994400+ entries in 0.75s
smickles: I
think you could also 'lend' a lot of money
to your family, not charge interest, but be required
to count a certain minimum amount of interest as income even
tho you didn't charge it
copumpkin: I
think my best bet is
to set up some sort of S-corp or something and
then do "consulting" on
the side
that lets me deduct a bunch of
things
smickles: they'd have
to all be born
this year :|
copumpkin: but leave
them
to
take care of
them and don't pay childcare
smickles: also,
the nanny might be paid for by EIC,
smickles: heh, you didn't ask
to make it better overall, you asked
to get into
the 15% bracket
copumpkin: can I get a virtual kid, like a
tamatochi?
copumpkin: but doesn't
the nanny cost me money?
smickles: adopt a kid, in a certain way, start an education fund for it, and hire a nanny,
that's about 20000 of lowering
copumpkin: anyway, I was planning on maxing out
the 401k pretax contribution next year, and squeezing more
than is supposed
to be possible into
the roth
smickles: well, if you don't have an IRA, we can knock of 5000 right
there
smickles: like, how much do you contribute
to your retirement fund?
smickles: if my assumptions are correct, as well as you not
taking advantage of various
things, it might actually be possible
copumpkin: which is where I
think most of
that sort of goodness comes from
copumpkin: smickles: it's sort of joking around
though, because I doubt it's possible
to lower much, since I don't work for myself or have a company and can't really deduct most of my expenses
smickles: copumpkin: are we
talking, lowering it 18000 or lowering it more
than
that?
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: disregard
that, I'll ask again in a bit
copumpkin: any more
than
that and it isn't worth it ;)
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: I'm offering him 6 btc
to
take my effective
tax rate
to 15%
smickles: it might also be possible for next year's
taxes, but not
this years, as it could involve operating an off-shore company for
the full year
smickles: copumpkin: in order
to consider
that offer seriously, i'd have
to know how far down i'd have
to bring it
smickles: and why I see money in understanding
them
smickles: and, iirc,
the 'tax one' is not usually a report, it's
the filed
tax forms
mircea_popescu: "correct
to
the best of your knowledge" is
the usual formula.
smickles: you sign
the real one saying it's correct
to
to
the standards
smickles: but you sign
the
tax one saying
that its correct in consideration of
the way
tax law says it has
to be done
mircea_popescu: as long as you're required
to sign off on
the
tax one, it's
the one. anyone doesn't like it can stand on his head.
mircea_popescu: you
then proceed
to sign a different one, someone shows
they contradict
themselves and whoopla, you've perjured yourself.
mircea_popescu: i really don't follow how anyone'd be foolish enough
to sign
two different accounting reports.
smickles: heh,
trying
to move
this
to an ontological discussion?
mircea_popescu: all representations depend on presupositions
to decode.
smickles: 18:30 < mircea_popescu> copumpkin
they may bitch, but you can't really get into
trouble by sticking with
the
tax version<<<
the
thing is, sticking
to
the
tax version doesn't accurately represent
the status of
the company
smickles: 18:29 < copumpkin> maybe smickles can provide a justification for
the whole
thing, but
the best I can come up with is
that a company's accounts serve a different purpose
than its
tax returns <<<
this is
true,
taxes are not handled
the same way as responsible accounting
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: just follow
the fibonacci numbers on
the price graph and you'll make way more money anyway
mircea_popescu: takes people like buffett a month of combing
to get a rough idea.
mircea_popescu: in
truth,
this deferred assets/liabilities game +
the SPV game is pretty much 90% of why nobody knows what corps are reallty worth
copumpkin: so if you're public, you can't just do what
the
taxes do
copumpkin: Like many other common law countries,
the United States government does not directly set accounting standards by statute. However,
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires
that US GAAP be followed in financial reporting by publicly
traded companies
copumpkin: that's why you can have deferred
tax liabilities or assets
copumpkin: well,
the discrepances can both favor you or work against you
mircea_popescu: people in general don't do it because
they'd like
to present better numbers.
mircea_popescu: copumpkin
they may bitch, but you can't really get into
trouble by sticking with
the
tax version.
copumpkin: but regardless, I need
to know it, so I learn it
copumpkin: mostly it just feels stupid
though :P
copumpkin: maybe smickles can provide a justification for
the whole
thing, but
the best I can come up with is
that a company's accounts serve a different purpose
than its
tax returns
gribble: Estimated
time of bitcoin block reward halving: Wed Nov 28 18:48:06 2012 UTC |
Time remaining: 1 day, 0 hours, 20 minutes, and 0 seconds.
copumpkin: which means
that auditors or
the SEC might bitch
copumpkin: no, you do, because
then you aren't meeting
the US GAAP/IFRS standards
mircea_popescu: but as long as you do everything
the
tax way you don't have a problem.
copumpkin: sometimes
they might ,depending on what kind of asset it is
copumpkin: and
they don't all mesh with
the
tax method
copumpkin: that's
the
thing
though,
the IFRS has requirements for
the depreciation method
copumpkin: so you file a deferred
tax liability saying "um,
the
tax man
thinks we lost way more money
than we did
this year and charged us less
taxes, but we haven't lost it yet"
mircea_popescu: i don't like using any diff method
than
the
tax method.
copumpkin: which means you paid less in
taxes (Because
they
think you lost money
to depreciation)
today but your accounts don't show
that depreciation because you used a different method on
them
copumpkin: which means
that it looks like you lost more money
to depreciation on your
taxes
than you did on your accounts
copumpkin: like if you have an asset, accounting standards have different ways you can depreciate it over
time, but
the
taxes probably want a particular way called double-declining balance
copumpkin: so you often need
to depreciate
things differently on your
taxes and on your accounts
copumpkin: no, it isn't about not filing
them
mircea_popescu: copumpkin well, only need
to account for it if you hadn't filed
the
taxes for
the prev years, but anyway! my q was strictly cause it went down
copumpkin: anyway, whatever it is, you need
to account for it :)
Diablo-D3: I have 24 hours
to produce a block :<
copumpkin: I haven't looked at
the question since earlier
gribble: Estimated
time of bitcoin block reward halving: Wed Nov 28 18:50:51 2012 UTC |
Time remaining: 1 day, 0 hours, 30 minutes, and 0 seconds.
copumpkin: it's just a huge pain in
the ass
to account for it
copumpkin: but
the
tax rate did go up, so you would pay more
tax
copumpkin: you don't pay more
tax
than you would otherwise, but due
to
the discrepancy between your accounts and
the
tax reports, you need
to adjust your accounts
to factor in
the increased rate
mircea_popescu: turns out it was worth more in
the sense glbse was worth more :
mircea_popescu: it's funny
that not even a week ago inaba was intimating bfl is worth more
than mpex
jcpham: maybe i didn't read
the whole
thread?
Diablo-D3: bfl needs
to stop referring
to
them in such an improper way
mircea_popescu: and obviously, all
the people sending
them free money.
Diablo-D3: jcpham:
they're not preorder customers.