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."
...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.
The Slashdot Limerick
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Boy, would I love to have just 10% sales tax. In Germany, they just cranked it up to 19% this January.
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!
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.
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.
"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.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Life still sucks more when you don't.
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
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
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.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
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.
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.
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.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
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.
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!
Or is the author not serious? There is no wit, or grace, or amusement value that suggests it is written as a parody.