badly? I mean, see sign that says, "Win a trip into space!". Say to self, "Well, that'd be pretty cool." Enter contest. Win.

      Nowhere in there implies that he's just dying to go to space.

    18. Re:Fool... by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you haven't yet earned enough income to purchase the reliable, quality transportation that will enable you to keep your job.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    19. Re:Fool... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I can see that for your first job out of college (as an investment to establish a reputation for being reliable). After that, going in to debt for transportation is going to cause you to fall further behind (at ever-increasing rates) where you could have been. It's like the monkeys that keep hitting the "cocaine" lever instead of the food lever until they starve.

      The ONLY debts you should ever take on are those that make you money. Education, margin investing, your own business, and arguably housing--that's it. If you borrow for things like luxury cars, vacations, or TVs, you are officially the bitch of the banking industry.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    20. Re:Fool... by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      Now those are sentiments I agree with. I was merely attempting to point out circumstances under which your dogmatic advice might not necessarily apply. Most of my friends are already in debt up to their knees and have nothing to show for it. I really don't get the reasoning behind buying a $3000 TV on credit... My $150 TV serves me just fine. Although I do hope to pay my car off soon. (1st car after college. :)

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    21. Re:Fool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of us have Jewish blood running through our veins. Why the hell should I wait until I'm 75 or 80 years old to enjoy life? I make good money now and I spend almost all of it the week I get it and I'm loving it!
      Now who ever said that you can't enjoy life without spending all of your money? And it isn't like I'm living in a cardboard box and never go out - unless you are a janitor or a teacher you can do all of these things while saving.
    22. Re:Fool... by StikyPad · · Score: 1
      From his blog:

      I have my own reasons and extenuating circumstances about why I decided to forfeit. A few of those reasons were explained in a previous post. It's not your job to understand my reasons. I don't expect most people to understand or accept them. I didn't LIKE to have to make this decision, but I know it's the RIGHT one for me and my family.
      http://www.eminentbrain.com/
    23. Re:Fool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you haven't yet earned enough income to purchase the reliable, quality transportation that will enable you to keep your job.
      That reliable, quality transportation is readily available in the USA for less than $6,000. So, if you're really so piss poor that you need a car loan and you spend more than $6,000, then you do indeed suck at finance.
    24. Re:Fool... by Mateito · · Score: 1
      If you need a loan to buy a car, you suck at finance.

      Or you work out that by borrowing money to pay for the car, you can claim a proprotion of the car running costs, depreciation and loan interests as a tax deduction, so that over a seven year period the opportunity cost of having the cash at hand less the reduced out of pocket costs for owning and running the vehicle mean that the car is actually free.

      Which implies that the sucker who bought it for cash sucks at finance, in bold.

  8. Oracle should have made him an employee... by adnonsense · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...then they could say they were sending him on a business trip and file it under expenses. ("Reason for trip: To boldly go where no DBA has gone before, to seek out new tablespaces and discover new, alien forms of indices").

    (Disclaimer: I'm not an accountant or a tax geek so I don't know whether that would really work out).

  9. I bet Larry Ellinson is laughing hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So am I. Is the consolation prize a sheet of acid tabs and a DVD of 2001? It always works for me.

    1. Re:I bet Larry Ellinson is laughing hard by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Does HAL sing Purple Haze instead of Daisy?

  10. Don't pay taxes by jlebrech · · Score: 0

    Duh, touchdown on another continent or something.

  11. Does that tax also apply... by Advocadus+Diaboli · · Score: 1

    ...when you get kidnapped by Aliens?

    1. Re:Does that tax also apply... by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you are american and win the privilege of being kidnapped in a lottery.

      --
      So say we all
  12. Unwilling to sink into debt by farker+haiku · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, I'm sure he had a problem affording it... but I'd have gone even though that's a substantial portion of my yearly salary. The only thing I can think of is that he might have been in the middle of a divorce - and if his salary was reported to be 138k higher per year, then his soon to be ex might have a much higher alimony. One that he couldn't afford to pay.

    --
    Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
    1. Re:Unwilling to sink into debt by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      That sum happens to be my entire pre-tax salary in a year (and I'm a network admin)... I'm betting however his cost of living is fairly high from what little I read and so even if he makes 3 times what I do $25k might be one heck of a stretch...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  13. Convergence by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some contest sponsors provide a check to cover taxes, but that income is also taxable.

    Fortunately, this series eventually converges to values small enough to lose it amid the rounding error on your taxes.

    1. Re:Convergence by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      Greek philosophers have proven that Americans actually pay infinate tax on prizes. You get money, you get a tax bill for that money, you get sent more money to cover the taxes, get a tax bill for that, get sent more money to cover the tax....

    2. Re:Convergence by pato101 · · Score: 1

      The sum converges as far as the tax rate is lower than a 100%
      Asuming constant tax rate, P, and calling S the award, then:
      1 You are given S
      2 You have to pay taxes as P*S
      3 Award giver wants to pay these
      4 You have to pay taxes as P*(P*S)
      5 and so on...
      so you the award giver, would have to pay:
      T=S+P*S+P^2*S+P^3*S+....
      which can be expressed as
      T=S/(1-P)
      stable as far as P is lower than 1 which is the usual case :-P
      Assuming a 20% tax rate (P=.2), the organizer would end up paying 25%.
      Being so large prize, I guess the rate is higher.... for instance, supposing a 50% tax rate, the organizer would end up paying a 200% of the original prize!!!.
      However not all the incomings should apply for the same tax rate... so the real case may be more complicated.
      Now go and explain this to the tax authorities :-P.

      Call me pedantic, but I love showing how to solve the sum:
      T=S+P*S+P^2*S+P^3*S+....
      T*P = P*S+P^2*S+P^3*S+.... so, T-T*P = S, and thus T=S/(1-P)

    3. Re:Convergence by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      You have made the whole thing so needlessly complex that you have actually screwed up your formula:
      T=S/(1-P)

      You said T is tax paid, S is the award, and P is the tax rate (which you said is less than 100%). Well, lets plug in some numbers.
      If the award (S) is $100, and the tax rate (P) is 25%
      T=S/(1-P)
      T=$100/(1-.25)
      T=$100/.75
      T=$133.33

      The tax is larger than the award itself? No....in the formula, T should represent the total amount given, including extra to cover the taxes.

      The simple way to do this without using a series is:
      A: Award amount they intend you to receive after taxes
      E: Extra amount to cover all taxes
      R: tax Rate

      (A+E)*(1-R)=A

      Solve this a few ways:
      Total amount to be paid: (A+E)=A/(1-R)
      Extra to cover taxes: E=(A/(1-R))-A=(A*R)/(1-R)

    4. Re:Convergence by pato101 · · Score: 1

      You said T is tax paid

      wrong, see what I said:

      so you the award giver, would have to pay: T=S+P*S+P^2*S+P^3*S+....
      Sorry for the notation, I have definitely chosen bad capital letters for the concepts, but I never said T was the tax. T is the TOTAL the award organizer should pay in order to compensate the taxes.
      disclaimer: in my native language, tax does not begin with "T".

      You have made the whole thing so needlessly complex that

      Yes, I tend to drink too much coffee.
      I've solved the iterating process that would happen if the organizer was paying the taxes generated by paying the previous tax atomically to the infinite, which is not realistic but is aimed to the thread topic of convergence; whereas your approach is much correct and should be the one to do. Thanks for the point.
    5. Re:Convergence by lazyl · · Score: 1

      4 You have to pay taxes as P*(P*S)

      Nope. The government will say you have to pay taxes equal to P*(S+(P*S)). i.e. If the lottery gives you X cash and then Y cash to "pay the tax" then the government will just consider your income to be X+Y and charge you tax on that amount.

      The more money you get then the more tax you will pay, period. The only way around it is with special lottery tax rules that specifically allow the organizer to pay the tax for you so that you can claim the amount as a non-taxable income. Some states have such rules I believe.

      --
      Aw crap, ninjas!
    6. Re:Convergence by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Oops. I misread that, though I'll partially blame you for non keeping your pronouns consistent (in numbers 1, 2 and 4, you used "you" to refer to the recipient, and then in 5 you switched "you" to be the giver). :)

    7. Re:Convergence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're missing here is the goal: to get exactly enough cash to cover total taxes, including tax on the cash.

      It should be fairly obvious there is such a value. At 30% tax, if I give you a prize worth $1000, you'll owe $300 tax on it which you'll have to pay out of your savings. But if I give you the prize plus $1,000,000, you'll have to pay $300300 tax, but you'll have an excess of prize money left over from your million. Somewhere in the middle is the amount of cash that requires no money out of your savings, but doesn't leave you extra cash either.

    8. Re:Convergence by pato101 · · Score: 1

      "You" are right. :P

  14. Yes. by n1hilist · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you'd been following the recent story regarding China's lil' missile they used to destroy an old weather satellite, and then saw US's reaction and statement about it you'll know that America owns space, and possibly everything. :)

    Besides, they are already floating lawyers floating in space, waiting.

  15. Solution by teslar · · Score: 1
    1. Get a mailbox somewhere in Europe. Say, at a friends place. I can't think of a country where lottery winnings are taxable over here.
    2. Use that address to enter contests.
    3. Pray nobody finds out you don't actually live there :)
    1. Re:Solution by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Pray nobody finds out you don't actually live there :)

      Right. Because there won't be any publicity, will there?

      Ask Richard Hatch how that works.

    2. Re:Solution by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

      Actually, here in Finland, i believe all contest winnings are taxable, i think it was 15% or 28% what they take.
      Here everything is taxed! Hell, if you look correctly some things, even taxes are being taxed in some cases!

  16. Astronauts? by countach · · Score: 1

    So are they going to start charging astronauts $25000 too?

    1. Re:Astronauts? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yep, right after they start charging 747 pilots $800, and bus drivers $2.25.

    2. Re:Astronauts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should just have a contest to become an employee of a space company. Official job title of "ballast".

    3. Re:Astronauts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so why not 'hire' this guy as a 'civilian observer' for the duration of the flight?

  17. What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Ogemaniac · · Score: 1, Informative

    the negative effect of taxes on the economy. While this example is extremely exaggerated, the same thing happens countless times on a much smaller scale every day - I don't buy that shirt, for example, because taxes make the price $22 instead of $20. An otherwise mutually-beneficial transaction is lost.

    Studies indicate that about fifteen cents are lost this way for every dollar the government collects for the major taxes (income, sales, property). That implies that the we have to spend a $1.15 just to get the government a dollar - and hence we always overpay for government services.

    1. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Angstroem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Boy, would I love to have just 10% sales tax. In Germany, they just cranked it up to 19% this January.

    2. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but the alternative is worse. Your worryingly powerful "Christian" right wants to slash taxes and limit federal power as a means of largely relegating the governments' role to military matters, while they take over everything else. Read this and bear it in mind next time you see them spouting their coded bullshit.

    3. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least in Germany (or in the rest of the world for that matter), the sales tax is part of the price of the item.
      When you travel in the US you never know how much it is until you pay. And if you ask beforehand how much the local tax is, they give you nasty looks like you were insulting their dear mothers.
      It's a completely braindead system.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    4. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Angstroem · · Score: 1

      Not sure whether it is brain-dead. In a world of gross-pricing you also never know how much of tax is on it -- too few people have a look at the end price to see how much tax is included. That makes it easier for politicians to raise taxes because the constant "darn, it said it costs $X, but I had to pay $X*1.2 in the end!" feeling is missing.

      Besides, in the US you have this wonderful law so that you have to pay no sales tax on trans-state sales (at least true for mail/internet orders), so apart from your daily groceries there is hardly any need for paying big bucks on electronics etc.

      I wish we had the same in the EU.

    5. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Not "the rest of the world". Sales tax in Canada is never included in the price. I'm sure there are other countries where it's the same. Granted, it was inconvenient until I learned some basic math, but the other poster hit it exactly - when taxes are part of the advertised price, it becomes much easier to raise taxes.

    6. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by bjourne · · Score: 1

      There is taxes on every value transaction. When you work, your employer pays you a set amount of money and a percentage of that goes to the government (the community, that is). No mutually-beneficial transaction is lost because you claim a yearly salary of 35k so that you can pay 15k in taxes instead of a salary of 20k if there would have been no taxes. Part of the transaction is just re-routed through the state so that those to poor to make mutually-beneficial transactions themselves still can live a decent life.

      There is absolutely nothing inherently unfair with paying income tax. If there was no tax there would be no state and there would be anarchy. Would you rather prefer that?

    7. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      When anyone starts a point with "studies show..." you can be sure the author is full of shit. What studies? Who's studies? And show my a study by respected economists, not some crap on a nutball website.

      Obviously nobody *likes* taxes, for Chrissakes, but there seems to be little alternative for government fundraising unless you think people will make donations, which I believe rather unlikely.

    8. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Wait ..... so you're saying the ticket on the edge of the shelf says $20, but when you take the item to the till you get charged $22? That sounds mucked-up to me!

      In the UK and the EU, the price it says on the ticket is the price you pay. You pay your sales tax (VAT) in the country where the item is purchased, and you don't have to pay any duty when you take the goods from one EU country to another.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    9. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by spleck · · Score: 1

      Besides, in the US you have this wonderful law so that you have to pay no sales tax on trans-state sales (at least true for mail/internet orders) Hardly. You're supposed to declare all out of state purchases and pay a 'use' tax that is equivalent to the sales tax at the end of the year when filing your state income tax. Here's an example:

      Georgia Use Tax
    10. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Angstroem · · Score: 1

      Nasty.

      Over here, you can't avoid the sales tax, not even by accidentally forgetting to declare. If you order inside the EU, you pay the sales tax of the originating country (which makes it favorable these days to mail-order things in Luxembourg as they still stick to 16% sales tax). If the destination country (i.e. the orderer's country) should have a lower sales tax, then you will get back the original sales tax, then pay the local sales tax.

      If you import from outside EU, your order will be held back by customs anyway where you then have to pick it up and pay import tax (=sales tax) plus eventual customs fees. Some companies (like Amazon) pre-process that for you so that you pay everything (including import tax & customs) in advance and it is mailed directly to you.

      This has gotten rather nasty; when I got a pair of boots *as a gift* I never the less had to pick it up, declare it, and pay tax/customs for anything that exceeds 45 Euro in value.

    11. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by gozar · · Score: 1

      Besides, in the US you have this wonderful law so that you have to pay no sales tax on trans-state sales (at least true for mail/internet orders), so apart from your daily groceries there is hardly any need for paying big bucks on electronics etc.

      You are required to pay the taxes on interstate sales (such as mail order) based on the taxes of your state. In fact, in Ohio, when you fill out your state income tax form they ask how much you have bought over the internet/mail order so you can pay your sales tax on those sales.

      --
      What, me worry?
    12. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      In States without an income tax reporting and collection is even less common. In my state there is a form you are supposed to fill out for one off out of state purchases, but most people don't even know it exists.

      If you are a business that has a sales/use tax license (required to collect sales tax, therefore to sell anything in state) you will have to report it, and every few years the state will go through the books with a fine tooth comb.

      I had to dig so far into the states web site to even find the form or information for individuals and companies without a sales tax license it is almost as if the government doesn't want to deal with either.

    13. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by jthayden · · Score: 1
      Wait ..... so you're saying the ticket on the edge of the shelf says $20, but when you take the item to the till you get charged $22? That sounds mucked-up to me!


      In general I agree with you, but there is one benefit. One you purchase an item you feel the impact of the tax much more than when the tax has already been added in. I've noticied quite a few people don't know what the VAT rate is in their respective EU countries because they never see it added on. In contrast, I suspect almost everyone in the US can tell you approximately what the sales tax rate is for their area. I say approximately since it can vary by county. I suspect that is one of the reasons your VAT rates are so much higher than in the States. 21% in Ireland vs. 8.5% in Chicago US

    14. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Hey, Norway has 25% sales tax now. 10% would be great, even better is the "report it yourself" deal on internet purchases...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    15. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      No. The US system is better. Do you think the German government could remotely get away with a 19% sales tax if people picked up an item for its untaxed price, then saw the ridiculous amount of VAT they have to pay?

      This is why sales tax in the US is almost never more than 6 or 7%. The state government simply wouldn't be able to get away with it, unlike in Europe where it becomes a "stealth tax".

    16. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by g1zmo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they look offended when you insult the way things work because "it's not how we do it back home".

      --
      I have found there are just two ways to go.
      It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow.
      -REK, Jr.
    17. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      At least in Germany (or in the rest of the world for that matter), the sales tax is part of the price of the item.
      When you travel in the US you never know how much it is until you pay. And if you ask beforehand how much the local tax is, they give you nasty looks like you were insulting their dear mothers.
      It's a completely braindead system.


      It's rather interesting. Bars in Canada add sales tax, where every bar I've been to in the US, tax is included. Fuel tax is included with the price. It would be nice if the price advertised included tax.

      On the plus side, I live in washington which has no state income tax, but a sales tax that floats between 8% and 9% depending on the city, and food has no sales tax. Generally thinking 10% for most states is a good rule of thumb.

      But odds are... your average worker doesn't know what the sales tax is.

      http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/sales.html

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    18. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Sure, "excuse me, how much is the local sales tax?" is certainly quite insulting of the way things work locally...

      Apparently if you have the faintest idea how much stuff is supposed to cost you, you aren't supposed to shop retail. And the stupid tax apparently changes not only from state to state but also from city to city.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    19. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      It certainly isn't a stealth tax in Europe where people are perfectly aware of its value as is shown by the numerous movements to change its value for certain goods (at least in France where there are different levels of taxation for basic, standard and luxury goods).

      Also remember that in Europe an awful lot of taxes are redistributed to the population in the form of various aids, including health and pensions.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    20. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      Truly.. So why is it I'm seeing VATs tacked on to the price of stuff I buy from the UK. At checkout, and not before?
      Unless the US devoured the UK overnight while I was sleeping..

      Determining the taxes that will be assessed is a rather simple application of math. The same as adding up the price tags of the items you plan to buy, which you'll note isn't done for you until you're at the checkout counter either.

      I'm not exactly thrilled that, if you asked what the tax was, you received a nasty look instead of an answer. Of course, there is always the possibility that the person(s) you asked didn't know. I can't say that I've asked about the taxes, even when I've been overseas. I just bought something and looked at the receipt.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    21. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Don't be dense, in the UK as everywhere else, each item is labelled at X. When you go to pay, you pay X. On your receipt given to you, you may see that X has y% of tax included in it.

      In the US the item is labelled at X, when you go pay, you'll be charged X + some random amount (from 8 to 12% roughly) which is the local sales tax. In order to know how much you'll be charged for an item, you have to know how much the local sales tax is. Of course, the locals know what it is, are used to that weird system and as is often the case in the US can't imagine why anyone would consider doing things differently.

      In the US I asked about the taxes just to know how much stuff cost. Is that too much to ask ? If nobody cares over there why do they even bother labelling stuff ?
      (what do you care what it costs, just look at the receipt)

      sheesh

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    22. Re:What a wonderful demonstration of.... by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes. I'm dense because my transactions with UK businesses have gone in the same fashion as transactions with US businesses. I communicated this fact. And you didn't catch it. But I'm dense. When I go to pay, I do not pay X. I pay Z, Y tax added to X price. There is no X price with Y amount going to the government as tax.

      It isn't that I'm unwilling to consider doing things differently. It is that I am utterly unconcerned with changing this particular bit of the sales experience. I have never yet gotten an item to checkout only to decide that the taxes make the purchase not worthwhile. Should any merchant in the States change to a system that you describe, I am not suddenly going to think "Ahha that's what I'm actually paying. All this time and I never knew" because I've already accounted for taxes in my purchasing decision making.

      In short, we don't care. And since no one cares enough to make the change, it doesn't.

      It seems you didn't catch the part of my post where I said that poor responses when you ask about the tax rate is not to be condoned, either. I agreed that when you ask, you should get a proper answer.

      I did not, at any point, say that nobody cares about cost. I suggested that it isn't necessary to know the tax rate to be comfortable making transactions. I don't have to know the precise percentage to be able to work out a budget or a rough estimate of how much tax I'm going to pay on any particular item. And as I said before, nobody totals your items before you get to checkout for you either. So, if you are capable of doing the addition to total your multi-item purchase before ringing everything up, then it isn't some torturous process to add on the amount of tax in your head either.

      Really.. of all the tax-related issues to be concerned about, the fact that nobody bothers to figure the sales tax out for you before checkout is.. I don't think I can put words to how minor an issue this is.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
  18. No way. by GregoryD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I call BS. I don't think he wanted to go in the first place. Nobody with a dream of space flight would pass this up. I'm a freaking grocery/dept store clerk and I could put 31k on a credit card. Sure that is really dumb thing to do, but man, this is for space. While working my butt off for the next billion years to pay it off, I could have one heck of a story to tell.

    1. Re:No way. by cddale · · Score: 0

      Agree. $25K is a Honda Civic. There's gotta be more to the story. He could easily recoup the costs from publicity arrangements. Probably perseverating on "Challenger, go with throttle up".

    2. Re:No way. by owlnation · · Score: 1

      Agreed, he could work two jobs for a couple of years. Worst case is going to jail, but hey, he still got into space. If he was any way smart he'd work a book deal and make even more money - there are many worse books written about more trivial things.

      I suspect we don't have the full story here.

    3. Re:No way. by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      Even with penalties and fees, the IRS will probably give you a better loan rate than a credit card (unless you plan on yearly balance transfers to low introductory rates). Given a situation like this, they'll be more than willing to work with you as long as you make reasonable effort to repay your tax debts.

    4. Re:No way. by finkployd · · Score: 2

      Maybe he has a family to think about and doesn't want to #$%@ up their future for a short term thrill?

      I sure as heck would not pay 31k for a quick space flight, that is four years of college tuition right there.

      Finkployd

    5. Re:No way. by div_2n · · Score: 1

      Since we have no way of knowing his financial situation, I think your assertion is a tad bit invalid. There could be quite a few circumstances in his life where having to fork out the 25K is either too high of a burden to shoulder or a complete and totally impossibility. The older you get and the more mistakes you make opens the opportunity for money to become an extremely complicated issue.

    6. Re:No way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the reason that you're a grocery clerk is probably because you think that bone-headed ideas like the one you proposed is a good idea.

    7. Re:No way. by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 1

      Been there, done that... not a chance.

    8. Re:No way. by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      Have you been there and done that in the past 10 years? They waived all but a $200 fee and set a repayment interest that fluctuated from 10% to 12% for me. They were also incredibly nice about it. The IRS is a lot less a bunch of a-holes as they were in the 80's and early 90's. Or maybe I just caught them on a good day.

    9. Re:No way. by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 1

      Yeah, was about 3 years ago. Didn't get a break, and had to get a fairly high interest loan to cover it =-(

      The at least told me I should handle California first, before worrying about them =-)

    10. Re:No way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what's really stupid? Borrowing money with credit cards. There are far cheaper forms of debt out there.

    11. Re:No way. by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      Like the mob.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    12. Re:No way. by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      I could have one heck of a story to tell.

      If he ran a blog with ads, he'd probably make the cost of the trip back on the ads alone.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    13. Re:No way. by GregoryD · · Score: 1

      You know what? I might be a grocery store clerk, but I'm not an asshole who hides behind Anonymous Coward when I got something to say.

      That much debit is not much to overcome if you are hardworking. Many millions of people have blown much more money on less worthy things.

    14. Re:No way. by stmfreak · · Score: 1

      Is it really "space" or is it a 62 mile high ballistic roller coaster ride with a substantial risk of death? $25K for a week on the ISS, you bet. $25K for a shot around the moon? You bet. $25K for a rollercoaster... color me jaded, but I'll pass.

      What shocks me is that the IRS has been around since 1913 and still contest promoters haven't figured out that free isn't free if you don't also cover taxes. Why can't contest promoters put up $100K for the prize, $30K for the taxes, $9K for the tax on the tax money, $2.7K for the... you know, I seem to recall first year calculus solved this riddle, but I'd guess $145K would cover space and taxes and then it would truly be free and open to Elementary students who certainly don't have credit cards to cover the IRS bill.

      Seeing a sixth grader win and actually able to afford a trip into sub-orbital-space... that would be something cool indeed.

      --
      These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
  19. Tax the organiser by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They attack this problem in Australia (and other places) by taxing the organiser of the lottery, all advertised prizes are for the "after tax" value, if it says "First prize: $1M" and you win, you get $1M. The taxman doesn't hassle you because he took his cut before you got your cheque. Not sure how you would go if you won a foriegn lottery?

    OTOH: Get a $50K reward from Loyds of London for bravery (of the "are you insane" variety) that saved an oil tanker from sliming the costline near Perth and you will have to pay tax as if it was additional income for that year, ie: the taxman will take 30-50%.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Tax the organiser by zCyl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They attack this problem in Australia (and other places) by taxing the organiser of the lottery, all advertised prizes are for the "after tax" value, if it says "First prize: $1M" and you win, you get $1M. The taxman doesn't hassle you because he took his cut before you got your cheque.
      That's funny. In the U.S. it's almost exactly the opposite. First, the lottery says "Jackpot prize $15 million" when it is actually $7 million, because they give you the option of taking the $7 million and putting it a fund which pays out 30 annual payments of half a million each. Then the tax comes on top of that. Counting only the federal income taxes and inflated advertising, that means that a jackpot advertised as $15 million comes out to a lump sum of about $4.6 million.
    2. Re:Tax the organiser by AoT · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      This article should be labeled:

      "Company refuses to give away free trip, Forces winner to pay.

    3. Re:Tax the organiser by Oligonicella · · Score: 0, Redundant

      FUD. The prize is $15 in payments over 20 or some years. The $7M is a cash payout option, besides which it's usually more like 60% which would be $9M. You've conflated the two, I think on purpose.

    4. Re:Tax the organiser by arth1 · · Score: 1

      That's funny. In the U.S. it's almost exactly the opposite. First, the lottery says "Jackpot prize $15 million" when it is actually $7 million, because they give you the option of taking the $7 million and putting it a fund which pays out 30 annual payments of half a million each. Then the tax comes on top of that. Counting only the federal income taxes and inflated advertising, that means that a jackpot advertised as $15 million comes out to a lump sum of about $4.6 million.
      Less lawyer's fees (which are inflation adjusted, unlike your annual payments) and other charges, all of which of course are paid post-tax. And, what the fine print sometimes tells you is that the $15 million is contingent on the lottery you won in having at least the same profits as when you won for the next 30 years -- if sales slump 20 years from now, so will your annual payout. And if they go broke, your payments will stop. That most winners take out the lump sum is understandable.
    5. Re:Tax the organiser by legallyillegal · · Score: 0, Funny

      it's A taxman, not THE taxman!

      --
      ?giS
    6. Re:Tax the organiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there's more to subtract before any taxes! That jackpot value includes the payoffs to everyone, not just the grand prize. So that person who get $100,0000 for getting almost all the numbers comes out of that and on down to the $1 "you-just-got-two-numbers-right" prize.

    7. Re:Tax the organiser by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      That's funny. In the U.S. it's almost exactly the opposite. First, the lottery says "Jackpot prize $15 million" when it is actually $7 million, because they give you the option of taking the $7 million and putting it a fund which pays out 30 annual payments of half a million each. Then the tax comes on top of that. Counting only the federal income taxes and inflated advertising, that means that a jackpot advertised as $15 million comes out to a lump sum of about $4.6 million.

      Actually some lottos offer a lump sum payout, which is the NPV of the total (in your example $15 million)payments made over time. What's key here is what interest rate is used as it greatly impacts the discount for future cash flows and thus your payout. If done right, both result in the same cash at the end of the period.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    8. Re:Tax the organiser by SNR+monkey · · Score: 3, Informative
      If the GP was talking about Powerball, he was correct. From the page:

      IS THE CASH AMOUNT THE JACKPOT AMOUNT AFTER TAXES?

      No. When we advertise a prize of $100 million paid over 29 years (30 payments), we actually have less than $50 million in cash. When someone wins the jackpot and wants cash, we give them all of the cash in the jackpot prize pool. If the winner wants the annuity, we invest the $50 million in cash to fund the annuity payments. [snip]

      Federal and State Income tax apply to whatever income you actually receive in a given tax year, whether it is wages or lottery prizes. If you take the cash amount (say $50 million), then you pay income tax on $50 million). If you take the annuity (say $100 million), then you pay income tax on the money you actually receive each year. Just like your wages, a withholding amount is required to be taken out immediately. The lottery will send you a W2-G form and you figure your actual tax at tax time.
    9. Re:Tax the organiser by eric76 · · Score: 1

      I think they buy an annuity payable to the winner over the next 25 years or so. The cash option is the amount that would go to buy the annuity if you had selected annual payments.

      The state doesn't make those annual payments to you, the purchaser of the annuity, I assume an insurance company, makes those payments.

      So what happens in the lottery has no effect. But if the insurance company goes under, there goes your annual payments.

    10. Re:Tax the organiser by arth1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think they buy an annuity payable to the winner over the next 25 years or so. The cash option is the amount that would go to buy the annuity if you had selected annual payments.
      Apparently, this depends on the state. Minnesota appears to do it this way, while Florida appears to be self-insured, and invests the money in the lottery itself - the small print on their web page states that the future payout is contingent on the sales equaling the sales of the drawing where you won.

      Also worth noting is that out-of-state winners tend to have to pay state income tax twice: The state income tax is withheld by the lottery no matter what, and you have to pay your state's income tax. Then you get to deduct the doubly paid amount on the next year's taxes, if you manage to get all the correct forms and statements. Net effect: Tax lawyers get a little richer.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    11. Re:Tax the organiser by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure about other states but here in Victoria the state govt takes ~15% of lottery and other major gambling transactions (excluding the stock market ;). The organiser is also restricted on what percentages they can take. In the main the taxation and profit percentages on gambling is fairly transparent and distributed amoungst all players.

      There are a lot more gambling options here than there were 30yrs ago and the state rakes in the revenue. There has been a well publicised "increase in problem gambling", or mabye it's just a "problem" because it shifted from "husbands and horses" to "housewifes and pokies". Just my impressions, no hard stats, and I'm almost positive I'm over-generalising the sexes.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Tax the organiser by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      The amount of winners is trivial to the tax office, in takings, why the rules to STEAL the dollars?
      Are they that despereate for money, ask the fed. Damn frikkin loosers

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    13. Re:Tax the organiser by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      They attack this problem in Australia (and other places) by taxing the organiser of the lottery, all advertised prizes are for the "after tax" value, if it says "First prize: $1M" and you win, you get $1M.

      I am not a government expert, but from what I hear and gather, the Australian government is simply better than the US government.

      Yes, advertised prizes should be after tax. Another thing that Australia has done recently that the US probably never will is to do away with rider bills.

      Its very frustrating to live in the country with arguably the best constitution ever written and have it treated as merely a historical document since WWII or the 60s however you look at it.

      I'm thinking of creating a bumper sticker for the next presidential election that says something like "Please vote for a president that will uphold the constitution", but something like that might get me arrested and probably would go above 99% of the people's heads.

    14. Re:Tax the organiser by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, I was only talking about the gambling industry, not company promo's. AFAIK: A company running a promo gets a tax write off and the winner gets a tax free prize, however you do need some sort of state permit to run the promo. Other states could be slightly different (there is something in SA about not having to purchase a product to enter), but all states rely to a similar degree on revenue from gaming and more or less just watch companies that run competitions.

      Not that the taxman is above stooping for small change, but the revenue from the Aussie gaming industry dwarfs any revenues they could possible hope to get from company promo's. It has not always been this way, "windfalls" used to be taxed but there have been huge "reforms" and a "convergence" in gambling laws across the country in the last few decades. Every state capital has at least one casino, all were founded in the last three decades or so and are now touted by their respective governments as "tourist destinations".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    15. Re:Tax the organiser by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thank you for not judging Aussies by our prime minister, I will return the favour. :)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:Tax the organiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUD. The prize is $15 in payments over 20 or some years. The $7M is a cash payout option, besides which it's usually more like 60% which would be $9M. You've conflated the two, I think on purpose.
      Kind of harsh on him, don't you think? Was it really neccessary to accuse him of spreading FUD and of making up the numbers on purpose? Even if he did do it on purpose, wouldn't simply pointing out the real figures would have been enough to correct the issue?

      Sorry to lecture. I'd just like to see Slashdot get a little nicer and I thought this accusation was a little over the top as a respose to a generally non-inflamatory comment. I see you're a regular here. You're exactly the kind of guy who could make a positive difference by taking the high road.

      Thanks,
      AC
    17. Re:Tax the organiser by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's right, the state gets ~15% of the total pot that goes into the gambling industry, but as I pointed out somewhere else, company promo's and charity raffles are not taxed. A company that gives away a car gets to write off the cost. You could say we tax the sinners not the winners, but I think it's just political pragmatisim to have what amounts to a sales tax on "entertainment" and a tax credit on "advertising". :)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    18. Re:Tax the organiser by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      You should try that scheme the next time you buy a house. "I'm prepared to offer you $300,000 for that house!", then hand over a check for $100,000 at the closing. When the seller asks you WTF?, you can say "When I quoted $300,000, what I meant was the sum total of my mortgage payments."

    19. Re:Tax the organiser by operagost · · Score: 1

      Almost no one outside of Justices Scalia and Thomas is actually interested in upholding the Constitution. They all search for loopholes in it that they can exploit to further their own agendas: usually gun control, censorship, or social programs. Clearly, all of the above are also pet agendas in Australia (especially gun control after the knee-jerk reactions to ONE psychopath's killing spree).

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    20. Re:Tax the organiser by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ...that means that a jackpot advertised as $15 million comes out to a lump sum of about $4.6 million.

      That's ok. I'll take it. It's $4.6 million more than I have now. I should be able to hire an accountant to handle the paperwork, and still have $4.5 million left over.

      --
      What?
    21. Re:Tax the organiser by jadavis · · Score: 1

      That's because the government has it's own set of rules.

      Same with Social Security: you couldn't run an investment house like Social Security, if you did you'd go to jail.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    22. Re:Tax the organiser by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There are a lot more gambling options here than there were 30yrs ago and the state rakes in the revenue. There has been a well publicised "increase in problem gambling", or mabye it's just a "problem" because it shifted from "husbands and horses" to "housewifes and pokies". Just my impressions, no hard stats, and I'm almost positive I'm over-generalising the sexes.

      No, I entirely agree with your analysis. It's much like the "war on drugs" which didn't "start" until crack made it out of the ghetto and white kids were getting hooked on it. Then we declared war on it to make people feel better.

      This is no different whatsoever.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Tax the organiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, advertised prizes should be after tax.
      That's retarded. Let's take a simple case. Say you're under the poverty line, and you win $10000 on a game show. The amount of income tax you pay on that will be very small. If instead you have a seven figure income, you'll pay around half that in taxes. The only way to solve that is to give the prize-giver all your tax information, so they can calculate how much to pay in taxes, which isn't going to happen.
    24. Re:Tax the organiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best constitution ever written? It's ambiguous in so many places, and it even had to be amended to give black people and women the right to vote. There were five amendments fixing voting alone. After failing so spectacularly with the Articles of Confederation, do you really think the founders could get it right in just one more try?

      It is not the president's job to uphold the constitution -- it's the judiciary's job. In fact, the president can push for amendments to the constitution. Therefore, it is best to vote for the president that will best espouse your interests. If some inbred hick wants to be wiretapped and prevent gays from marrying, then I won't fault him for voting for Bush. I will, however, fault him for his views and inbredness.

    25. Re:Tax the organiser by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Actually, lotteries are taxes limited to the math-impaired.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    26. Re:Tax the organiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression that presidents must swear an oath to uphold the constitution.

    27. Re:Tax the organiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the judges? I believe they just have to swear an oath to uphold the law (as it currently stands).

    28. Re:Tax the organiser by labnet · · Score: 1

      Actually I think its slightly different to that.

      The reason lotteries aren't taxed, is because the tickets are purchased with post tax money. ie, buying a lottery ticket cannot be a tax deduction, and always purchased with tax paid personal dollars. Taxing the prize pool would be double dipping, which done away with when Oz bought in the imputation system.
      I don't think the USA has an imputation system, which is why most US shares don't pay big dividends, because the receiver would be double taxed.

      --
      46137
    29. Re:Tax the organiser by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Clearly, all of the above are also pet agendas in Australia (especially gun control after the knee-jerk reactions to ONE psychopath's killing spree)."

      Last time I checked Australia was still a democracy that was not founded on it's own constitution. According to opinion polls 80+% of the population strongly support our current gun laws.

      Clearly there are right-wing wacko's in the US who speak of freedom in an attempt to ram their idea of it down my throat. I suggest you take your "pet agenda" for my country and shove it up your star spangled arse.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    30. Re:Tax the organiser by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      Actually the gov gets its cut from the state gambling transaction tax [maybe 15% in Vic not sure about Qld but I think its smaller] Because there are specified payout figures the only other bit that gets taxed is the bit going to the organizer as their admin fee which is taxed as income to them in the normanl way. The payouts to gamblers of the other 80% of the takings [depending which state] is not a taxable receipt to them.

      The reason is simply because it is not Income. The Australian tax law is both specific and vague. Gambling winnings arent income according to general law. The US has a specific provision that makes winnings taxable.. Australia doesnt. So they aren't taxed. And they couldn't introduce one now if they wanted to. There would be a revolution

      Under Astralian tax law it is almost impossible to be taxed on gambling winnings. Even a professional gambler has trouble getting to pay tax. But I suspect the tax authorities are happy enough to let a few winners off tax free if they don't have to allow the losers to deduct their losses.

    31. Re:Tax the organiser by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Errata: "that was not founded" should read "that was founded".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    32. Re:Tax the organiser by Xaria · · Score: 1

      No, it means you charge the *company* corporation tax. A flat 30% or thereabouts in Australia. And then don't consider it income for taxation purposes. Problem solved.

    33. Re:Tax the organiser by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Prizes" given away on game shows are not taxed at all, in fact the company giving away the prize can write the cost of the promotion off at tax time. Gambling attracts a 5-15% "sales tax" on every wager. If someone makes a bet on the lottery for $1 and wins $1M, they will pay a maximum of $0.15 tax on their $1M "prize". How far under the "poverty line" do you have to be to get that sort of deal from income tax calculations?

      Gambling with odds that gaurentee you will loose in the long run is what I would call retarded, making it simple for retards to do so is just good business sense.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    34. Re:Tax the organiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this a pretty obvious loophole for evading taxes in paying high-income employees? The only way to get around it is to make the tax code ever more complicated or use a regressive flat tax.

    35. Re:Tax the organiser by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Tax rules for prizes - Australian tax office website, look to the source AC, look to the source.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    36. Re:Tax the organiser by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The "war on drugs" can pretty much be traced back to the crusade of one Harry J. Anslinger. However it was still motivated by racisim as it is today, eg: $2B in attack choppers to Burma's miltary junta in the 90's, to be used to "intercept and destroy drugs reaching US shores". How many Apache helicopters patrol beverly-hills, would it be acceptable to blow up a small village in the US to aid the drug war, how many small villages?

      I do however agree with the idea of a "war on terror", we should start by eradicating the sources of terror that we have some control over. ie: Take away the right of democratic governments to kill anyone (including their own citizens) or to declare war against anyone, for reasons other than the immediate self defence of the nation. In short give up on state sponsered revenge. (yeah I know, the concept of equality in a tribal species is a pointless waste of time)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    37. Re:Tax the organiser by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The "war on drugs" can pretty much be traced back to the crusade of one Harry J. Anslinger.

      While that is true, it didn't have anything like the current level of support from the government (and our tax dollars) that it does now, even per capita.

      I do however agree with the idea of a "war on terror", we should start by eradicating the sources of terror that we have some control over. ie: Take away the right of democratic governments to kill anyone (including their own citizens) or to declare war against anyone, for reasons other than the immediate self defence of the nation.

      Amen, brother. How the people can fail to see that a death penalty is a terror weapon is beyond me. We have to be afraid to defend ourselves in our own homes, lest we be found guilty of murder! Not to mention that we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that we have executed men who were not guilty of the crime for which we murdered them...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    38. Re:Tax the organiser by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      True it started of on a modest scale, but Anslinger was the one who turned the domestic quirk of prohibition into a global sacred cow. The war on drugs is simply the latest excuse in a long line of excuses to beat up on a section of society. Drug users and terrorists have taken on the roles in society previously occupied by the "gooks" and "niggers" of my early childhood. Money and power seem to be the only constants in the seemingly endless line of ideological excuses offered for what in many cases amounts to oppression of individuals and/or small nations....and who the hell put up borders on my planet anyway?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  20. American's don't have to pay taxes? by grant050 · · Score: 2, Informative

    FTA: ...report the $138,000 galactic joy ride as income...
    I heard American's don't have to pay income taxes, in this documentary, America - Freedom to Fascism.
    It's got an interview with a lady who was on a jury and neither the prosecutor or judge could state the law that says a person has to pay income tax. So the jury found 'not guilty'. America - Freedom to Fascism
    Disclosure: I'm Australian, I don't pay American taxes anyway.

    1. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by publius1234 · · Score: 1

      There are folks out there who believe that the income tax is unconstitutional and have used the strategy you described with varying degrees of success. Needless to say, the IRS doesn't agree with this point of view, and they can absolutely ruin your life on a whim if they see fit. With this in mind, most people just pay their taxes.

    2. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by will_die · · Score: 1

      Anytime you see America or Australia compared to fascism you should take the author as a joke.
      Unfortunarly you have to pay income taxes in the US, we even have pay taxes if we earn the money in other countries.
      You only need to look at all theses people to see that the US government will force you to pay taxes.

    3. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by Nitage · · Score: 0, Troll

      In the US, taxes are unconstitutional for any reasonable interpretation of the constitution. Why then have taxes been ruled consitutional? Judical Activism

    4. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the US, taxes are unconstitutional for any reasonable interpretation of the constitution.

      Prior to 1913 you would be correct; however, quoting the 16th amendment to the US Constituition, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    5. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by Elwar123 · · Score: 1

      Ed Brown is going to die because he believes taxes are unconstitutional. http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=38 68.0/

    6. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by gibson042 · · Score: 0, Troll

      In the US, [income] taxes are unconstitutional for any reasonable interpretation of the constitution.

      Prior to 1913 you would be correct; however, quoting the 16th amendment to the US Constituition, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
      Like so much common knowledge, this interpretation of the 16th amendment is wrong. Brushaber v. Union Pacific went before the Supreme Court in 1916, and their ruling concluded that the amendment created no new powers of taxation and instead merely addressed the issues surrounding "income"; all taxes on it were to be classified in the same category as excises. As this forbade them from being direct taxes, it also severely limited the de facto constitutional meaning of "income". Legally, the IRS has no authority to collect a direct tax on the earnings of ordinary workers.
    7. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by agibbs · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is an old interpretation of the 16th amendment. The current Supreme Court interpretation "income" is in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (348 US 426) Which states that "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion" are properly taxable by the Federal government. The IRS as adopted this definition in the tax code ( 61(a)). In plain terms this means "income" is anything that the government has not expressly exempted from taxation.

      You may argue that this was not the original intent of the 16th amendment, and who knows you may be right, but it is the current constitutional interpretation of it by the United States Supreme Court.

    8. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by manekineko2 · · Score: 1

      Depending on one's viewpoint on what it means for something to be constitutional/not constitutional, you could equally be said to be the person who is wrong. If one subscribes to the notion that constitutionality is determined by what the Supreme Court decides, and in a very real and practical sense it is, then I dare you to find a tax law/constitutional law scholar who would really believe your argument has a chance in hell of succeeding before the Court. Thus, the IRS does have authority to collect a direct tax on earnings of ordinary workers under the 16th Amendment.

    9. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by Baba+Ram+Dass · · Score: 1

      Anytime you see America or Australia compared to fascism you should take the author as a joke. Anytime you have someone telling you what to do in a certain situation, you should ignore them and think for yourself.
      --
      Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
    10. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by gibson042 · · Score: 0, Troll

      It seems to me that Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. did nothing to expand the definition of income required by the Brushaber case, or to reinterpret the 16th amendment. Note that the "taxpayers" in context were corporations. The exercise of corporate privilege is certainly taxable, and the nature of the tax is an excise on the corporate activity with the amount measured by income; this is a perfectly legal income tax of precisely the sort required by Brushaber.

      The Glenshaw Glass case affirmed that the Internal Revenue Code represented "a clear legislative attempt to bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable", which meant that the punitive damages in question were taxable corporate income. The Brushaber case had limited "constitutionally taxable" receipts to those reachable by duties, imposts, and excises, and neither Glenshaw Glass nor (to my knowledge) any other case has changed that. Please enlighten me if you know of one, but my research leads me to near certainty that the IRS is constitutionally prohibited from imposing a direct tax on individuals (the fact that they seem to can only be explained by unlawful activity or paperwork (mis)characterizations of earnings).

    11. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by agibbs · · Score: 1

      Sorry it took so long to drag this up, I knew I'd read it somewhere, but I didn't think to look in my Criminal Law notes until I did a search of my whole hard drive. The case is Cheek v. United States (1991) 498 US 192.

      The basic facts of the case are this: Cheek was an airline pilot and a tax protester. He refused to pay income taxes on his wages from American Airlines because he believed that the 16th amendment did not apply to wage income (among other arguments, but this is the issue that we are discussing here). The IRS charged him with felony tax evasion and the case got all the way up to the supreme court. The particular issue is that of the mental state of a criminal defendant, but no court at any point during the process thought his substantive argument was anything less than frivolous. That said, here is the most on point quotation I could find in the case:

      "Cheek asserted in the trial court that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional as applied to him and thus could not legally impose any duty upon him of which he should have been aware. Such a submission is unsound, not because Cheek's constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the Murdock-Pomponio line of cases does not support such a position. " 498 US at 202.

      Footnote 7 to Cheek reprints the seventh circuit's position on anti-income tax arguments:

      The opinion stated, 882 F.2d 1263, 1268-1269, n. 2 (CA7 1989), as follows: "For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered `objectively reasonable' in this circuit: "(1) the belief that the sixteenth amendment to the constitution was improperly ratified, and therefore never came into being; "(2) the belief that the sixteenth amendment is unconstitutional generally; "(3) the belief that the income tax violates the takings clause of the fifth amendment; "(4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional; [498 U.S. 192, 199] "(5) the belief that wages are not income, and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws; "(6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and "(7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income."
    12. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you may notice that situations in which the supreme court looks at the constitution and realises that it makes some aspect of the status quo illegal are fairly rare. Take the draft for instance; the line "congress shall have the power to raise an army" is interpreted to mean that congress shall have the power to run a draft, which is not how any reasonable person* would interpret it. The power to raise an army is not the power to compel people to be part of your army, it's the power to have an army under your control.

      The point is that the supreme court is made up of the top judges of the land and as such exists only through the maintenance of the existing order of things. It is, therefore, not in the interest of the supreme court judges to go about changing things, unconstitutional or not - and as the supreme court of the land no-one can smack their judgements down as having been influenced by person bias. It's a closed system designed to keep things working as they always have.

      *'reasonable person' defined as 'me'

    13. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? by gibson042 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thank you for the response. If I read correctly, then one of Cheek's fundamental claims was that his wages did not constitute income. That is surely contradicted by both the IRC and by point 5 of the footnote. But I think the contradiction is merely hidden instead of resolved. Wouldn't the term "wages", as part of "income", be subject to the same limitations imposed by the Brushaber ruling? If not, then by what rationale? And if so, then we are right back to the IRS either engaging in unlawful activity or, with the (unknowing?) assistance of the courts, mischaracterizing all earnings as wages (and thus by definition "income"). To be honest, I strongly suspect the latter. Most people, judges included, already misread the 16th amendment as if it created the power to levy an unapportioned direct tax, and that line of thinking renders moot the whole investigation.

  21. Argh! by OpenSourced · · Score: 1

    Some contest sponsors provide a check to cover taxes, but that income is also taxable.

    It's a kind of infinite recursive descent to RUIN!

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That levels out at around $26,595.75...

  22. Selling it would have been more ideal. by JoneK · · Score: 0

    He could have sold it. Even if he sold it with 30k$ he would have gained 5000 profit and after tax. He would have gotten money from it. To him self...

    1. Re:Selling it would have been more ideal. by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      If he sold it he might be able to argue on his taxes that the value he sold it for was the actual value, and only pay taxes on that money. He would have come out way ahead, even with the extra $1k for the tax attorney he would probably need.

  23. Income? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I fail to see how a free trip to space equates to income. Yes, the trip ordinarily costs $138,000, but this paticular trip was priced at "Win this competition". That doesn't have any monetary value. X% of "Win this competition" is not equal to $25,000. As others have mentioned, the company could also have priced that paticular seat at $1 and been well withing their rights. This story seems bogus.

    This kind of reminds me of property taxes, where someone walks up to your house, says "I reckons she's worth about this much, so you pay me that much", despite the fact that your house is earning you no income and will be taxed anyway when sold or inherited. It doesn't make much sense.

    I'm a believer in financing the state through taxes. But I'm also of the opinion that there should be some kind of logic to tax. Charging people money for something when they haven't actually made any money, or indeed materially benefited in any way, as in this case is like something out of a one dimensional folk tale. When tax is levied, there should always be a question, why is it being levied?

    We need taxes. But we also need to remember that the government is not our landlord. It is wrong to have a tax on simply being alive. Tax should be avoidable, if you have no money to pay any.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Income? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      This kind of reminds me of property taxes, where someone walks up to your house, says "I reckons she's worth about this much, so you pay me that much", despite the fact that your house is earning you no income and will be taxed anyway when sold or inherited.

      But there is a lot of law related directly to property, and fairly established mechanisms for dertermoning the value of a house. A spaceflight is different. Or at least it should be. Like anything else of this type, e.g. airlines, I have a cost, and a maximum number of people I can spread this cost between. I can divide the cost by the number of people, or I can charge the maximum I think the market will bear for each seat. If I have covered my costs without filling all the seats, then anything I charge for those other seats is pure profit. Once the market for expensive seats has been eliminated, that seat is worth the maximum anyone ;eft over will pay for it. This could be as little as $1.

    2. Re:Income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally dislike property taxes as well however they have a side purpose other than just generating income for the government. They are suppose to serve as motivation for the owners of said properties to improve, develop, and maintain their property. Without the taxes the owners can just sit on their property and let it deteriorate despite the negative effects it is having on the surrounding area. Hurts the house rich, cash poor people but then these are the very people whom are least likely to be keeping up with the gentrification going on around them.

    3. Re:Income? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I'm a believer in financing the state through taxes. But I'm also of the opinion that there should be some kind of logic to tax. Charging people money for something when they haven't actually made any money, or indeed materially benefited in any way, as in this case is like something out of a one dimensional folk tale. When tax is levied, there should always be a question, why is it being levied?

      The trip is valued at $138,000. Whether he can resell it or not is not the IRD's problem. It's not a profit tax, or an assets tax, it's an income tax.

    4. Re:Income? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      or indeed materially benefited in any way
      You gotta be kidding. How is the adventure of the life time is not a material benefit?
      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    5. Re:Income? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how a free trip to space equates to income. Yes, the trip ordinarily costs $138,000, but this paticular trip was priced at "Win this competition". That doesn't have any monetary value.

      Frankly, I don't see how it equates to income either, and I'm a tax specialist. If the trip was transferable then you could argue for it being income, but then the guy would have been an idiot to give it up when he could have just sold it. But a completely intangible prize like a trip to space, where the prize itself benefits the corporation giving the prize (after all, it's publicity for them), I don't know. What if they called it a scholarship? A trip to space is certainly an educational experience? What if they paid him minimum wage and filmed the whole thing to create a commercial? Wouldn't it be a non-taxable fringe benefit? Survivor contestants aren't taxed on the value of their trip to the island, are they?

      Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Nothing in this message is intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.

    6. Re:Income? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The trip is valued at $138,000. Whether he can resell it or not is not the IRD's problem. It's not a profit tax, or an assets tax, it's an income tax.

      Whether or not he can resell it can play a role in what the fair market value is, though. Take a look, for instance, at the valuation of shares in a Family Limited Partnership.

    7. Re:Income? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      This kind of reminds me of property taxes, where someone walks up to your house, says "I reckons she's worth about this much, so you pay me that much", despite the fact that your house is earning you no income and will be taxed anyway when sold or inherited. It doesn't make much sense.

      Property tax is not an income tax, so it's irrelevant what kind of income you can derive from your house. The idea is that your local government needs money to do it's thing.

      Now, how property taxes are determined is almost completely arbitrary, that I'll agree with.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    8. Re:Income? by DougWebb · · Score: 1

      That doesn't work, because you need to get permits for any significant improvements, and those permits are then used to adjust your valuation and increase the taxes you owe. To me, that's a disincentive to improving the property.

      I would much rather have a system where property taxes are paid on the profits when a house is sold, just like the real estate commission and other 'cost of sale' items. That way, the tax isn't levied until you have some actual income, and a precise determination of what the house is actually worth.

      Disclaimer: I live in the highest taxed municipality in NJ, which is the highest taxed state in the US. My property tax is about 50% as much as my mortgage. My town is also almost entirely residential; there are very few businesses paying local taxes out of real income. Just about the entire cost of government is paid through property taxes.

    9. Re:Income? by GeorgeS069 · · Score: 1

      now wait a minute here...if I can barely pay my property taxes now...how the F am I supposed to upgrade my property so the value is increased and then PAY MORE TAXES I can't afford??!!

      --
      I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
    10. Re:Income? by ke4roh · · Score: 1

      Funny this. I once won a year's supply of milk (52 gallons, one each week) from the local convenience store. Being the stickler for getting things right that I am, I checked on the tax law and kept careful records of the cost of each gallon I picked up and reported something like $300 on my income tax for that year. Free milk is nice, but the recordkeeping isn't.

      --
      I hate call waitin`~+~~~
      NO CARRIER
    11. Re:Income? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      IANATL, but "the company could also have priced that paticular seat at $1 and been well withing their rights." would have been followed immediately by an IRS audit, in which case they would have been free to declare that price a false one, set their own price, and then tax that.

      IAACB (I am a customs broker) and that's how Customs does it. If they have a suspicion that your declared value is less than the resonable market value, they can invoke the ability to use calculated transaction value in which they first compare against other similar articles, or, if the item is fairly unique, to calculate your costs themselves, add on a market-supportable profit, and value that item at what they calculate your value SHOULD be.

      Face it, that camel's nose is under the tentflap. We've accepted without question that the government has the right to tax basically anything without question or resistance. The congress cannot stop spending our money, they're like heroin addicts on a bender. This government is no longer controlled by the people, nor does it work for the people. Draw your own conclusions.

      --
      -Styopa
    12. Re:Income? by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      "What if they paid him minimum wage and filmed the whole thing to create a commercial?"

      Yes, to me, that would seem to work. If they CAN'T get away with giving an "employee" paid travel as part of the "job", then the income tax bill must really suck for pilots and stewardesses.

    13. Re:Income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see how a free trip to space equates to income. Yes, the trip ordinarily costs $138,000, but this paticular trip was priced at "Win this competition". That doesn't have any monetary value. X% of "Win this competition" is not equal to $25,000. As others have mentioned, the company could also have priced that paticular seat at $1 and been well withing their rights. This story seems bogus.

      The value is $1? Don't be ridiculous. Start advertising flights to space for $1. See how many tickets you sell. There is a long history in tax law of trying to lowball prices to avoid tax. It's not new, and the government doesn't like it.

      The Russians sell trips to space for millions of dollars, and they have sold some at that price.

      A trip to space has value. And in the USA, contest prizes, lotteries & gambling winnings are treated as taxable income. In other countries, such as Canada, they are not taxable. Don't like it? Talk to Congress.

      This kind of reminds me of property taxes, where someone walks up to your house, says "I reckons she's worth about this much, so you pay me that much"

      Municipal governments need some tax revenue, and (usually) the only available revenue source is property tax. What fair method do you propose to fund municipal governments?

      despite the fact that your house is earning you no income and will be taxed anyway when sold or inherited. It doesn't make much sense.

      Property tax is a tax on assets, not on income. Not everybody has to pay tax when a property is sold or inherited. And even if there is tax to pay when sold or inherited, it is federal & state tax, not municipal.

      I'm a believer in financing the state through taxes. But I'm also of the opinion that there should be some kind of logic to tax. Charging people money for something when they haven't actually made any money, or indeed materially benefited in any way

      The guy received something of value, a trip to space. It has value, and he benefits. Try and sell it on ebay and you'll see what the fair market value is. Why do millions of people shell out lotsa cash to go to Hawaii every year? Because it has value and they benefit.

      When tax is levied, there should always be a question, why is it being levied?

      It's very simple. There are 2 possible reasons:

      1. The government wants more money.
      2. The government wants to discourage the activity being taxed.

      We need taxes. But we also need to remember that the government is not our landlord. It is wrong to have a tax on simply being alive.

      The US government doesn't tax life. Yet.

    14. Re:Income? by planetmn · · Score: 1

      Except that it isn't travel as part of the job. You can spin it any way you'd like, but in the US, prizes are taxable income, and that's exactly what this is.

      The reason it wouldn't work to pay him minimum wage to film the trip, is that it is already public knowledge that the trip was given to him as a prize. Contrast this to "The Apprentice" where the prize is a job. Sure, the income derived from the job is taxable, but the job itself is not, and has no inherent value. If the prize had been "Work as a space documentary film maker" with a requirement of the job actually going to space, then they could pay him, and it would be considered part of the job.

      -dave

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
    15. Re:Income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see how a free trip to space equates to income.
      Well, duh, that's because you're not sadistically trying to harm everyone and hold back the country. Join the IRS and then tell us what you see as income. Evil does wonders for your perception.
    16. Re:Income? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      It is avoidable in very specific situations... Like if your able to live on less than $9k in a single year without having your own house, property, or savings... I did that once...

      My parents allowed me to stay in a house they own (without charging me anything for it that year and they couldn't claim 'rent' was a gift as the house has been sitting vacant for almost a decade) when I first went on my own as a consultant... And then that year I only made about $9k... Come tax time I owed nothing to the IRS, but I wouldn't want to live like that to long...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    17. Re:Income? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      It's not a profit tax, or an assets tax, it's an income tax.

      I agree with the original poster. This is really a service that he's won, not something he's actually gaining in income. Why is an experience going into space considered income? My opinion may not stand up to former tax rulings by the courts, but it sure doesn't jive well with the reasons why we tax people (to support the government). He's not going to gain one dollar in tangible assets from having this experience. Why does the government feel they need to gain something from it, when this guy isn't even gaining anything monetarily from it?

      We don't tax other experiences that cost someone money. If he had been a reporter on an assignment to take one of these trips, the reporter would never have been taxed on the cost of the trip. Is there really some justifiable difference between the two? Like I say, maybe it doesn't fit within previous rulings by the courts, but that doesn't make it right to tax something like this.

      --
      AccountKiller
    18. Re:Income? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      He's not going to gain one dollar in tangible assets from having this experience

      I said, it's not an assets tax. If you get a free holiday, you're supposed to declare it. That most don't is because no one knows, they can get away with it, but if it's headline news, it can't be ignored, it has to be ruled on.

      I'm not arguing morality, just application of law.

    19. Re:Income? by wsherman · · Score: 1

      This kind of reminds me of property taxes, where someone walks up to your house, says "I reckons she's worth about this much, so you pay me that much", despite the fact that your house is earning you no income...

      If your house has no value to you then why do you own a house?

      Obviously your house does have value to you and obviously it would have value to other people. Unless you run your house as a public park, other people are denied the value of your house because you own it (and use that ownership to deny them access).

      The fundamental distinction that needs to be made is the value of your house itself versus the value of the land your house is on. Somewhere along the line, someone did work to create your house so they had a right to own your house and to (probably indirectly) sell it to you.

      The land your house is on is another story entirely. No one produced the land. It was just there. If everyone in the world was born at the same time and given an equal share of the land at birth then there might be some legitimate claim to ownership. As it is, it is very hard to justify individual land ownership as "fair" (that is note to say that using a market system to allocate land has no benefits whatsoever).

      Given that not everyone in the world was born at the same time, the most fair system would be for land to be owned collectively by everyone on the planet with a system to allow people to rent the parcels of land for exclusive use from everyone collectively. Such a system is very similar to a "land value tax". For a more detailed discussion of these issues have a look at the wikipedia entries on land value tax and Henry George.

      Note that because everyone you be receiving their share of the rent, they could use the rent they received to pay to rent a small piece of land for themselves. If everyone rented an equal share of land then the rent received would exactly cancel the rent payed. It is more likely that certain people would rent larger parcels of land so that everyone else would receive a net income.

    20. Re:Income? by jafac · · Score: 1

      There are several reasons for such byzantine rules.

      1. There are so many tax cheats out there who will try anything, or parse any language to try to create loopholes - and in many cases, not even to save themselves a few bucks; in many cases, they do this out of principle, because they simply do not believe in taxes.

      2. Where the government has the power to give and take, there are always ALWAYS criminals and con men (more frequently referred to as "politicians") who will use that power as a means to make themselves money, or "shake down" private citizens or businessmen. Where you find weak language that can be exploited as a loophole in tax code, the origin of such loopholes is usually a corrupt politician trying to "sell" a benefit to one lobby or another.

      The result of politicians from various interests, all with their dirty little hands in the tax code, is absurd outcomes like this poor contest winner.

      One reaction to this situation is the "we need a flat tax" folks. A noble sentiment. Sadly, such a tax would be far too punitive to the poor, and would be inadequate at providing the revenue for a functional modern government providing the services that we've all come to expect. If you cut an exception for the low-income folks, then you no longer have a "flat-tax"; and the disadvantage there is that you'll always have a segment of society that feels they're being cheated.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    21. Re:Income? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      If your house has no value to you then why do you own a house?
      I never said that the house had no value. I said that it produced no income.

      Income tax I understand. In order to make that money you, either directly or indirectly, required that the state and government exist in some fashion. (Local Warlords and their posses not looting your local town is evidence that the money is being put to some good use.) Same goes for sales tax, car tax, inheritance tax, and even gift tax to a degree.

      But property tax isn't really as justified as the rest. Yes, it is true that for your house to exist and be safe you need some form of civilised government. However, that does not explain why some houses are taxed more than others, despite having the same acreage. Attempts to put a "value" on a house, or indeed any item for that matter, are flawed because no item can be said to have any real value at all until it comes to be sold.

      A house is neither being recieved nor generating income over all the years it is being taxed. Furthermore, regardless of any improvements to either the building or the area, the house itself will never become any more or less of a liability to the government, so why does the tax increase based ona non tangable "valuation"? Unlike car tax, the simple presence of the house does not require maintainance or action on the part of the government, save only the provision of services, which are taxed seperately anyway.

      The tax is based on the assumption that is appropriate to tax things of "value". But look around the house. Jewellery, electronics, clothes, furniture and indeed, even the owners money itself. These are all items of value, yet only the house is taxed? The house is the exception, not the rule, and the tax exists only as a holdover from when land was in fact the only real source of income. In those days, land tax meant income tax, but today your house and any land with it generate no income whatsoever for you. So why tax the roofs over people's heads?

      I'm a believer that the primary form of tax should be on commerce. Commerce uses the governments currency, is protected by the government, upheld by its laws and supported by its infrastructure. The best and most appropriate time to levy a fair tax is when a financial transaction, be it in cash or asset, takes place. When there is no commerce, there should be no tax. If you allow that, you eventually get poll taxes. Restrict tax to commerce, and the government has no better incentive to promote prosperity.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    22. Re:Income? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      You can spin it any way you'd like, but in the US, prizes are taxable income, and that's exactly what this is.

      You're wrong about the first part. Some prizes are taxable income. Others aren't.

      As for the second part, you do seem to be correct as to this particular case.

      The reason it wouldn't work to pay him minimum wage to film the trip, is that it is already public knowledge that the trip was given to him as a prize.

      Actually, the trip wasn't given to him at all. He declined it. My point was about what they should have done, not what has actually happened.

      If the prize had been "Work as a space documentary film maker" with a requirement of the job actually going to space, then they could pay him, and it would be considered part of the job.

      My suggestion wasn't that he work as a space documentary film maker, it was that he *appear*, while in space, in some promotional materials. That's what Oracle is running this prize for, promotion, right?

      I dunno, the bottom line is this absolutely shouldn't be taxable income, and there must be some way to structure it so it isn't, because the law couldn't possibly be that screwed up.

      Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Nothing in this post is intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.

    23. Re:Income? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is, he should just hire a competent accountant?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    24. Re:Income? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      No, he has no need for a good accountant, as he declined the prize.

    25. Re:Income? by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      It's all based upon allodial title (Wiki it for more info). Prior to the US 'War Between the States' people actually owned their land and what was below it. After the War Between the States that changed. Now we only own the surface, and everything above it to a few dozen feet.

      There is a great video set on YouTube by Michael Badnarik who teaches a class on the US Constitution in which he discusses this. His point is that if we have to perpetually pay taxes on it, then we don't really own it do we? Why would we pay someone else for use of something that we own?
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074 978323622&q=michael+badnarik

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
  24. Taxes have always had this effect by die_another_day · · Score: 1

    There have been all sorts of endeavors that were canceled once the tax implications were considered. All businesses have to weigh the tax implications of every decision made.

  25. Donations or Ebay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He could set up an paypal account and ask for donations.

    or

    He could sell that trip on Ebay.

  26. Ah, I love Canada by xiang+shui · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...he wouldn't have had to pay a dime, Up North. Gifts or prizes are _not_ taxable.

  27. The Guy's Own Blog Entry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    http://www.eminentbrain.com/

    Saw it referenced several times in the article, but the address was never quoted.

    The entry in question is the top one on that page.

  28. Pay raises in the Netherlands by shani · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is similar to what happens in countries like the Netherlands (or other nordic countries) where people *avoid* pay rises because sometimes having a rise of 10% they have to pay more taxes and end earning less than what they earned before the "raise".

    In the 6 years that I've been in the Netherlands (3 as a manager), I've never known anyone to turn down a pay raise. (If you know such people, please let me know... we might want to hire them.) The system does not work as you describe. Making more money always gives you more money.

    There may be other reasons to worry about a high income, such as being forced to leave rent controlled housing, but this is not tax related.

    1. Re:Pay raises in the Netherlands by Annoymous+Cowherd · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've been living in the Netherlands for the past 15 years.

      Ever since Fortuyn's party was voted out and the CDA and friends moved in (sorry for the political references!), things have been going downhill. I understand the benefits of having a welfare state, and yes, they did slightly improve healthcare, but taxation has been a disaster.

      So if you really wanted to know someone who turned down a pay rise, then pleased to meet you. No I won't come and work for you. This was in '96, and I admit it wasn't a significant increment, nor was it a significant position. Granted I left the company shortly after. But the fact of the matter is, I was not in a financial position to accept that raise.

      One could argue that things are improving, and this is an exceptional case. Me, I think only drastic change would bring that about.

      I know this isn't the best place to be go on about our country, but if you're in Emmen anytime, look me up at Groothuis!

    2. Re:Pay raises in the Netherlands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In the older days there was a point where your payrise would bump your income enough to reach the point where you where forced to leave the cheaper healthplan and had to pay lots more for your own health insurance. The trick was to get a quick payraise after that because the net income was a little lower then before if this happened to you (not to mention that you had to pay the medical bills upfront and fill in declarations to get the money back).

      Low income jobs have the same problem. People will eventually lose rent assistance when their income gets better making a payrise not always desireable.

    3. Re:Pay raises in the Netherlands by max99ted · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about the Netherlands, but in Canada this is indeed true. My father (years ago) got a raise and it bumped him up to the next tax bracket, which meant overall he was getting less money at the end of the year. I think most employers usually take this into account when applying raises (and adjust accordingly) but it's not always the case.

      --

      Please stop APK.. you're only hurting yourself.

    4. Re:Pay raises in the Netherlands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      either you're misinformed or lying, or your countries blow.

      Here in the US, it works like this (totally made up numbers):
      you get taxed from say, 30,000-59,999 at 20%.
      You get taxed at 30% from 60,000-89,999.

      Say you make 59,000 (47,200 after these imaginary taxes). If you get a raise to 61,000, it's not 42,700 after taxes. You get taxed at 20% for the first 59,999 of your income, and taxed 30% for that 1,000 over 60,000 that you make. So you will then make 48,700 after that 2,000 raise (rather than 48,800 if you hadn't changed tax brackets).

      l2tax.

    5. Re:Pay raises in the Netherlands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's simply not true. In Canada, you get taxed at the rate specified by a given bracket by the amount WITHIN that bracket. So, your first ~$8500 is covered by the basic personal deduction (i.e. "tax-free"), the next ~$29000 is taxed at 15.25% federally (for 2006), the next ~$37000 is taxed at 22% federally, etc.

      If you make $37499 (if my numbers are correct -- regardless it's the the very top of the 15.25% tax bracket), and get a $1000 raise, the only effect is that $1 of that is taxed at 15.25%, and the remaining $999 is taxed at 22%. So, that extra $1000 is essentially an extra $780 in your pocket (well, before provincial taxes, which I'm ignoring for simplicity, but they work mostly the same way). Sure, that $1000 raise would be worth more if you were only making $30k (i.e, worth $847.50 before provincial taxes), but you never lose money by making a raise, unless you're talking about claw-back of benefits, which is a different issue.

    6. Re:Pay raises in the Netherlands by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      Seems odd. In the US, a pay raise may bump you up to the next tax bracket, but only the money you earn above the cut-off would be taxed at the higher rate, not all of your money. So for example, if you are taxed 25% if you make 50k/yr or less and 30% if you make above 50k/yr, and you get a raise from 49K to 51K, the first 50k would be taxed at 25% and just the final 1k would be taxed at 30%. That way, even a raise of $1.00 across a new tax bracket means you always have more take home money - you just pay higher tax on that extra dollar.

    7. Re:Pay raises in the Netherlands by punkkid2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, in Romania, about 2 years ago, before the new goverment came to power, salaries over a certain treshold (the equivalent of 2000 euro or something around that figure... i think.... ) had a 40 % tax :O It was huge :O (on the other hand, having a 2000 euro salary makes you rich around here :)) ). Now we have 16 % tax on almost everything income related...

    8. Re:Pay raises in the Netherlands by cyril3 · · Score: 1

      The same in Australia. Marginal tax rates rise as you move into a new tax level but the tax on lower portions of the income are stilltaxed at the lower rate. I actually met somone who had refused promotions for about 5 years because she thought that the next marginal rate would be applired to her total income, not the additional income only. I was literally speechless that someone could think that but it seems to be at the root of a lot of the "i cant afford a payrise' problems. There are real disincentives at the lower end where increases in income can cause loss of other benefits like government payments and healthcare but in Australia at least this is known as a problem and social security benefits are designed as much as possible to alleviate it [not that it always works]

    9. Re:Pay raises in the Netherlands by bbc · · Score: 1

      "I've never known anyone to turn down a pay raise. (If you know such people, please let me know... we might want to hire them.)"

      Your company hires idiots? Please tell me the name of your company, so I can stop buying from them.

    10. Re:Pay raises in the Netherlands by computer_chacham · · Score: 1

      For the US case, you're ignoring the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which can sometimes double or triple your (net) marginal tax rate on income or Capital Gains if you "trigger" it. There are also tax deductions that get phased out at higher incomes.

    11. Re:Pay raises in the Netherlands by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      True - but I've never made enough money to have to worry about that :-)

  29. He gave up too soon!!! by erroneus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    He might have started some sort of charity thing and solicited donations and collected via eBay. He would have had a whole year + extensions after the trip or something along those lines to make it all happen. You think there aren't 25,000 sympathetic geeks all over the world who wouldn't have given a dollar to let this guy go into space? I would have. I'd kick in more.

    1. Re:He gave up too soon!!! by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      He'd have owed money on the donations as well. The whole US Tax code is insanely screwed up to begin with.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  30. Re:Asshole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forget that IRS is asshole.
    What 'should' be doesn't matter to them, only how to get money from you, your life, freedom, any logic or law be damned. Of course if law is on your side, you can fight and win, but that won't stop them from trying.

    Example: they can fine you unlawfully, and God forbid you don't pay! You'll end up in prison, no matter if they were right or not - you MUST pay if they demand, and only then you can sue them. And with some luck, five years later, after spending most of your funds on lawyers and getting your firm bankrupt because you gave your money to IRS instead of paying debts, bills and salaries, you get awarded the exact amount they took from you. No compensation, no interest, no lawsuit costs, just the money they weren't entitled to. And they won't care they drove you to bankruptcy.

    The system is sick, but there's nothing we can do about it.

  31. orthagonal thinking reqd. by dotmax · · Score: 1

    bummer to give up the trip, but i can see how $25k might be a porblem [sic]. In a circumstance like this i'd try to tap into the pop. culture for resources. Whore myself out for endorsements, appearances, start a "training for my flight" blog or something. Being a lucky space prize winner has _got_ (one would hope) to carry enough cachet that a clever chappie could leverage it to earn the money required.

  32. For one thing by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    I think he's getting off lucky. The IRS might suddenly decide that the company is underestimating the value of the trip, and place its value at $20M US, which up to now has been the going rate. There - pay taxes on THAT! ;)

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  33. You've just discredited that documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard American's don't have to pay income taxes, in this documentary, America - Freedom to Fascism.

    I've also heard that the moon is made out of green cheese... doesn't mean its true. Yeah people have contested income taxes and have gotten juries to make decisions like the one you quote, but I can assure you - Americans pay their income taxes and even if our IRS (Internal Revenue Service) occasionally gets setbacks they still have the capability to thoroughly shake you down if you are not properly paying your taxes.

  34. Sponsors by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure the Porn industry would pay 25K for the only video in existance of someone whackin in space.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  35. There is no free launch by OricAtmos48K · · Score: 1, Funny

    There is no free launch

  36. Not uncle Sam by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Oracle. They should have paid the taxes as well. It was very obvious from the beginning that Uncle Sam would lay his long bony arms on this.

    BTW, it is not too late for Oracle to do it now.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:Not uncle Sam by Enrico21 · · Score: 1

      Well, IANAL, but if Oracle had "paid the taxes" on their prize, that would probably have been counted as income to the recipient in addition to the cash value of the prize. I don't think that in this case there is any practical way to be compliant without the recipient declaring all funds or items of value received as income.

    2. Re:Not uncle Sam by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Duh! Oracle pays tax straigt to IRS, winner flies to space without paying no nothing from the pocket.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:Not uncle Sam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, IANAL
      Your sexual habits don't concern me.

      but if Oracle had "paid the taxes" on their prize, that would probably have been counted as income to the recipient in addition to the cash value of the prize.
      So what? Worst case, Oracle could cut him a check for another $50,000. The taxes on that would be less than $25,000, leaving $25,000 in cash to pay off the taxes on the trip.
    4. Re:Not uncle Sam by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

      But if they paid him $25,000 for the tax bill, wouldn't he then still owe a few thousand in taxes on that new $25k? And if they paid $25,000+$X,000, wouldn't he then still owe a small percentage of that? It never ends :)

    5. Re:Not uncle Sam by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      ha-ha

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  37. Oracle should've coughed up the taxes too by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised Oracle didn't solve this. They could have paided the "in kind" taxes so that there would no burden on this guy. My employer did this for my relocation and sign on bonus.

    --

    To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

  38. Tax law doesn't apply in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ``taxable'' event occurs when the trip is received, but space is outside the country, in fact, space is outside the planet. Due to that fact, nothing taxable occurs within the boundary of the US, nothing taxable occurs while he is still on the planet.

    So he's clearly in space, where US law does not apply, no country's law applies.

  39. If You Didn't Vote Libertarian Then Don't Complain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Shouldn't this story have been labeled under Politics rather than Science?
    http://www.fairtax.org/
    Like the cliche says: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The U.S. Tax code has been re-engineered for one purpose to empower the powerful "Professional Politicians" and special interest groups and lobbyist, while holding back the common man. We went to war against England over a 1/2% tax on tea.... Then again the British Pound Sterling was worth a lot more than our current neutered U.S.
    Dollar.

  40. say what? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

    No free spaceflight?

    If I buy someone a plane ticket to come visit me, they're not taxed for it as income.

    If Oracle buys this dude a spaceflight, why should he pay tax on it? /me confused

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    1. Re:say what? by spacefight · · Score: 1

      I'm glad Oracle didn't pay them a spacefight...

    2. Re:say what? by LordOfTheNoobs · · Score: 1

      I imagine that that is because you did not report giving them the ticket.

      --
      They're there affecting their effect.
    3. Re:say what? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      It's my ticket though, just because it lets them fly doesn't mean they own it.

      I could see if it were tangible, like I sent them cash to buy a ticket, they could use it for other things instead.

      Bah, tax annoys me. Repeated taxation infuriates me. down with the man!!!

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    4. Re:say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANATA

      "If I buy someone a plane ticket to come visit me, they're not taxed for it as income."

      But it's considered in the tax laws.

      The ticket is considered a gift. The person you purchased it for derived a known and determinable value from your gesture. Sounds ridiculous, but it's there. IRS site has pages and sections on this.

      Gifts are taxable, but the person giving the gift pays the tax. Also, there is a level where it it reportable (over around $12,000 a year from a person per person, depends on the year given recent tax law changes). And taxable (depending blood relations I believe, but roughly $750,000, used to count against inherited money; note the money is taken out before the money passes to the recipient, so the dead person essentially pays the tax).

      Not sure if you are a baseball fan, but this occurred during Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire's record setting home run years. There was a question whether a person who caught a record setting ball (match the record, over the record) who gave the ball back to the hitter (a typical nice gesture) owed taxes on the ball, given the home run balls often fetched 6 figures. The IRS actually came out with a statement clarifying what they would do; *if* the ball was returned immediately, it was not taxable.

      I don't don't think they outright said it, but the implication was if you kept it, it was considered a prize, and you owed taxes on it.

    5. Re:say what? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      What about commercial flights then? I flew for AMD a couple dozen times. Are all those trips "gifts"? I don't think so [definitely not!!!].

      I think not all gestures are taxable, otherwise things would get really confusing.

      As for the dude who caught the ball, if he doesn't sell it, he has a net income of the value of a baseball. It's only taxable when he sells it and nets an income. If the IRS claimed that just getting the ball would be taxable, they would have to assess the value. If you don't sell it, it has no value, hence no taxation (beyond the $3 a baseball goes for).

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    6. Re:say what? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      It's considered a gift and so is something falling under 'gift taxes', if you were to actually report the gift they'd probably be owing the state for that ticket as well...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    7. Re:say what? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      By the letter of the law - yes, if you buy someone a plane ticket, they have to pay tax on it. However, in reality that never happens.

    8. Re:say what? by SillySlashdotName · · Score: 1

      If I buy someone a plane ticket to come visit me, they're not taxed for it as income.

      If it is a part of their employment, then under the tax code it IS income, and must be reported as such.

      If it is a gift, then it falls under the gift tax, and is not reported as income, but as a gift. Currently you are allowed to give a certain amount each year and a maximum lifetime amount without paying any taxes ON WHAT YOU GIVE, and without the recipient paying any taxes on WHAT THEY RECEIVE. I think the current annual limit is something like $10,000.00 - a BUNCH less than the assessed value of the trip.

      Give away enough plane tickets (to the same person, I think) and don't report it, and you will be in trouble with the IRS.

      --
      Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
  41. The Enlightenment has only just begun: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try reading "Man, Economy and State" by M Rothbard. All you ever need to know about economics/politics is there, it'll change your world view.

    BTW you've fallen into the classic trap of confusing "The Government" with the community. Voluntary cohersion free transactions are the ties that bind people together - we literally prosper by division of labour. By forceably allocating scarce resources according to someones personal opinions (which are ulitmately enforced by threat of violence) of what's best for others one group benefits at the cost of someone else.

    1. Re:The Enlightenment has only just begun: by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      cohersion
      Hmmm. Is that supposed to be
      1. cohesion
      2. coherence
      3. coercion
      4. other (please specify).
      Fucktard.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  42. Re:Fool...: quick to judge, arent you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen, rich, american dooode, 25K is NOT throwaway money for anyone but the really rich and the careless. Oh, if you are the type who buys your comic books at ebay auctions for USD 250 each, and your replica lightsabres for hallloween parties at a 1000 bucks, then maybe it's no big deal for you. But for others, esp with financial goals, 25K is not cheap change, and is money than can be well spent on many other things - a house, if you have a family into the college fund for your kids, your retirement fund etc.

    poofind away 25K on a spacetrip might not be his first priority. It was a gift, a nice to have if indeed the gift was free, but not with the money uncle sam wants to burn away in countries where it's custom to blow up everything.

  43. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? -nonsense by 314m678 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    To quote the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

    Ratified 02/13/1913

  44. Zeno's Paradox reworked by giafly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some contest sponsors provide a check to cover taxes, but that income is also taxable.
    If a company tries to award a tax-paid prize, it can never do so, because each time it pays off the tax this leads to extra tax being owed.

    Therefore, Zeno might say, the swiftest accountant can never overtake the tax man. Thus, while common sense and common experience would hold that a company can pay its taxes, according to the above argument, it cannot; this is the paradox.
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
    1. Re:Zeno's Paradox reworked by faedle · · Score: 1

      Fire your accountant if they can't figure out the problem.

      My employer pays a flat relocation benefit of $4,000 for people moving more than 500 miles. They have their payroll service (ADP) do the math so your relocation check is $4,000 AFTER taxes.

      If ADP can do the math, it can't possibly be that hard.

    2. Re:Zeno's Paradox reworked by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      "Some contest sponsors provide a check to cover taxes, but that income is also taxable."

      If a company tries to award a tax-paid prize, it can never do so, because each time it pays off the tax this leads to extra tax being owed.

      Therefore, Zeno might say, the swiftest accountant can never overtake the tax man. Thus, while common sense and common experience would hold that a company can pay its taxes, according to the above argument, it cannot; this is the paradox.

      So the gym teacher has all the boys line up on one side of the gym, and all the girls line up on the other. Every 60 seconds he has them walk half the distance from their current position towards the center of the gym. His buddy the math teacher points out that they will never actually reach each other, it's an infinite series. To which the coach replies: "ya, but in about 5 minutes they'll be close enough for all practical purposes."

      Anyway, in the US, the tax rate is less than 100% in all cases (usually much less), And you only need to figure taxes to the nearest dollar anyway, so solving that infinite series "close enough for all practical purposes" can even be done the hard way if you have to.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    3. Re:Zeno's Paradox reworked by MGDruss · · Score: 1

      If a company tries to award a tax-paid prize, it can never do so, because each time it pays off the tax this leads to extra tax being owed

      This is wrong, and so is the quote in the original summary saying that sponsors couldn't pay off the tax. Of course they can - it is just a matter of simple maths.

      OK, he owes $25K tax, and say he's taxed at 50% (for the sake of arguement). The sponsors just pay him an extra $50K cash, he pays 50% of this straight as tax leaving him $25K left over to pay off his original tax bill. Simple.

    4. Re:Zeno's Paradox reworked by rherbert · · Score: 1

      That's kind of strange, given that relocation expenses are tax deductible...

    5. Re:Zeno's Paradox reworked by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If a company tries to award a tax-paid prize, it can never do so, because each time it pays off the tax this leads to extra tax being owed.

      And the sum of an infinite geometric series is 1/(1-p), so for say 100$ prize and 20% taxes you'd pay 125$. 100$ prize money, 20$ to pay taxes on $100, 4$ to pay taxes' taxes, 80 cents for taxes' taxes' taxes, 16 cent for taxes' taxes' taxes' taxes and so on = 125$. Magic isn't it?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Zeno's Paradox reworked by drew_eckhardt · · Score: 1

      Sure it can.

      As a trivial example, given a flat 25% tax rate, $X after tax = 3/4 pre-tax money, so pre-tax money must be 4/3 after tax.

      With real world tax brackets, phase-outs, and exclusions the arithmetic is more complex but not unworkable.

    7. Re:Zeno's Paradox reworked by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Deducting the money from your taxes for the next fiscal year doesn't help you move right now, does it?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    8. Re:Zeno's Paradox reworked by faedle · · Score: 1

      The relocation "bonus" is just that: a bonus that is paid for you to relocate. This is in addition to them paying for a commercial mover and other "benefits".

      Many of the expenses involved in "relocation" aren't necessarily tax deductible. For example, I don't believe that the numerous flights I took back and forth "commuting" is necessarily tax deductible (well, they might be with some work, but not on the face of it). Additionally, expenses like maintaining two utility accounts between two places and long distance charges calling "home" similarly are not tax deductible.

      The relocation "bonus" is officially designed to make your life easier in a time when your finances would be stretched. What you do with it is your business: as far as the company is concerned, you can take that $4k and make it a nice down payment on a new car or a new computer or something.

  45. Re:American's don't have to pay taxes? -nonsense by Nitage · · Score: 1

    You'd have a hard time convincing any reasonable person that a space flight was income.

  46. Mods: I hope you have someone do your taxes by patio11 · · Score: 4, Informative

    That would be considered income, because no "arms-length" transaction would have resulted in a sale of a trip into space for $1. Accordingly, the difference between the fair market value and the $1 was a gift to you. Gifts are income. You can even give someone money by not taking money away from them! Observe: I extend my neighbor Bob a loan this year for $5,000. Next year, I say "You know, forget about that loan". BLAM. He has to declare an extra $5,000 (plus fair interest!) in income, and I have to fill out a Form 1099-C attesting to that amount (which, naturally, tips the IRS off to the fact that if Bob doesn't disclose the value of the loan was forgiven to go after him).

    All sorts of things are income, although many aren't routinely claimed as such. Ever won a soda at McDs during that Monopoly promotion? Income. Found a $10 bill on the sidewalk? Income. Taken a pen home from work? Income, unless you returned it. The difference between these and the space trip is that if you had somehow neglected pay $25,000 worth of taxes because of your income, as opposed to a few cents, the IRS *will* hit you like a ton of bricks.

    1. Re:Mods: I hope you have someone do your taxes by robinvanleeuwen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What about Educational and Medical Exclusion? i guess the traing he receives qualifies as educational, my guess
      is he pays less than the 25000 in taxes. And how much of the prize actually goes to medical purposes (pre flight
      testing, medical checkup etc )Worth to do some research on i guess...

      --
      If you don't like my sig then don't read it.
    2. Re:Mods: I hope you have someone do your taxes by patio11 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Those exclusions, if they applied (VEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRY doubtful), would allow the prize giver to not pay gift taxes but they wouldn't make the receipt of the gift anything other than taxable income.

      Here is why its very doubtful: for the educational exclusion to apply you need to be enrolled at, quoting the IRS, "[an institution] that normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students". That will almost certainly exclude the classes you'd take pre-flight. It also only covers tuition, not expenses. Since they aren't charging you tuition its not applicable.

      Similarly, it is unlikely that your pre-flight testing counts as "medical care" as the IRS defines it. You could make an argument that the pre-flight testing is "diagnostic" for a disease but its not one I'd like to have to face down an audit with.

    3. Re:Mods: I hope you have someone do your taxes by autophile · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gifts are income.

      Wrong.

      I hate how this myth keeps getting perpetuated. See my previous explanation.

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    4. Re:Mods: I hope you have someone do your taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is it "taxable income"?

    5. Re:Mods: I hope you have someone do your taxes by patio11 · · Score: 1

      Against my expectations, you appear to be correct. *eats requisite serving of crow* I maintain that I still have the correct answer in the instant case, however, as it is extraordinarily unlikely that the transaction at issue would be classified as a gift. It would be more clear cut if it were me giving my brother a ride into space, although I'd still owe gift tax after it busted the caps for both yearly and lifetime giving.

    6. Re:Mods: I hope you have someone do your taxes by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      The GP explained a scenario where someone made a small loan and forgave it. He mistakenly called that a gift, when really it's loan forgiveness, which is reportable as income. This becomes a big issue if you ever have to sell your house for less than what's needed to pay the bank and the difference is forgiven.

    7. Re:Mods: I hope you have someone do your taxes by PPH · · Score: 1
      Hot Damn!!

      My boss has been telling me for years that I should consider my paycheck a gift!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Mods: I hope you have someone do your taxes by autophile · · Score: 1

      I maintain that I still have the correct answer in the instant case

      Yes, I'm pretty sure you're correct, that a tax check couldn't possibly be considered a gift, but actually part of the winnings.

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
  47. That's some Bad Tax Advice by Mal+Reynolds · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This guy either had very bad tax advice or is using the tax code as an excuse to wimp out of a somewhat dangerous experience.

    As the article and any decent tax account would tell him, he would not be responsible for any tax unless and until he actually accepted the ride into space. This means he could have put off on any decision on whether to accept the prize until the very last minute. At least as far as the tax man is concerned.

    The only craft that matches the specs of those announced in the contest press release are those of the Virgin Galactic SpaceShip 2. And since Virgin Galactic's commercial craft is a minimum of 2 years from sending customers into space, he had at least that much time to defer his decision. His financial situation could be much improved by then. Since space craft are rarely delivered on schedule, he would likely have had even more time to defer his decision.

    Then there's the possibility that he could have worked his way out of paying much of any tax at all. As others have suggested, if he could have taken some on professional duties in the form of writing about his voyage, he could have partially or wholly written off his tax burden.

    So why did this guy refuse the prize two or more years before it would have had any financial impact on him? Why didn't he look into any professional options for writing off the tax? Good question. My guess is either very bad tax advice or sheer lack of courage.

    1. Re:That's some Bad Tax Advice by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 1

      "As others have suggested, if he could have taken some on professional duties in the form of writing about his voyage, he could have partially or wholly written off his tax burden."

      But why should he care to do so?

      What you're basically saying is that he should have worked his butt off trying to find ways to make up for the sheer financial cost this would burden him with.

      Not bloody worth the stress, it seems to me. If I have to work my butt off trying to pay off a debt, I'd rather not get into debt in the first place.

      It would take the joy out of the space trip as well, if I knew I was depriving my family from money they could have used elsewhere.

    2. Re:That's some Bad Tax Advice by Mal+Reynolds · · Score: 1

      The fact that he could have deferred much of the tax burden was just a side point. The important question isn't why he didn't care to defer the taxes. The important question is why should he care to abandon this prize many years before it was necessary for him to do so.

      Virgin Galactic isn't going to launch their first commercial flight for at least two years. Since his potential for tax liability is directly connected to his actual receipt of the prize, he wouldn't owe any tax until after he had taken the flight into space. Something he could have refused up until the very last moment.

      So why did he abandon any hope of this voyage two full years (and likely more) before the prize could possibly have been redeemed and before he would have incurred any tax burden? He had no reason to rush things, yet he did. His financial situation could improve dramatically in the next two years.

      I simply think it's odd he gave up his chance so many years before it was necessary. It suggests there is more to this story.

    3. Re:That's some Bad Tax Advice by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      So why did this guy refuse the prize two or more years before it would have had any financial impact on him? Why didn't he look into any professional options for writing off the tax? Good question. My guess is either very bad tax advice or sheer lack of courage.
      Or he hopes that the publicity will encourage Oracle to pay the taxes also?
      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:That's some Bad Tax Advice by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      Lack of courage?? How about a disinclination to take a 50/50 chance (to a first order of magnitude) of being roasted alive on live TV? Not my idea of a good time. I never understood why a willingness to take extreme risks was an admirable trait. Take an absurdly high risk because it looks like fun? (in the words of Saint Hicks) "...youuuuuuu're a moron!"

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    5. Re:That's some Bad Tax Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truly spoken by someone who has never had any dangerous fun in his life.

      I admit, my fun isn't that dangerous. From my calculations based on historical accident rates, I have just a few percent chance of dying from my dangerous hobby if I do it consistently for my entire life. And many of these accidents are preventable through simple precautions, so my chances get even better as long as I keep doing them. But still, a few percent over one's lifetime is more dangerous than playing Bridge or going to the movies.

      Whether a risk is absurd depends entirely on your personal taste for risk. Just because somebody is willing to get shot into space for fun doesn't make him a moron, it just means he doesn't mind the risk as much as you obviously do. I don't think I would do it, but I have no problem with people who do.

    6. Re:That's some Bad Tax Advice by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What you're basically saying is that he should have worked his butt off trying to find ways to make up for the sheer financial cost this would burden him with.

      What he is saying is that the guy turned down some future tax burden long before it was due and without any attempt to mitigate it. That's odd. Also, something as simple as declaring he intends to write a book about the experience could make the tax burden $0 (when worded correctly and taken seriously). So there is no financial reason for him to turn it down. Even if he didn't want to try to write a book or whatever, he still didn't need to turn it down for a few years. The only thing I can think of is that he wouldn't go even if someone paid him (and the taxes). He didn't think he'd win, and doesn't want to go. The taxes make a nice excuse.Not bloody worth the stress, it seems to me. If I have to work my butt off trying to pay off a debt, I'd rather not get into debt in the first place.

      He owes nothing now to say he will go. If he does say he will write a book, but never does, he will owe nothing ever. He has no debt to anyone by accepting the offer.

    7. Re:That's some Bad Tax Advice by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      This guy either had very bad tax advice or is using the tax code as an excuse to wimp out of a somewhat dangerous experience.
       
      As the article and any decent tax account would tell him, he would not be responsible for any tax unless and until he actually accepted the ride into space. This means he could have put off on any decision on whether to accept the prize until the very last minute. At least as far as the tax man is concerned.

      My wife, a CPA by profession, says different. The ticket has a cash value- accepting the ticket is tantamount to accepting the cash, even if he never takes the flight. The article suggests that you make the argument that it has no cash value until redeemed - but the IRS may or may not accept that argument.
       
       

      The only craft that matches the specs of those announced in the contest press release are those of the Virgin Galactic SpaceShip 2. And since Virgin Galactic's commercial craft is a minimum of 2 years from sending customers into space, he had at least that much time to defer his decision. His financial situation could be much improved by then. Since space craft are rarely delivered on schedule, he would likely have had even more time to defer his decision.

      That's called deferring income. Businesses can do it under certain circumstances - but it's very, very dodgy for an individual to try.
       
       

      Then there's the possibility that he could have worked his way out of paying much of any tax at all. As others have suggested, if he could have taken some on professional duties in the form of writing about his voyage, he could have partially or wholly written off his tax burden.

      That's another dodgy route - as such expenses are usually only allowed to be written off when the individual is a professional [writer] or engaged in a related [space, travel, or writing] business. A one type expense of that nature, without evidence of an ongoing related pattern of behavior, is highly likely to be disallowed. (If you are lucky. If you are unlucky - a charge for tax fraud or tax evasion could also be yours.)
       
       

      So why did this guy refuse the prize two or more years before it would have had any financial impact on him? Why didn't he look into any professional options for writing off the tax? Good question. My guess is either very bad tax advice or sheer lack of courage.

      My guess is that he got very good tax advice - because I discussed the issue with a tax professional and she disagrees completely with you. She agrees that he could take a chance by choosing to defer or to attempt to create a professional justification - but emphasizes those paths of action are not without significant potential risk.
  48. He should have just moved to Canada.... by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If he had moved to Canada just before the drawing, and won the contest while living and working there, the contest would not be taxable, since Canada does not tax lottery or gambling winnings, unless they are your "primary source of income" (i.e. unless you're a professional gambler / poker player / etc).

    I mean, after all, how often do you get to go into space?

    1. Re:He should have just moved to Canada.... by jimmy_dean · · Score: 1

      Taxes suck. The Canadian form of taxing on winnings makes total sense. Laws like this only keep good men/women down. Maybe it's time for a tax revolution such as this?

      --
      -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
    2. Re:He should have just moved to Canada.... by dleewo · · Score: 1

      US citizens are taxed on worldwide income regardless of where you live. He would have still owed the taxes even if he were living in Canada.

    3. Re:He should have just moved to Canada.... by QuebecNerd · · Score: 1

      Indeed, as much as I hate Canada Revenue Agency and Revenue Quebec (yes in Quebec we try to re-invent the wheel so we have to terrorist agencies watching us!) this aspect of Canadian tax law actually makes sense. In fact it's the principle that all the expenses you incur to get an income are generally tax deductible. Since here in Quebec, the lottery is controlled by the provincial government, they actually get the best of it and taxing the winnings would mean that everyone purchasing tickets would be able to deduct the ticket cost from their income and probably some other expenses as well. Now we all know that on average, you spend more in ticket cost than you get in winning even over an extended period of time. So do the math. Every person entering a contest with the goal of wining something could deduct the expenses they made to try to achieve that goal. I seems to me that the IRS is trying to have it both ways in taxing the winnings but not accepting the collective expenses of everyone who tries to win as being tax deductible. Those expenses are probably bigger than the winning value itself.

    4. Re:He should have just moved to Canada.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact it's the principle that all the expenses you incur to get an income are generally tax deductible.

      Absolutely not. In Canada, the expenses of a business to earn a profit are generally tax deductible, but the expenses of an employee to earn employment income are not usually deductible.

    5. Re:He should have just moved to Canada.... by NayDizz · · Score: 1

      Yes, brilliant. Every time someone plays the Powerball it makes perfect sense to move to Canada just in case they won. Makes sense to me.

    6. Re:He should have just moved to Canada.... by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

      So let's see, they tax money that you worked hard to earn... but crap that just falls into your lap because of pure luck is hands-off to the government. That makes sense.

    7. Re:He should have just moved to Canada.... by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 1

      I also heard that any earnings from the winnings are also exempt from income tax for the first year (though I haven't looked it up).

    8. Re:He should have just moved to Canada.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Fairtax seems reasonable, until you talk to the people there. They are fanatical and illogical. One would think that a system laid out to be so clear would be supported by analytical people. However, when I have talked with them and asked questions like "why did you pick the poverty line, and not 1/2 the poverty line or 2x the poverty line, the answer was essentially "Because we are right, and anyone that wants it at 1/2 poverty are evil rich people out to exploit others, and anyone wanting it at 2x poverty is pushing for overly regressive taxes; our system is perfect and we will not modify it, nor even discuss the possibility that the numbers could change."

      After a few email exchanges with different people there to that extent, I came to the decision that they were all just nuts.

    9. Re:He should have just moved to Canada.... by jcronen · · Score: 1

      Eh, then he'd have to answer a mathematical-skill testing question to claim his prize...

  49. Someone Will Help by BlueMonk · · Score: 1

    With all the publicity this guy has had, I suspect (hope even?) that some media outlet will sponsor his taxes just so they can get the story.

  50. Oprah's Pontiac by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Remember when Oprah gave away cars on her show to impress the world with her Mother Theresa-like saintliness? Those people had to pay taxes, fees, licensing and of course insurance on their own as well. But when you can't afford a working car you probably can't afford the ancillary costs of a new car either. Yeah, other people's ego is a bitter pill for you to swallow.

    1. Re:Oprah's Pontiac by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      But when you can't afford a working car you probably can't afford the ancillary costs of a new car either.

      If you can afford to take a day off of work to go watch Oprah in person, you can probably afford the ancillary costs of the new car.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    2. Re:Oprah's Pontiac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can afford to take a day off of work to go watch Oprah in person, you can probably afford the ancillary costs of the new car.

      You assume that those going to watch Oprah were taking a day off from a job.

    3. Re:Oprah's Pontiac by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      What a great opportunity they have, then! Now they can drive their new car to go get a job to pay for their new car!

      --
      It's been a long time.
  51. Does it really... by xuixinho · · Score: 2, Informative

    Does it really work like this? Where I live (Portugal), whoever offers the prize is responsible for all the taxes associated with it. Think of the lottery, the announced prize is always "exempt" of taxes for the winner. And I said "exempt" because taxes are still paid by the contest maker.

    1. Re:Does it really... by sh4na · · Score: 1

      That's because there was such a scandal over people winning prizes in tv contests and then having to pay so much tax over them that they ended up almost losing money, that the government decided that what the companies were doing was false advertising (saying you win 1 million and then you get 200 if you're lucky :p), and decided to make a law that says that the prize offered in a contest must be after tax. And this was at a time when the government was trying to look nice, and they got a sweet deal out of it, they get the money anyway and they don't piss off anyone (i.e., the dumb voting sheep) in the process.

      Maybe if the USians file enough false-advertising lawsuits or whatever, the us government might decide to do the same. Heck, our friend georgy could even get a boost in the polls out of it! hehe!

      --
      shana
      ......gone crazy, back soon, leave message
  52. oh BS! by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    if the tax rate is 10%
    and the prize is 100$
    then you award $112 to start.

    if it's 175 thousand
    and the tax rate is 14%

    $204,000 awarded leaves 175440 for prize money, and 28560 from taxes

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:oh BS! by greenrom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or more generally, for a tax rate of R and a prize value of P, you would need to award RP/(1-R) in cash to cover the taxes on both the prize and the cash.

  53. Tax advice: R&D is fully tax deductible by viking80 · · Score: 1

    If the trip to space was Research and Development it would be tax free. It seems straight forward create a business, and plan an experiment in microgravity.

    Seems like he had very poor tax consultants.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
  54. Someone should start a fund by Rooked_One · · Score: 0

    to send him to space. I'm sure each of us could come up with 10 bucks.... we'd only need 2,500 /.'ers

  55. See Europe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can impose arbitrary and punitive taxes on OUR citizens too!

    Signed,

    Your American Cousins

  56. But will the IRS still get him by digitig · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be surprised if he were still taxed because he was awarded the prize, and then the company giving the prize got taxed because he then gifted it to them. Anybody remember the Singing Nun?

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  57. Time for another Revolution Then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Remember your 18th Century History and the reasons for the War of Independence between Britain and her non Canadian Colonies.

    As a non US Citizen this sounds very OTT and also illegal in many countries around the world including the UK.

    Another nail in the Coffin holding US Freedoms.

  58. Re:I'm having difficulty with this by MindStalker · · Score: 1

    Actually all anti-depressants increase the rick of suicide.. Thats how you know its working (TM). :)

    But seriously, there people with highly depressed states, that don't even have the motivation to commit suicide. Anti-depressants can lift someone up just enough to give them that motivation. Technically anyone who is severely depressed should be on suicide watch when first taking a new medication.

    The more you know!!

  59. Hiring the winner for one flight? by beh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There might be another alternative - what about they hire him for the duration of the flight, say, as research for the company doing the rides -- they hire him for minimum wage for one day, and give him some special questionnaire to fill out after the flight. In this case, his ride would be work (gather information on the "end user experience")...

    He might have to tax the minimum wage, but the company could completely write off the money spent to send him to space in the first place, as it's a work requirement. (i.e. treat the space ride as a "business trip")...

    (oh - and yes, if he researches the 'experience' of the offered flights, it should well be possible for him to completely (and determinedly) "enjoy" the flight - so as to be in a better position to say what the company might want to improve for future customers...

    Shouldn't that be possible?

    1. Re:Hiring the winner for one flight? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      That's an amazing idea. I really want to know why it wouldn't work, if indeed it wouldn't work. People who study taxes all day considered this problem, keep in mind.

      How do you force them to recharacterize that "job" as pure compensation?

    2. Re:Hiring the winner for one flight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if that were to work, they would not want to do it anyway. He would then be their employee and they would be liable for his safety on the 'job'.

    3. Re:Hiring the winner for one flight? by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Even better. They could invite him to interview for a position. The interview will take place in space. The cost for him will be picked up as part of the interview process. Likewise the cost for the interviewer. The position could be "Spokesperson for Oracle Space Travel Promotional contest". They could film some test footage, see how he interviews, and see if he's interested.

      If it works out, great, they'll have to do some promotions, he goes home. If not, he goes home.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    4. Re:Hiring the winner for one flight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've often wondered about a similar situation involving prostitution.

      It's legal to pay someone to have sex on camera if you're making a movie - this is protected 'speech'. Since film is 'art', there can't be any requirements of commercial distribution. So, instead of paying $20 for a blowjob, you pay $20 for somebody to be filmed (on a shitty webcam) doing it.

      Obviously this doesn't work or else everyone would be doing it.

    5. Re:Hiring the winner for one flight? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      It's possible - but it's also possible that on audit the IRS will discover the dodge, and disallow it. If you are lucky, you just have to pay the tax owed plus a fine. If you are unlucky, you may face charges for tax evasion. (Keep in mind that niether the company that offered the prize nor the individual in question were in any business related to space flight - making these expenses likely to trip audit triggers.)

    6. Re:Hiring the winner for one flight? by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Even better as the IRS allows you to deduct expenses while job hunting have him claim a deduction on his taxes for the cost of travel for job hunting purposes...

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    7. Re:Hiring the winner for one flight? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Better yet, they could hire him as a waiter on the flight and only pay him $2.13/hr.

    8. Re:Hiring the winner for one flight? by syncrotic · · Score: 1

      The reason this won't work is that, in order to legally make porn, you have to keep detailed records of the names and ages of all the performers. I would guess that you have to keep copies of identification on file.

  60. He won life's lottery!!! or did you forget... by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    didn't you see all that class warfare the last election cycle, about those people who won lifes lottery (the work hard, makes great money, etc) and therefor they should be taxed for it!!!

    thats the mentality of it now. the politicians have for so long beat it into people's heads that everything needs to be taxed, and after all if its a lottery or such, its only fair to tax that too.

    Face it, people will not wake up. Nothing you have is safe from the tax man. In my state we pay ad volarem (sp) taxes on automobiles we already paid sales tax on! Your house, gone if you don't pay taxes, after all you don't own the land its own or even the house itself in this day an age as any government can take it for tax purposes. They can even raise your taxes and you have to fight them to get them back inline, trouble is they make it so you give up as it will cost more to fight than to give in.

    Don't worry, they will tell us they will have to raise taxes on businesses, as corporations are very evil. Too bad they are tax collectors as no business pays a dime it didn't get from us. Same for making contest offering companies to pay the tax, it will simply come out of someone else's pocket.

    I think the best example was all the heartache caused over Oprha's gift of cars that one year. How many didn't take possession of the car because of taxes or loss of benefits?

    Governments make most corporations look sane.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  61. Oh crap by Slaughter'em · · Score: 0

    So you mean I owe taxes for all those years grandma gave me $5 for my birthday?

  62. Re:"American"'s don't have to pay taxes? -sense by grant050 · · Score: 1

    "In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax."
    - New York Times - January 25, 1916
    The definition of income in the constitution was given in the Eisner vs. Macomber [1920] case, and it turns on gains or profits that are made from some activity.
    - Edwin Vieira, Prof. Constitutional Law
    Doyle vs Mitchell...1918...[income means]...the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activity.
    - Irwin Schiff, Author
    Income means a corporate profit ... not ... wages or labor.
    - "America - Freedom to Fascism"
    ie: you, the individual do not pay income tax, it is only a corporate entity that pays.
    Now, there's a rabit hole I've seen about how names in ALL CAPITALS makes you a representative of the corporation of your own name, and that corporation is created with you birth certificate, but I don't know about that.

  63. All your space are belong to us ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me be the first to welcome our blood-sucking evil avaricious tax-gathering masters.....

  64. Re:"American"'s don't have to pay taxes? -sense by 314m678 · · Score: 1
    I'm not saying income tax is right or wrong, or whether or not a space flight is income. Just asserting that Income tax is the law of the land, as spelled out by constitution and supported in courts.

    Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) - The court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" position.

    United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - Stating that "the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the Sixteenth Amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.

    Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - The court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed.

    United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) - The court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.

  65. Above posts are wrong, the dutch taxsystem is brok by Portal1 · · Score: 1

    Above posts are wrong, the dutch taxsystem is broke

    It is not that the tax brackets directly cause you to earn less, but income depending benefits.
    The mayor one was indeed the health system that above some income forced you to very expensive insurences.
    The other mayor one is house subsidie, in short you earn more, you don't get it any more.
    But there are a lot more, which counted up together result in a net loss when you have a raize.

    Another example about the injustice in holland.
    We as a couple had state help while studying, but were only allowed to make a certain amount in side jobs.
    Then the company where my wife worked changes his structure and as a result pays out saved holidays.
    The result we get above the amount what could be earned and loose the whole benefit.
    It was better for us to NOT work.

    Also the more specialized your job, the more time you spent in traveling as the workplace is likely further away.
    these 2 to 3 hours extra traveling is not paid, though any john doe working 5 minutes from a plant finds he has the right on the same payment, or even sitting home scratching his #$%^ and wants money.

    and that is the problem with holland, people are very hard incentivated to NOT work, to NOT study.
    although this has changed the last few years,
    anyway I understood very well how holland would not be the the country for people that have opportunities.
    In the end you will still have nothing, in short your ass and everything belongs to the state, from birth till death.

    So I emmigrated as do a lot of dutch.
    As a result holland has almost a population decline.

    well good luck for the ones staying behind.

    greets

    --
    There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
  66. See That's Bogus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the ticket for the flight was purchased, it was most likely purchased with money the guy had AFTER paying taxes on his income. Then the ticket is purchased, with a sales tax and possibly other "government fees" be it local/state/federal. If he gave it to his friend, if claimed to the IRS his friend would have to pay money on the income from the value of it...

    It's like selling a car. You buy it from the dealer, you pay a decent amount of taxes on it. You sell it to a friend and they have to pay the taxes on it then, and technically you'd have to claim the income from the money you make off the deal... So the 1 car cost you both in taxes. It's another way for the goverenment to have us bend over and grab our ankles just a little tighter...

  67. Re:If You Didn't Vote Libertarian Then Don't Compl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We went to war against England over a 1/2% tax on tea.... Then again the British Pound Sterling was worth a lot more than our current neutered U.S."

    Umm..

    No matter what the propoganda says, we went to war over a more generalised issue, of which taxes were a minor part. Britain was fighting Revolutionary France, and needed money for soldiers. It tried to get soldiers from everywhere, including the US, and REALLY didn't want Indian wars in the colonies at the same time. So it banned colonists from crossing the Alleghenies, and said that if they wanted to fight the natives then they must raise their own defense - hence the taxes. The colonists viewed the rich land together with the lack of British soldiers, and decided to go on their own.

    Though it would be incorrect to claim that the British were interested in native rights, their actions were in practice quite compatible with these. The rebel colonists, on the other hand, allied themselves to a communist regime (the first of its kind, pre-dating Marx) in order to invade a non-threatening country and practice genocide. It wasn't all that long ago, and in some ways we haven't changed at all.

  68. Three Words by everphilski · · Score: 1

    Married, with children.

    Sorry man, if I was in his shoes after much string-pulling and financial handwaving I would probably come to the same conclusion. The welfare of my wife and two children (and last tiny remnants of college loans and the mortgage, when I hit 31... ) is way more important than a **suborbital** joyride.

  69. I guess ... by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

    I guess I shouldn't be shocked that so few people know this about the tax code, after all, they keep voting for the Demopublican party that overtaxes, overspends, and tries to regulate behavior with tax codes.

    1. Re:I guess ... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      As long as the US government has 9 trillion dollars in debt, the American people can NEVER be over-taxed. Every dollar of debt spent is a dollar stolen from an unwilling future generation who will have to pay the excesses of today back with their own blood, sweat, and tears.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  70. I'll go! by big+mike+kite · · Score: 1

    If Brian Emmett doesn't want to go and is looking for someone to give the tickets to then can I put my hand up. I'm also happy to pay the US the 25K. Can I go? Can I? please...

  71. Been done in Zero-G by grimJester · · Score: 1

    The Uranus Experiment. The porn industry would probably have an extra 150k lying around to send up an actress with him. According to his blog, he's married but hey - you have to have some priorities.

    So, can someone less lazy set up an online petition?

    1. Re:Been done in Zero-G by Joebert · · Score: 1

      So, can someone less lazy set up an online petition?

      Sure if it involves sending me into space with a pornstar.
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    2. Re:Been done in Zero-G by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Sure if it involves sending me into space with a pornstar
      I, for one, would even be prepared to forget about the space part of the deal...
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:Been done in Zero-G by Joebert · · Score: 1

      For shame !
      Never lose sight of your original goal !

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  72. No, it's not FUD by Rix · · Score: 1

    They don't advertise it as X over Y years, they just say "Jackpot of X".

  73. If I am audited.... by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

    ...what the taxable income on a free lunch?

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  74. What a bunch of fucking whiners.... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

    EVERYONE who wins something in the US pays taxes on it. Anyone who wins in a lottery or casino pays taxes on it. Anyone who wins a car on a game show pays taxes on it. That's the way it is and has been for DECADES.

    If you want to get mad, get mad at the organizers. When I relocated a few years ago, my company not only gave me the money for the move, they also paid the taxes on it (at a flat rate). Sure, I still owed some money, but at least it wasn't on the total amount. Tag it as 'spending money while in training' and caution him not to spend it.

    It would have been very easy for the organizers to do the same thing. They should have been fully aware of the tax implications of what they were doing and provided for it.

    This is not news, this is a whine festival.....

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  75. Sell it on Ebay by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Use hundreds of computers around the world as proxies to shill on your own auction.
    Profit!!!
    Laugh all the way to the bank.
    Pay taxes with a smile.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  76. Free Space Shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free Space Shot (http://freespaceshot.com/) is offering a weightless flight, a suborbital trip and even a trip around the moon. To win you have to predict the weather in central park in New York better than your competitor. For the weightless flight you have to predict it better than your competitor 20 times in a row, for the suborbital trip 25 times. So your chances are pretty low but you can enter as many times as you want to.

  77. Consultant? by Suidae · · Score: 1

    Maybe Oracle should have hired him as an off-site Java contractor at a rate of about $40k per year. If they needed him to answer any more Java questions they'd have his full attention. The 405k would have been enough to cover his income tax on the 'consulting' postion and the 25k in taxes for the free ride.

    The government might not be smart enough to fall for that, but surely Oracle has some clever lawyers to work it out.

  78. pansey by dlhm · · Score: 1

    What a pansey... He is a 31 year old software consultant and he can't get afford $25000 bucks for a once in a million lifetimes event? Get a signature loan or something. Geez I don't want this programmer writing code for me if he can't figure this one out. Does he still live with his mother?

    --
    Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
  79. The market value by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    What's really funny is that they assess it as a $138k value, but it will cost this guy $25k to do it, and he decided no. In other words, the space trip is actually worth less than $25k.

    To him, of course. If you auctioned something like that off, it would very likely get more than $25k. So the actual value is subjective. Is there any way to tax a subjectively-valued thing that is actually fair? Tax it as $138k and it's unfair. Tax Bill Gates for it as $1k, and I bet some idiots will bitch about that too. The only fair thing that everyone would actually agree on, is to realize, "no it's not really income at all, the rules are unfair" and don't tax it at all.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:The market value by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I just realized: almost everything is like this, except really low-margin commodities.

      The classic example is a luxury car, which only costs slightly more to produce than an economy car (it's better, but not very much better) but sells for many times as much. No wait, even a better comparison: First Class seats on an airline, versus Coach. They're worth almost the same thing, but wildly different in price.

      What if the space trip had a First Class option versus a Coach option, where the only difference was that he got to take a bottle of champagne with him on the First Class version. Auction them off, and maybe Space Coach sells for $50k and Space First Class sells for $250k. Is that how they should be taxed, even though there's really only a $20 champagne bottle difference in the values?

      Another line of thought: some markets long ago learned that the smartest thing way to price things, is not to figure out "what the market will bear" but "what the individual will bear". In other words, charge different prices to different people for the exact same thing. If I go to the grocery store without planning, I pay a relatively high price for stuff. If I clip coupons first, and then go, I pay less. If you go directly to a web store, it might charge you a high price for something, but if your referrer field is a price-comparison search engine it might charge you less. What is the taxable value then? Ugh, who knows.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:The market value by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      There's an interesting treatment of pretty much exactly this question in Section III (OBJECTIVE METHODS OF DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF AN ASSET AND SUBJECTIVE ALTERNATIVES) of The Extreme Home Renovation Giveaway: Constructive Justification for Tax-Free Home Improvements on ABC's Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Two rather old cases are presented where the IRS did allow a subjective valuation of prize income rather than the actual fair market value.

    3. Re:The market value by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Wow, Anthony, nicely found!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  80. Give him a monetary prize as well? by bilbravo · · Score: 1

    Sorry if someone said this, but I read a lot of posts and didn't see it.

    If you win a game show (i.e. cash), you get the amount left over after tax. Why couldn't/wouldn't the agency that gave this award out also give a $50,000 prize which would probably be taxed in half and still have $25,000 (USD) left over to pay for the "tax" on the trip? Would that even work, if they had been willing to do it?

  81. GO ANYWAY. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a tax is going to keep you out of space, then you are not the type of person who should go into space.

    Besides, it makes for great conversations, a tag line on your resume, or some 15 minutes of fame, etc etc...

    JUST GO!

  82. Sounds to me like by Oloryn · · Score: 1

    another good reason for pushing the FairTax and getting rid of Federal Income Tax altogether.

    1. Re:Sounds to me like by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Um. having him pay the tax IS fair.

  83. Yeah... by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 1

    But if the exec quits/is fired, they don't get to keep the stuff... so it's not as unfair as you make it out to be. It does let the exec dodge some taxes, though.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  84. Taxes? In U.S.? Hah! by droolfool · · Score: 1

    You guys surely don't know places like Brazil. Here in Brazil, taxes take about 40% of our salary. Enterprenerus have to pay *120%* taxes on all of the employees' salaries. Did I mention that you *CAN NEVER RELY ON THE PUBLIC SERVICES*?

    I'm not talking about a little overcrowded hospitals. I'm talking about waiting 12 hours (like, 11:00pm to 11:00am) inline for a simple appointment, and sometimes having to return later because doctors are on strike.
    I'm talking about waiting several months for an urgent surgery, while our stupid president tells us that the brazilian health care is "almost perfect".
    I'm also talking about several months to have all the paperwork you need to start your own business. Having to keep tons of tax papers because the Brazilian "IRS" sometimes will charge you 2x, even 3x the same tax, because they somehow forgot that you already paid such tax. Sometimes you can't pay the tax because they won't accept "DARF" docs below a certain ammount (say, U$ 5.00). So, you can't pay the tax, but you'll be fined because you didn't pay.

    So, we pay 40% taxes, but that money goes down the drain. We're not paying for decent services, we're just giving the money away, and having to spend extra bucks for everything we need. We even pay decent ammounts of money on taxes for your automobiles, but we have to pay lots of aditional fees whenever we're travelling, because roads are maintained by private companies.

    BTW, Lula makes Bush look like Einstein. I'm not kidding. He's that stupid.

    1. Re:Taxes? In U.S.? Hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Withdraw immediately everything you dared to write about Lula's presidency, you neocon fucktard, and repeat after me:

      It's all Bush's fault.

      It's all Bush's fault.

      It's all Bush's fault.

      And the US is da pitz.

      Did I make myself clear, you rightwing gun nut redneck?

  85. I can't believe I'm defending taxes... by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 1

    The states pay for roads, education, and police. If you were paying for a road maintenance company, private schools, and a small mercenary force, it would still be expensive to work.
    If you want to avoid taxations on savings, go for an IRA. That way you only have to pay taxes once on the money.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  86. This isn't higher math! by Schweg · · Score: 1

    Say the $138k prize would drop the guy into a 28% tax bracket (for argument's sake). Then the total value the company has to give him to cover taxes is $138k/(1-.28) = $192k. Minus the value of the actual trip, the company writes him a check for $54k, and that will cover the taxes on the trip and the check.

  87. "Fair Win?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SO - you win a State Lottery, paid for by dollars that have ALREADY been taxed that you then pay TO the State to BUY the Lottery ticket... You then are PAID by the SAME STATE that TAXED you for the money you PAID them both for your earnings that you used to buy the ticket AND for the actual price OF the ticket - THEN, they AWARD you a million dollars - and then PAY THEMSELVES about ONE-THIRD OF THAT MONEY! Then the FEDS take THEIR one-third cut...! And they call this "FAIR?" And they call this a "One Million Dollar Win?" It seems to me that, after taxes, the win comes down to about $300,000! And that's a LOT LESS than One Million Dollars, Dr. Evil! Of course, in Illinois, when they initiated the State Lottery, it was under the proviso that ALL of the money raised would be used ONLY for education. About three years later, the Lottery money, as I understand it, was then funneled into the State's General Fund. Of course, literally ALL of the supposedly conservative "Red" states HAVE Lotteries, even though so-called "conservatives" are AGAINST GAMBLING! Excuse me while I duck some more shrapnel from another exploding Irony Meter!

  88. Umm... This seems obvious to me... by Spectre+VII · · Score: 1

    Ok, if "Jenny" can get her credit card debt paid off for being a random girl, and Pirate Bay can raise 20k in a matter of days to buy an island that was never offered to them for purchase, I would *think* that a guy in the computer industry could setup a website asking for donations to "send me to space" and a latte says he'd be going no problem... Someone/thing seems VERY short-sighted here... 25k is a stupidly small number to NOT go to space considering everything... He could probably make that much setting up tip jars in his own town let alone utilizing the vast power if the intar-tubes (assuming they don't get clogged of course). If *I* were this guy, I would setup a website and ask for a 10 dollar donation and in exchange, you get a "salute" from space with your name or photograph or something (obviously pre-approved) that he could do that would "nifty-fi" the whole donation! Come on man, use that brain!!

  89. Tax on property, unless it's IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why's that then? It is wanted treated like real property, and apparently worth 1.5trillion for one small infringer (allofmp3). So there must be a shitload tax available there!

    1. Re:Tax on property, unless it's IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why's that then? It is wanted treated like real property, and apparently worth 1.5trillion for one small infringer (allofmp3). So there must be a shitload tax available there!

      allofmp3 is located in Russia. Go talk to the Russian tax authorities, of which I know nothing. And you are confusing tax payable on fair market value of music with the fine for criminal copyright infringment.

      IP is not treated like all real property in tax matters. The usual meaning of "property tax" is the tax a municipality levies on physical, real, immovable property, which means land and the buildings on that land. The contents of the buildings, even though it is property and might be very valuable, is not subject to property tax.

  90. Answer = $168,488 by stormy_petral · · Score: 1
    I've seen several "It's recursive" comments, but no real figures. Here it goes:

    Doing the Tax Man Dance, we see that the total cost to Oracle to award this guy his prize and pay his taxes would be $168,488.

    Original Prize = $138,000
    Taxes due on original prize = $25000, a rate of about 18%.
    We'll assume the tax rate is just one bracket of 18% for all levels of income.

    Stage one: Oracle pays $25000 for taxes. Tax on stage one: $4500
    Stage two: Oracle pays $4500 for Stage one taxes, Tax on stage two: $810
    Stage three: Oracle pays $810 for stage two taxes, tax on stage three: $146
    Stage four: Oracle pays $146 for stage three taxes, tax on stage four: $26
    Stage five: Oracle pays $26 for stage four taxes, tax on stage five: $5
    Stage six: Oracle pays $5 for stage five taxes, tax on stage six: $1
    Stage seven: Oracle pays $1 for stage six taxes, tax on stage seven, $0.18, round to to the nearest $1, tax dance over.

    Grand total out of pocket for Oracle: $168,488
    Out of pocket for Major Tom, $0

    To be totally transparent, without any accounting voodoo, then Oracle should make the payments in sequential years over the next seven years. They would write the appropriate tax check in time for the winner to submit with his yearly return, beginning the year after he actually recieves his prize (i.e, takes his ride). Uncle Sam gets his money, Major Tom gets his ride, Oracle gets extra Good Guy publicity! Win-Win-Win!

    Math is funny that way.

  91. Slashdotters should be overjoyed! by Rotten168 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This place loves taxes! This is a dream come true! The nimrods who post here should be overjoyed. This money can go to pay for tech education for "disadvantaged people" or maybe it can be used to advance the US's spot on the "broadband access" list.

  92. Once again, Uncle Sam Strikes Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another unfortunate way Uncle Sam steals your money... to fund such wonderful things as pork barrel spending and useless wars abroad.

    Time for the tax code to be rewritten to prevent this sort of abuse.

    If you win something, it should be yours. Period.

    In this country, you can buy a house - but it's not really yours. You're just renting it. If you don't pay some taxes, the gov't will take your home and your property. Now I ask you, where is the liberty and freedom in that.

  93. No cash value by SilverJets · · Score: 1

    Could those three little words prevent the IRS from taxing this particular contest? It's not like the guy actually won $138000 in cash. It's a trip, it is not income. So should Oracle have put "No cash value" somewhere in the rules of the contest and save the winner from having to pay tax?

    1. Re:No cash value by stackdump · · Score: 1

      Could those three little words prevent the IRS from taxing this particular contest? It's not like the guy actually won $138000 in cash. It's a trip, it is not income. So should Oracle have put "No cash value" somewhere in the rules of the contest and save the winner from having to pay tax? Does that mean that since he opted not to take the trip he could redeem it for the cash value?
      $138000 - $25000 = still a good prize.
  94. Nice to be informed, though. by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

    I like being able to see exactly how much of what I'm paying is taxes. I've come across a few gas stations that actually do this - although the posted price is with tax, just like everywhere else, there's a sticker on the pump that says "$X of the price of this gas is state and local taxes". The consumer *should* be informed of what taxes they're paying, and not have to look it up somewhere every time they travel to different city or state. Otherwise, just like with gas, you get so used to seeing the number that you tend to forget there's any tax figured in at all, let alone how much. The more aware people are, the more critically they'll think about tax issues at election time.

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  95. Oh, we have our taxes too... by krisk21 · · Score: 1

    I pay more than %30 in (federal) income tax in the US. Living in a state like Illinois, they can easily take another %10. I then have %7 sales tax on ALMOST everything (except certain things like unprepared food) and outrageous property taxes. Oh yeah, my employer and I also pay %100 of my medical insurance. I can't wait to find out what percentage of my income I get to hold onto this year (probably a bit less than %40)... Not to mention paying social security, etc for a system that might not be there in 40 years when I need it. Meanwhile, we still don't have any national healthcare or guarantees of higher education. We can all complain about something!

    All of this in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The thing about Brazil (and other countries like it) is that as long as the average (and minimum) incomes are so low taxing %40 of income still isn't much money... As I'm sure you know, the "minimum wage" in Brazil is something like 300 reals / month. That's about $140 US. Even taxing as much as %40 is only $56 of income for the government. With a less burdensome tax code (taking maybe %10), you get $14.

    According to the CIA world factbook, the GDP per capita in Brazil is about $8600. In the US it is $43,500. Obviously that turns into MUCH more income for the government on all levels...

  96. Because it can't be free by phorm · · Score: 1

    This bad press should be directed toward Oracle - why wasn't their "free" trip really free?

    Oracle isn't charging taxes. Moreover, if the contest included taxes paid, the portion used to pay the main taxes is still... yup... taxable. They're unavoidable.

    As for the working $5 and getting a $60k car, there can be clauses to cover this. Check out Canada and many other countries sometime that do not tax lottery winnings, even the big jackpots.

    1. Re:Because it can't be free by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I might be wrong, but I think that states (countries) that don't collect taxes on lottery winnings are also making money on the lottery. I'm pretty sure that gambling winnings are still taxed in Canada (though not at the government-owned casinos!).

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Because it can't be free by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      Oracle isn't charging taxes. Moreover, if the contest included taxes paid, the portion used to pay the main taxes is still... yup... taxable. They're unavoidable.

      So? Taxes are less than 100%.

      Let W be the value of your winnings before tax.
      Let T be the amount of taxes paid.
      Let I = W + T
      Let t be the tax rate

      T = t*I ==> I = W + t*I

      Therefore, I = W / (1 - t) is the total amount Oracle would have to give you in order to cover both the pre-tax winnings and the tax.

  97. Yes, it is stupid by phorm · · Score: 1

    In countries that don't tax lottery (see: Canada), there are laws for that sort of thing. First of all that the "lottery" in question has to be supported by the gov't lottery corporation. So a company can't pay you in cars, because the gov't would not legitimize the lottery.

    Further to that, big corps in the US (and other countries, free lottery or no) do pay their bigwigs with cars etc. The cars belong to "the company" on paper, but in all actuality belong to the bigwig. In many ways these types of accounting let the big earners actually "earn" less on paper while having the company dime take care of their lifestyle, and the company can expense to cost of another car and gas, etc.

  98. Which is different from a prize-winner... how? by phorm · · Score: 1

    And if they shot some guy up into space on a contest they wouldn't be liable for his safety at all...?

    1. Re:Which is different from a prize-winner... how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, for a couple of reasons. First, they are not the ones shooting him up into space. They just paid for the ticket. As his employer, they would be sending him into space and could be liable in some instances (E.g. they could be found negligent for going with "Lucky's Space Tourism and Bait Shop".) Second, as a prize winner they would have him sign a liability waiver. As his employer, their ability to avoid liability would be greatly reduced.

  99. Giving up a bit quickly by flibuste · · Score: 1

    I think this buddy gave up his "childhood dreams" a bit too quickly.He could have arranged for instalments and take a long-term credit. How much is 25K$ for a senior software engineer? How about sponsoring? I'm sure many companies will pay a lot to have a space tourist wear a shirt with their name on it - starting with SUN: "I won this ride using the SUN Java language".
    Also, I suppose this guy is bright enough to be on the top scale of this industry since he won a java contest so repaying back would take only a few years - maybe 10 - but how much is it compared to a lifelong dream?
    I'm far from the 100K$ a year range and probably cannot afford 25K$ out of the box, but I would have very very seriously considered any possible option.

  100. You Cannot TAX a TAX!! by codewarrior78411 · · Score: 1

    Its obvious you computer nerds are paying WAY too much in taxes. Ya'll need to spend a hour with a good tax accountant and learn some of the ins and outs of our tax system.

    First of all, as the article impies, you can't tax a tax. It's in the Constitution. If the guy was gonna owe $25K in taxes for the space ride, ANYBODY ,including himself, can pay those taxes and it would not be considered a taxable gift. WHY? Because if you tax a tax it becomes a never ending loop of taxation. The IRS is not intersted in that. All they care about is what's due now and whether or not it was paid. They could care less who pays it. Corporations pay US Income Taxes for their execs all the time. That money paid to the IRS is not taxable.

    Secondly, whoever pays the tax can deduct it from their income! HOW? Because of the rule of NO double taxation. If I use my money to pay your taxes, I get a deduction from my income. Think about it. If I didn't then not only did the IRS get my money that I used to pay your taxes, they would also get taxes on that money... no double taxation... can't tax a tax.

    Finally, he had FOREVER to pay those taxes. HOW? Since a space ride is not a very liquid asset like a plane ticket, the IRS probably would have ruled that he didn't owe any taxes until the service was performed; if at all. It works like this. Lets say as a bonus last December, your company gave you two tickets to this March's St. Patty's day Parade in NYC. You'd owe taxes on the ticket for 2006 because that's when it was awarded and the ticket is a very liquid asset; almost like cash.

    However, if your company says "Bill, you're award is a flight on our jet for you and your wife to NYC for next year's St. Patty's day Parade in NYC, then you wouldn't owe the tax until the service was performed (2007). WHY? Because a ride on a corporate jet is not a liquid asset and its value is not realized until the service is performed. Also, you could argue that it's value is no more than a cut rate airline ticket since you have no control over the scheduling or seating arrangements; even if they are plush (again which the IRS could care less about).

    But I wonder... Any company I know of would have paid him the $25K for a side endorsement deal. Or, he might have been able to sell his ride. My guess is he chickened out and he's using the IRS as a scape goat.

  101. hell no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> And if they shot some guy up into space on a contest they wouldn't be liable for his safety at
    >> all...?

    LOL, nope! If someone else won a trip into space instead of you, would YOU care what happens to him?? Not me!

  102. use metamathematics by Jump · · Score: 1

    Here is a simple solution from metamathematics for that problem: Sell the $138,000 prize for $1 to your mom and make the tax calculation:

    $138,000 income
    - $137,999 loss from selling
    --------
    $1 net income

    1. Re:use metamathematics by windowpain · · Score: 1

      You don't seriously think that would work in the real world do you? The IRS would tax you for the full value and then tax your mom for the imputed value of $138,000. You and your mom would end up paying more tax, not less.

      --
      Insert witty sig here.
  103. wow, he's right! by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

    "The person who receives your gift does not have to report the gift to the IRS or pay gift or income tax on its value."

    Although the previous poster was correct that you have to pay income on the most amazing things, like forgiven loans, bribes, or stolen goods -- iff the goods aren't returned to the legal owner within the tax year in which the theft occurred. I hadn't realized that hobbies have special status: you have to pay taxes on income derived from hobbies, but can't claim losses from those transactions.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  104. Jackpots and taxes by u8i9o0 · · Score: 1

    That's funny. In the U.S. it's almost exactly the opposite. First, the lottery says "Jackpot prize $15 million" when it is actually $7 million, because they give you the option of taking the $7 million and putting it a fund which pays out 30 annual payments of half a million each. Then the tax comes on top of that. Counting only the federal income taxes and inflated advertising, that means that a jackpot advertised as $15 million comes out to a lump sum of about $4.6 million.
    On the jackpot issue:
    When the lottery says, "Jackpot prize $15 million" they are saying "Jackpot prize $15 million". In other words, the $15 million is what is available for reward which gets divided among all winners, so that the payouts would look like this: $12mil to all top winners, $2mil to all 2nd tier, $0.5mil to all 3rd tier, $0.25mil to all 4th tier, etc. The payout structure is not this rigid, but the point is that the "Jackpot" is the total available winnings. To be clear on this, that $12mil is divided between all top winners and not $12mil to each.
    You mention the annuity payment scheme - in some states there is an option of being awarded in one payment, with a smaller payout.

    On the tax issue:
    There are a few taxes that are involved in Lottery winnings: (1) Federal income, (2) Federal income, (3) State income.
    1. Federal income - the IRS usually takes 25%-28% from any check over $5000. It's 30% on any win over $600 if you don't have a SS#. This is from the Energy Policy Act of 1992, section 1942 - but don't ask me why gambling is covered by an Energy Policy Act.
    2. Federal income - your overall income was altered by the winnings. This probably put you in a higher tax bracket. That's right - slightly more taxes.
    3. State income - most states have income taxes (the same idea as point #2). And even if you live in one of the 7 states that lacks income tax, the lottery-issuing state may not be the one you reside in (hint: the issuing state taxes your winning). Then again, some states (like NJ) don't tax these winnings (at least for NJ residents).
    Since there are a few tax variables, it's easier for the lottery agency to say, "You won the money, you deal with the taxes applicable to you." That's why the situation is backwards.
    --
    This is not my sig
  105. 2007: The year we moved zig for great justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [partial movie dialog follows]

    HAL: I'm sorry Dave, but you'll owe the IRS $25,000 if you accept the flight.
    HAL: All your tax are belong to them.
    HAL: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    --

    Sorry. That's all I've got.

  106. That makes one of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see older parents and they have gotten set in their ways and simply aren't as good as the younger ones when the kids come along.

    I should probably first ask for specifics, but... are you sh1tting me? I've seen lots of parenting at this stage in life (40-something) and I can't remember a case where a 30-something didn't outperform (by my admittedly murky standards) a 20-something. There's a lot to be said for maturity. What's lost in physical stamina (an issue, to be sure) is usually covered (and then some) by psychological stamina. Older folks tend to set expectations more appropriately and be less shocked by "kid" issues.

  107. Smacks of the AMT debacle by localman · · Score: 1

    There's little sympathy for "rich" folks (read: anyone who doesn't work at a coffee shop), so I don't expect the law to change anytime soon, but this is an ongoing problem where the government taxes you on money you don't have. The AMT is the chief culprit here. I get that we need to close loopholes for rich people not paying tax, but at least wait until they have the money in hand, no? I'll be facing the AMT next year and the thing is that I'll owe taxes on options that I probably won't be able to sell. So I may have to declare bankruptcy. Or if I can sell them it might be at a steeply discounted price so that I may end up paying, in effect, 100% tax on them. Maybe even more, or, if I'm lucky less maybe only 80%-- but how does that make any sense? How about I pay the intended rate on the money once I actually have access to it? I'm happy to pay my share of taxes when the time comes, but AMT has some ridiculous side effects.

    Cheers.

  108. Thank all the "Fiscal Conservatives" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "Fiscal Conservatives" have been in power for over ten years. Kind of amazing how this kind of thing happens, isn't it? Record debt, record unemployment, record trade deficits, record government spending.

    Oh, and zero tax reforms, despite their claims of "getting the gub'ment off our backs". By "our", they must mean the wealthy and corporations.

    Just another facet of why the Republican party needs to be disolved for being a criminal organization.

  109. why assume that you indeed owe the tax? by gezi · · Score: 1

    It is so frustrating to see everybody repeating the Feds mantra "I have to pay the tax, I have to pay the tax, ..." Why not get informed at - e.g. www.nontaxpayer.org and cancel your account with the feds. Snoopy did! There is this great strip with snoopy sitting on his dog house typing away on his typewriter: Dear IRS, Please cancel my subscription ...

  110. Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by spun · · Score: 1

    I'm glad we're taking a more enlightened view of property. Unrestrained property rights invariably lead to massive concentration of wealth and economic feudalism. People have the right to limit what others do with property, as property is a socially granted, positive right. Owning property is the freedom to take away from the shared resources of the world, it is not the freedom from having your stuff messed with.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by subtilior · · Score: 1

      "People have a right to limit what others do with property"? Alright, stop using your computer. Now.

    2. Re:Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by PPH · · Score: 1
      This is partially true. For real property, yes. Your ownership restricts others from benefiting from that property or resource. The same is not true for intellectual property. That can be created and shared without subtracting it from some limited pool.


      Unfortunately, tax and property laws don't deal with this issue very well. In fact, in many jurisdictions, tax codes still favor exploitation of real resources over those that create new ones.


      This is a peculiar position, since these various forms of 'virtual' property are quite easy to move into the most favorable tax jurisdiction.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ho ho ho, very clever. I did not say that any person has the right to limit what any other person does with any property. As an example, it is illegal for me to hit you over the head with my computer. It is illegal to put child porn on my computer. It is illegal to smuggle drugs in my computer. It is illegal to sell my computer as somethign it isn't.

      The more societal force it takes to protect something, the more society has a right to regulate that thing. It takes much less societal force to protect personal posessions than it does to protect real property, so society has more of an interest in regulating real property than it does personal posession.

      It is also about right to ownership. Only through working on a thing, mingling your labor with that thing, can you call it your own. Yet real property and natural resources must be claimed BEFORE they are worked. Thus, there is no justuification for the intiial taking of the resource. Until a private individual claims a resource, that resource can be shared by all. Therefore, absent any valid claim, and taking into account the vested interest society has in all unclaimed reources, all claims to real property amount to theft.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by spun · · Score: 1

      Hmm, yes, I should have clarified that I meant real property, not posessions, and certainly not IP.

      As to your last point, I disagree, as it is not a matter of moving anything, but acquiring rights. You must acquire your monopoly rights in each jurisdiction you want protection in, and therefore you are beholden to play by the rules of that jurisdiction.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "As an example, it is illegal for me to hit you over the head with my computer."

      That has nothing to do with the computer - it has to do with causing injury to another. Your computer is irrelevent to the example. In other words, your statement above has nothing to do with a limitation on use of private property; it's a limitation on freedom and is the definition of liberty.

      "It is illegal to put child porn on my computer. It is illegal to smuggle drugs in my computer."

      These, again, have nothing to do with the original example. Possession of certain things is illegal. How you're storing the illegal things does not matter. Once again, it's not a limitation on your use of property, but a limitation of freedom absent any consideration of your property or its uses.

      "It is illegal to sell my computer as somethign it isn't."

      And again, this has nothing to do with the original example, which was that you do not own that which you will lose unless you pay to continue to possess it. You're speaking to the act of fraud, which is independent of property rights. You're in violation of the law when you attempt to defraud someone. Property rights do not come into play.

      You don't seem to be understanding the difference. In the example you insisted on using time and time again - the computer - do you own that computer or rent it? If you rent it, you have to continue paying the rent on it or the owner will take it away from you. If you own it, you don't have to pay anyone to continue to possess it.

      Apply the above example to a car, house, or property.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    6. Re:Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      In other words:

      If I don't pay the _______________ every _____, they will take ____________ away from me. Therefore, I do not own it, the _______________ does.
      If I don't pay the rental place____ every month, they will take the computer away from me. Therefore, I do not own it, the rental place____ does.
      If I don't pay the bank___________ every month, they will take the car_____ away from me. Therefore, I do not own it, the bank___________ does.
      If I don't pay the mortgage lender every month, they will take the house___ away from me. Therefore, I do not own it, the mortgage lender does.
      If I don't pay the government_____ every year_, they will take the house___ away from me. Therefore, I do not own it, the government_____ does.
      If I don't pay the government_____ every year_, they will take the car_____ away from me. Therefore, I do not own it, the government_____ does.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    7. Re:Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and i thought marxism was dead. S**t.

    8. Re:Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by spun · · Score: 1

      Ho ho ho, I see what you did there. You implied that any critique of property rights amounts to marxism, which you then implied is a dead philosophy. Very clever! Except I am critiquing real property ownership in an anarchist sense, as did Proudhon in his book, "Property is Theft!" You can hardly say marxism is dead when it has never been tried anywhere in the world. Marxism isn't communism, and even communism hasn't really been tried. Authoritarianism and oligarchy calling itself communism, sure. But not actual communism.

      I hate it when dumbasses try to critique shit they know nothing about.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    9. Re:Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization." - look up yourself who is the author of this very true sentence. Anyone who opposes private property, opposes civilization. Whether the ideological backing is marxism, anarchism, or whatever, is of very little importance. And as for the rest of your post - that blurb isn't even worth the time for answering.

      PS: Why is it, that all people that glorify communist or anarchist ideas, live in the most capitalist countries?

    10. Re:Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by PPH · · Score: 1

      As to your last point, I disagree, as it is not a matter of moving anything, but acquiring rights. You must acquire your monopoly rights in each jurisdiction you want protection in, and therefore you are beholden to play by the rules of that jurisdiction.


      Monopoly rights aren't alway necessary. I'd rather do business in an environment which rewards the most productive user of knowledge, not the one that manages to exclude all other competition.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by spun · · Score: 1

      So screw the guy who came up with the idea? How do you encourage people to share their ideas then? How do you know a trademark actually indicates a particular entity made the thing? Not that I necessarily think you're wrong, but copyright, patents and trademarks were>/i> invented for a reason.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    12. Re:Absolute property rights inherently oppressive by PPH · · Score: 1

      So screw the guy who came up with the idea? How do you encourage people to share their ideas then?

      The current IP licensing system is set up to reward those who may not be the most efficient at implementing those ideas. If I have a good one, I'll keep it as a trade secret and build it myself. If I'm not capable of competing in the marketplace, then I'll just drop the idea and someone else better suited will undoubtedly think of it as well. Too many people (and companies) are stuck thinking that the only way to succeed is to exclude competition rather than continuously improve their own product or process. Most businesses do quite well in where the state of the art is known to all of the market participants. In fact, these businesses tend to produce more efficiently that those where competition is restricted, producing better value for the customer.

      How do you know a trademark actually indicates a particular entity made the thing?

      Trademarks are a different thing. A trademark protects the reputation of the supplier so that, in a cometitive market, the better ones may be easily identified and rewarded appropriately. No such system is needed when monopoly rights to produce are granted to one party.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  111. they did pay some of the taxes by Mr+44 · · Score: 1
    Read his original blog post:
    http://www.eminentbrain.com/2006/09/04/clipped-win gs/

    Oracle and M-K thoughtfully included $35,000 on top of the space trip itself in order to assist in the overall tax burden. As it turned out, the additional cash ended up being only slightly more than half of the actual tax burden I was being asked to pay.
  112. Cheap Oracle by yet+another+coward · · Score: 1

    The problem is not the IRS. The problem is Oracle. Oracle did not fully fund the contest. I am quite sure that Oracle employs accountants and lawyers whose familiarity with the tax code permitted understanding this problem in advance. Oracle could provide enough cash to cover the spaceflight and to cover the taxes.

    MySQL is cheap. Oracle is cheap bastards.

  113. see a $10 and pick it up, the IRS wants 4 bucks by juan2074 · · Score: 1

    Here is another example of how stupid the US tax system can be.

    However, what the IRS says is not always exactly what Congress put into the tax code. Read the actual code, and see. The IRS stretches the term 'income' beyond what Congress intended.

    It can be less expensive to hire a good tax attorney than to pay the IRS more than it rightfully should receive.

  114. Wealth for the few vs poverty for everyone by heroine · · Score: 1

    These stories are always amusing, since the protestors are always the same ones who voted for higher taxes in the first place. Isn't it equality for everyone that you voted for? And if you can't get wealth for everyone, you'll just have to let no-one become wealthy.

  115. Do not understand by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1

    I simply do not understand why any government would tax lottery/prize winnings as income. It simply makes no sense, as the article shows: a poor person could not collect on any non-cash prize due to the taxes imposed on it.

    Normally, one considers buying lottery tickets to be "a tax on stupid people". Simply because it's a very long shot gamble, and if those same poor people put their lottery money in a savings account, in a few years there's a non-trivial sum there awaiting the "winner".

    Thankfully, here in New Zealand, there is no tax on prizes or winnings (even casino winnings) and there is also no capital gains tax. We need more citizens too. ;)

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    1. Re:Do not understand by Supermuttonpie · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. NZ will tax casino earnings and prizes if you are earning them as income. Essentially, have you won something as a one-off or are you buying your groceries with the money you win on the black-jack table. It requires subjective assessment, which will be why the US doesn't do things this way, but it's fair when applied correctly.

  116. Sponsorship probably not likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Virgin Galactic claims they will fly over 500 tourists per year. Thousands of people have already payed a deposit to reserve a seat, and 100 people have already payed in full (at a higher price, too) for the first 100 seats.

    From the price mentioned in the article, it seems this guy is not among the first hundred. I'll bet he's a few hundred, possibly a few thousand, down the line. If Virgin makes it that far down the list, at 500 passengers per year (projected start of service 2009 + perhaps 2 years of waiting for his turn), that means they're flying at least one launch per week. Not many people are going to be paying attention anymore. I couldn't see any meaningful level of sponsorship coming his way for a 30 minute joyride.

    And if he were to accept the award, I suspect he would have to declare the gift immediately on his tax return, which means paying the tax now, not when he actually gets his flight. It seems most Americans, even the financially healthy, don't have much beyond a few grand of rainy day/discretionary cash in the bank, and a substantial amount of debt (home loan, education, car, etc). So then he is adding another ~$25k of debt to his plate and paying interest on it. Plus, can you even get a loan to pay taxes with? I suppose there's lenders out there that do it, but I doubt the conditions are very favorable.

    All this to become the 1000th person to take an hour-long flight that culminates in 15 minutes of weightlessness and doesn't even come close to orbit or accomplish anything meaningful or challenging, which is where a big part of my respect for professional astronauts comes from.

    I'm another huge space fan. I didn't have the opportunity for space camp as a kid, but I'd leap at the chance to become a NASA astronaut, and I'm hoping to see a shuttle launch in person before they're retired. At the same time, I'd probably make exactly the same decision as this man, even if there's no cash-equivalent option (did the article say if there was?). I think most of us who grew up dreaming about space imagined exploring, building, or experimenting, not staring out the windows and snapping pictures for a few minutes.

  117. I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean seriously. He couldn't get corporate sponsorship for this?
    I'm sure my company would have paid the money (yes plus an needed amount
    to cover taxes on taxes on taxes) for him to wear our T-shirt, etc.

    I think deep down he didn't want to go for some reason.

  118. Re:Above posts are wrong, the dutch taxsystem is b by bbc · · Score: 1

    "The other mayor one is house subsidie, in short you earn more, you don't get it any more."

    Oh, the humanity! Once you can afford to pay the entire rent YOURSELF, they take away your subsidy! How can they be so cruel?

    "and that is the problem with holland, people are very hard incentivated to NOT work, to NOT study."

    The country even lacks millionair's assistance, would you believe!

    "So I emmigrated as do a lot of dutch."

    Good bye and good riddance.

  119. The gov't's unsatiable appitite for money........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely this is going to help the homeless, the needy, and "ordinary" American citizens, rather than going to more missles, billion dollar jet planes, gov't pork barrel projects, and more waste and
    corruption, right?

  120. What if he worked for it? by Spittoon · · Score: 1

    Couldn't the space people "hire" this guy, pay him a dollar or something, as like, a contractor? I mean, i don't pay taxes on the chair I sit in at work...

  121. Faulty Logic by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    The people defending these kind of taxes, by claiming "Well, taxes are needed to provide us with government services", are using faulty logic. In this case, the government IS NOT taxing the guy $20,000... because the guy is simply not going to take the space flight - He can't afford it!

    However, if the government charged a lower tax... say $1,000, the guy might actually be able to pay, and therefore the government would actually make MORE money than with the much higher tax rate!

    By raising taxes beyond a certain threshold, you actually LOSE tax revenue. Higher taxes != higher tax revenue.

    Here is a good explaination:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

  122. Man, your life in Finnland sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How have I managed to not to die in Moscow in 20+ years? Another "soviet Russia" joke?

  123. Wrongo by geekoid · · Score: 1

    You forget about all the lottery winner, gamblers, and a myrid of TV contestants who DO pay taxes on there winnings.
    Yeah, this guy didn't accept it, but are you really thinking wa person winning 200 million will not collect because of taxes?

    Yes, you can loose taxes if you tax to much, but in this instance this is not the case.

    Now you brought up the Laffer Curve. Do you really understand it? Do you understand that each item taxed will have a different peak tax rate? And that the peak tax has been as high as 90% during some points in the US's history?
    Never take the laffer curve in an absolute literal model for a tax revenue curve,and remember that it has no predictive value at all.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Wrongo by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      You forget about all the lottery winner, gamblers, and a myrid of TV contestants who DO pay taxes on there winnings.
      Yeah, this guy didn't accept it, but are you really thinking wa person winning 200 million will not collect because of taxes?


      The difference is that that lottery winners, gamblers, and TV contestants win cash, which is easier to tax (you can pay taxes out of your winning). However, taxing these kinds of things as income only works with big things like lottery (millions of dollars), or TV (where the person is on television, and so is easy for the IRS to identify). Most gamblers don't bother to declare their income. If the winnings are less than $10,000 (which is virtually all of winnings... lotteries and sweepstakes are the exception), people just don't declare it. If there was a more modest tax sceme for winnings (i.e. pay a flat 1% or 2%, similiar to sales tax, at the time of winning), no doubt there would be more tax revenue.

      Do you understand that each item taxed will have a different peak tax rate? And that the peak tax has been as high as 90% during some points in the US's history?

      I understand that the U.S. has a higher tax revenue, adjusted for inflation, now that tax rates are somewhat more reasonable. And I also understand that each item taxed will have a different peak tax rate... and I think the peak tax rate for contest winnings are much lower than income. Contest winnings are NOT income. The reason contest winnings are considered to be income is that congress approved an income tax and not a contest tax, and so the IRS gets around this ambiguity in the law by deciding that contest winnings are income, circumventing the legislative process.

      There are plenty of countries (such as Canada, where I live), who don't tax contest winnings. And believe me, Canadian politicians LOVE collecting taxes... if they are not collecting taxes on contest winnings, it is most likely for a damn good reason. They would certainly charge taxes on it if they felt that the revenue justified the expense of enforcement.

      Never take the laffer curve in an absolute literal model for a tax revenue curve,and remember that it has no predictive value at all.

      The bell curve given by laffer has no predictive value, because it is simply designed to illustrate a point. It is not based on actual revenue data, it is simply an example of a hypothetical curve that is easy for econ 101 students to understand. The classic Laffer curve is not a working model, it is a teaching example.

      That does not mean that there isn't a real curve, and that tax revenue cannot be predicted by that curve. It just means that the model needs to be worked out on a case by case basis.

  124. America - Freedom to Fascism on Google Video by zentinal · · Score: 1

    Also on Google Video - Link

  125. The Tax Man Taketh Away..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    Leave it to welfare-mooching parasites and pork-crazed politicians to ruin the good fortunes of the hardworking man.

    This just makes me hate the welfare-moochers and fat-assed politicos even more.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  126. Re:A nightmare come true? by lpq · · Score: 1

    Was the luxury car contest open to the public? Sounds like it wasn't a winning at all but a payoff. Why wouldn't that be taxable.

    The big problem comes not with all winnings, but prizes that have some supposed "cash value", but that cannot be exchanged for cash.

    I saw a beautiful example of such a bogus contest in some men's magazine:
                                                                                    Valued Running RealCost Running
    Prize included airfare for two to NYC ooooooooooooooo 2500 2500 400 400
    Reservations for two at some fancy hotel for 1 week 4900 7400 1000 1400
    Entry fee to exclusive dance clubs oooooooooooooooooo 2000 9400 0 1400
    Concert tix&all access pass ooooooooooooooooooooooooo 7000 16400 0 1400
    Fancy dinners for two ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 2500 18900 2000 3400
    Limo transportation ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 2100 21000 500 3900
    Makeover oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 3000 24000 750 4650
    Cash for Clothing "Spending Spree" oooooooooooooooooo 1000 25000 1000 5650

    Total for Promo purposes (and IRS Value) = $25,000.
    Realcosts - priceline tickets club&concerts free for promotional consideration,
                            limo owned by company, drivers already on payroll;
                            makeover - promotional deals

    So in reality, the prize promoter advertises a $25,000 prize, IRS requires 15-32%
    depending on your existing bracket. Most of the magazine readers are probably between 25-30% or will owe about $6000-$8000 in extra taxes.

    No rags-to-riches, no poor, nor even middle class winners (how many want to spend ~$7000 for a shopping jaunt)? If you are already rich and have $7k in pocket change -- sure, but for average folk?

    Same thing with the trip-into-space -- sure it's valued at the ticket's "face value", but how much can you get for it on Ebay? IRS claims you have to value donations at market value -- seems like that should apply to prizes too. To make things worse, some prize vendors make the prize non-transferable, "no cash substitution" -- which means you can't get the supposed value, nor can you sell it & transfer it to someone else. Even if you could -- how much do you think you'd get for 1 weeks worth of nights on some arbitrary set of dates at some NYC hotel or the other items. Selling off 1-night club passes? It's a joke.

    If someone is paid in 'cash', taxes are unpleasant, but probably as fair as can be under our tax system. But when you have non-cash prizes, or especially prizes that cannot easily be converted to cash, it is very very wrong -- it's discrimination against anyone who isn't "rich enough" to afford the bogusly set taxes.

    p.s. table spaces converted to filler to circumvent slashdot prohibition on tables; formatting broken by slashdot disallowing 'fixed font' (adding "ecode" tags caused slashdot to complain of too many junk characters; such intelligent software, allowing well formatted posts...!not!)

  127. Re:A nightmare come true? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    I completely agree. I think that the IRS should tax the prize at whatever it the cost to Cisco was. That way it is zero-sum for the IRS... they gain the same amount that they would have if Cisco hadn't run the promo and just kept the money as profit.

    That said, I have no idea how the IRS calculated the $25,000 tax bill.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  128. Re:A nightmare come true? by lpq · · Score: 1

    More to the point, though -- should it be at "Cisco's" cost, or at the "Fair Market Value"? I.e. Suppose Dell offered a 3-year old computer? If it was "brand new", (never been sold), and it cost Dell $3000 to make, and would have resold, 3 years ago for $6000, but on Ebay might only fetch $1000, how much should the prize be "valued".

    The cost to the provider isn't the only attribute of value: the prize "owner" may have overpaid for the item, or may have invested poorly and now has surplus stock -- which to "Dell", might be worth $50,000 for a markdown?

    How many "prizes" come with a "CarFax" report, or a manufacturer warrantee? Is the new house they gave you on a flood plain?

    The idea of the giver arbitrarily setting the price is *way* open to fraud in their favor. The burden of proof would be on the "winner" to prove the object wasn't as valuable as was claimed.

    With the trip into space -- say it was valued at $100,000 (with a tax burden of $33,000).
    That means the real value of the prize is $100,000-$33,000 or $67,000. The IRS tax burden on winnings should be automatically, by law be subtracted from the value and be the responsibility of the giver, otherwise, winning a "prize" could be a form of punishment in just the headache to dispose of it. *plegh* -- unreasonable IRS.

  129. Screw that, do the time and take the trip by jerryodom · · Score: 1
    Couldn't he just take the trip, not pay the taxes and then pay the price later on? Let them lean on you and pay it off man but don't pass on what could possibly be a once in the life time trip to space.

    Didn't I see a guy holding a rabbit hostage and taking paypal donations? he got so much publicity from the stunt that he made savetoby.com into a very valuable domain name. This guy could design a similar stunt around his "I'm going so throw me in jail for taxes" angle

    --
    For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
  130. Re:A nightmare come true? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    More to the point, though -- should it be at "Cisco's" cost, or at the "Fair Market Value"? I think it should be whatever the current tax basis is for the item. To use your 3-year-old Dell as an example... I think that the depreciation schedule for a computer is 5 years (maybe it is different for "inventory", which is a better category for this item). That means that the 3-year-old Dell, which started out as a $3000 computer, would now have a tax basis of 3/5 that - $1800. Sure, it's not quite as low as the market rate or replacement cost might be, but now the IRS makes just as much as they would have if the Dell were never given away. Conversely, if the person won this "$6000" computer brand-new, the tax basis is $3000 and that is what they should have to pay taxes on. If THEY ever sell it, they should have to pay taxes on the difference between the market rate ($6000) and the cost basis ($3000).

    The idea of the giver arbitrarily setting the price is *way* open to fraud in their favor. Not at all - the IRS has their tax return on file. There are very strict rules describing depreciation schedules and the like. If the seller lies about the value of the item, they are committing tax fraud and get penalized. All the IRS would have to do is require a sweepstakes organizer to notify them of the winner's name and the tax basis of the item won by the end of the year. For all I know, they already do require this.

    How many "prizes" come with a "CarFax" report, or a manufacturer warrantee? Is the new house they gave you on a flood plain? These all have some value on someone's books. If CarFax gives away a report, all you have to do is look at their books to see what their cost basis is for a report - it's not free! If you get an extended warranty, this costs the manufacturer some money on the books (they take on a liability somewhere). The house on the flood plane was purchased for some price - that's the basis that you pay, even if it was bought 100 years ago. Why? Because you'll pay taxes on the difference between the cost basis and the market rate when you try to sell it, so the IRS will still get its money.

    The IRS tax burden on winnings should be automatically, by law be subtracted from the value and be the responsibility of the giver I don't really have a problem with that. I presume that because you want to codify it, you think that the morally correct thing to do is award prizes that are actually "free" to the recipient. I agree, which is why I think that Cisco is pretty shitty for not writing a $30,500 check to this guy to cover his taxes. Tax laws in this country suck and need to be overhauled, but that doesn't give Cisco a free pass to be Mr. Scrooge. It's not like the tax rules changed between the start and the end of this contest.
    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  131. Remedial math 101 by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    Supposing your 18% tax bracket is correct, $138,000 / 82% = $168,293. So the folks from the competition / lottery send you a cheque for $30,293 to pay the taxes. The government considers your income to be $168,293, and assesses tax to be $30,293. You endorse the cheque and everyone's happy.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  132. Do you think the IRS is stupid? by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    Of course that's not allowed. Otherwise the country would be full of people giving each other hefty discounts on everything to avoid taxes.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  133. nerd-core spdv by dever1 · · Score: 1

    Brian Emmett rules- nerdcore baby! Benson Space is going to buy it's rockets from SpaceDev, and here are some more photos and info about spacedev if you care.