Jerryrigeverything can afford his items due to tax write offs.

[starsmine]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Which still has little to do with maths...which was effectively your statement that people didn't learn it in maths.  What this is is more of a financial management.

 

Do you understand where I am coming from though, because it doesn't matter that JRE or Linus makes money from other sources, things like "tax writeoff" is an actual thing that happens and is exploited by the rich often [who would often also fall into one of the higher tax brackets anyways].

 

Yes, writing things off can push you into a lower tax bracket; but being able to write off large expenses can have profound savings when again you are talking about someone who is wealthy.

 

So yea, tax brackets are a thing, but they matter less in the sense that A) they would likely be closer to one of the higher tax brackets B) it allows you to write off expenses that most people normally wouldn't.

 

e.g. Purchasing a $1000 phone, and you effectively reduce your end of year tax filing by at min $100 [which to an extent could be thought as the phone as being only a $900 expense then]..if you are in the highest tax bracket it would be like only having to pay $630.

 

The other example I used is also perfect in that if you have a large expense like a pool, if you use it as a "business expense" i.e. a tax write off, then yea it makes a huge difference if you are able to put it as a tax write off [because otherwise you would have to just pay it full stop with no eventual savings on tax].

 

So trying to specify "tax brackets" doesn't really make much sense in this kind of topic because it's talking about tax write-offs which yes your tax  bracket will play a role in the overall number...but it's foolish to act as though people saying a tax write-off implies they wouldn't understand such a thing.  [In the literal sense in some cases a tax write-off like in Linus' pool would be people essentially implying that Linus is writing off those kinds of things for a tax break]

the idea of ever writing things off pushing you into a different tax bracket is already misleading.
Everyone is in ALL of the tax brackets all at once. 
0 is a number. your tax burden is not your tax bracket. your taxable % does not spike when you get into or out of a bracket, the whole thing is fairly linear with an asymtode at the highest bracket. 

like I dont have the numbers but it looks like this in reality


 

4 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

True but that is taking past my point. I honestly dont care, taxes are theft by the government. But I will stop right there as this and any argument beyond is political and everyone has their opinion on the matter. I do not wish to go down this road here.

Damn government giving us roads and military and education, how dare they. Those should rightfully be exclusively for the rich who can pay private companies for it.
What have the educated ever done for me

[undergroundbeef]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I care, a lot. 

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right. Of course it heavily depends on why and how someone writes something off, but there have been examples of youtubers buying things, claiming they need it for a video, show it in a video once and then use it for private stuff afterward. That's a shitty move because they are deliberately trying to get around and pay as little tax as possible. That means they are essentially taking funds that could go to schools, hospitals and so on, and instead using it to but stuff for themselves.

 

The tax evasion stuff Apple and other companies do are also legal, but people are, in my opinion rightfully mad at them for that too. 

I understand that people try and minimize the amount of taxes they pay. Totally understand it. But I still think it's wrong to do it. Trying to avoid taxes is putting your own wants ahead of the things taxes pays for. 

 

In before arguments about how governments are using taxes inefficiently. That's not my point. My point is trying to minimize the taxes you pay is selfish and in general a bad thing to do for society as a whole. Especially if you are rich like a lot of these Youtubers. 

 

And just to be clear, I think people who just shout "tax write off" usually don't know what they are talking about. Internet comments tend to just hear a word and then repeat it over and over without understanding what it means. 

Do you try to maximize the taxes you pay, or pay more than you need to? 

 

The problem isn't with the companies, they are following the law. You should take issue with the tax code that has so many loopholes and ways to be exploited. The tax code is needlessly complex, and all that complexity creates opportunities to save, for those who are willing to put in the work. No politician wants to touch this problem, as it will be very hard to fix, and likely very unpopular with a lot of very powerful people. Steve Forbes ran for US president around 2000, and the cornerstone of his platform was to try and tackle this. His tax code fit on a 3x5 index card. Obviously he didn't win and nothing has changed.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

The argument is not that simple, please dont.

lol, bit ironic given that you used a blanket statement of "taxes are theft"...you were the one who made such a black and white simple statement and pretty much stated it was getting political; and his response in honest is a good simple response to such a simple wrong black and white take that taxes are theft.

 

4 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

True but that is taking past my point. I honestly dont care, taxes are theft by the government. But I will stop right there as this and any argument beyond is political and everyone has their opinion on the matter. I do not wish to go down this road here.

Then don't make statements about who cares, because obviously people care.

 

"Legal" tax avoidance methods can often go into grey areas, and the "legal" methods that are used are often abused to the point where there's a massive amount disparity in what someone should be paying.

 

Again, as an example, people use the "legal" option of tax write offs to buy luxury cars [thus reducing the overall taxes they are submitting to the government].  If someone is rich enough to be a "billionaire" in terms of capital it's possible to avoid paying any forms of taxes if they wanted to.  So yes, many people do care because using things as a tax writeoff is exactly how many still manage to get around paying taxes.

 

  

17 minutes ago, undergroundbeef said:

Do you try to maximize the taxes you pay, or pay more than you need to? 

 

The problem isn't with the companies, they are following the law. You should take issue with the tax code that has so many loopholes and ways to be exploited. The tax code is needlessly complex, and all that complexity creates opportunities to save, for those who are willing to put in the work. No politician wants to touch this problem, as it will be very hard to fix, and likely very unpopular with a lot of very powerful people. Steve Forbes ran for US president around 2000, and the cornerstone of his platform was to try and tackle this. His tax code fit on a 3x5 index card. Obviously he didn't win and nothing has changed.

I don't maximize the amount of taxes I personally pay, but honestly I don't go to the extremes that I could to minimize the amount of taxes.

 

The issue with taxes is that there isn't any simple way to write it; and when things are more complex there are always people who can figure out ways exploit it.

 

[crazzp]

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

e.g. Purchasing a $1000 phone, and you effectively reduce your end of year tax filing by at min $100 [which to an extent could be thought as the phone as being only a $900 expense then]..if you are in the highest tax bracket it would be like only having to pay $630.

You sound like one of those dudes that Linus was talking about. The price of the phone isn't reduced in any way because of a tax write off.

 

If I'm a business and my profit was $1000, I used all that money to buy the phone and I write it off. I pay $0 income tax but the phone still cost me $1000! You don't gain any money from a tax write off.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, undergroundbeef said:

Do you try to maximize the taxes you pay, or pay more than you need to? 

I live in Sweden. Our tax system is very different. But to answer your question, I do not use any tricks or clever accounting to try and minimize or maximize the taxes I pay. 

 

 

4 hours ago, undergroundbeef said:

The problem isn't with the companies, they are following the law. You should take issue with the tax code that has so many loopholes and ways to be exploited.

You can dislike both the system and the people/companies that abuse the system. It's not like "I am just following the law" is a blanket statement that removes any personal responsibility and makes you immune from criticism. 

 

If the law allowed me to hit you in the face I'd still be a bad person for doing it, even if I'm just "following the law". I could simultaneously also think that the law allowing me to hit you in the face is dumb and should be changed. 

 

I'd like to think that we can hold people and companies to slightly higher standards than the absolute minimum that doesn't make them literally criminals. 

[Thaldor]

This is very odd thing to go on. It's like an infant learned a new word and now it's everywhere and the infant really doesn't understand what the word means neither that it's just one thing and there's so much more.

 

This is so much similar thing as the lootbox hunt for games. Everyone so furious about lootboxes and have million opinions on lootboxes and game monetization about lootboxes and like 99% of them do not even have a clue where the virtual casino actually begins at and how much they have been carried in a bag like a little pigs now for about couple decades. But LOOTBOXES! For example the earliest and currently again kind of a huge trend is the premium currency aka. token, it's primary function is to cloud the use of real money, like no one thinks that they are using $1€ when they pay that 10 gems on power-up. The current fancy thing is to have two or more premium currencies from which one can be only bought with real money (others can be also bought but they're also gained through gameplay), the dirty part is also that but what is the real shit is to limit either by item amounts or just directly different "store" or items how much and where you can use the "lesser" premium currencies and have unlimited, better and a ton more expensive for the one "whale currency" and the normal game currency is pretty much meaningless resource that you pile in millions and get pretty much nothing with. BUT LOOTBOXES!!!

 

There's almost no one complaining about how much influencers actually skew the image. Like want to take a guess how many still have their Apple Vision Pros? I was almost going to die from laughter when couple probably already over their teens were filming some intro for some video outside of local PC store about reviewing some AIB RTX 4090... And then inside the camera man was returning one RTX 4090 while the host was getting one and both acted like they didn't even know each other in the store. So many youtubers take sponsorships from almost on the verge of being scams even after the whole Scammed Titles and Scamikoto knives and whatever thing came crashing down, like the damn scent water bottle. Hell, there's times when YouTube ITSELF runs some subsidy scam ads and where's the outrage?

 

So, the baby just learned the word "tax write off" and it needs to be repeated everywhere. Is it a big thing? Nope, those are very small things that hardly do anything, there's bigger gains in crunching the numbers and planning the investments so you buy more at the time but spread that cost across longer time so you don't suddenly loose a lot of money because you invested it into new machinery or something. For purely taxation point the bigger thing would be actually turning your direct income into investment income by just not paying wage for yourself but making a holding company that owns your business and only taking the dividends from the holding company because that is super cheaply taxed income in pretty much all around the globe.

But that is something everyone with a business and halfway decent accountant do. If people were so upset about that, better get the torches and start burning pretty much every single company they come across from Ben&Jerry's to Apple to LMG (I would remember Linus mentioning that Yvonne has actually done that to some extent with the "Yvonnes evil corporation" that owns LMG).

BUT TAX WRITE OFFS!!!

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, crazzp said:

You sound like one of those dudes that Linus was talking about. The price of the phone isn't reduced in any way because of a tax write off.

 

If I'm a business and my profit was $1000, I used all that money to buy the phone and I write it off. I pay $0 income tax but the phone still cost me $1000! You don't gain any money from a tax write off.

Read my previous post on page 1.  Linus is to put it bluntly misconstruing things.  NO ONE IS SAYING YOU GAIN MONEY.  WHAT I AM SAYING IS YOU PAY LESS TAXES WHICH OFFSETS THE EFFECTIVE COST.

 

If I personally were to buy a $1000 phone, I pay $1000 (well plus GST and PST).  That's my total cost.  At the end of the year my taxes are still the same.

If I buy a phone and "use" it with my business, I pay $1000, it's written off as an expense, so your taxable income drops by $1000.  That means if tax rate is 50% you are paying $500 less in taxes. (And depending how you've structured things you can get a GST credit).

 

Write offs don't immediately give you "money back", but they do reduce your end of year tax bill which can effectively be seen as lowering a purchase cost.

 

It's like paying $1000 at a store you always buy from and getting a $500 coupon and then telling people "but you still paid $1000"...it's stupid ignoring that there is a $500 coupon also with the purchase.

 

Again read and comprehend what I wrote before repeating Linus' illegitimate example.  Notice how I said at the end of the year you have effectively reduced the amount of tax you pay.  Or better yet, read my full blown example from Person A vs Person B here

 

There's a reason why super rich people are capable of reducing their "income" down to below poverty lines...they can exploit things like write-offs as an example.  Linus talked about the subject with what seems to be a lack of understanding about the ability to shift tax burdens to minimize taxes paid.

  

4 hours ago, Thaldor said:

So, the baby just learned the word "tax write off" and it needs to be repeated everywhere. Is it a big thing? Nope, those are very small things that hardly do anything, there's bigger gains in crunching the numbers and planning the investments so you buy more at the time but spread that cost across longer time so you don't suddenly loose a lot of money because you invested it into new machinery or something

What's funny is when the parent thinks they know a word and saying people are using it wrong when they don't seem to understand it's usage.

 

Assuming I was super wealthy, making millions a year with my business.  You incorporate things into the business to "increase" expenses to the business to reduce the taxes.  It can be quite effective especially given how gov't bodies tend to want to settle if there is disputes instead of spending millions defending [the rich get extra leverage because the gov't has a duty to try recovering as much as possible in the lawsuit which means factoring in their legal fees...so it often gets settled if the person is going to put up a fight and is rich enough to draw it out through the courts[.

 

Some easy, not necessarily legal but still done, "tax write offs".  Going out to dinners, and "discussing" work for a bit.  Buying a "company car" [really personal car].  Hiring "staff", which happens to be paid just below taxable income and happens to be your kids.  Home renovation?  No it was used as part of the office.

 

Now the above really isn't strictly legal, but still likely enough in a grey area...it's also enough to greatly reduce tax burdens

[crazzp]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If I buy a phone and "use" it with my business, I pay $1000, it's written off as an expense, so your taxable income drops by $1000.  That means if tax rate is 50% you are paying $500 less in taxes

That is because you originally owed the government $500 of tax!

I'm going to keep this simple.

 

1. You have $1000: You owe $500 of tax to government that you have to pay at the end of the year.

2. You spend $1000.

3. You don't have to pay the $500 of tax that you owed.

 

There is no 'discount' on the phone to speak of!

[wanderingfool2]

31 minutes ago, crazzp said:

That is because you originally owed the government $500 of tax!

I'm going to keep this simple.

 

1. You have $1000: You owe $500 of tax to government that you have to pay at the end of the year.

2. You spend $1000.

3. You don't have to pay the $500 of tax that you owed.

 

There is no 'discount' on the phone to speak of!

Congratulations on simplifying it so much you forgot the most important detail.  Not once did I say it was a discount, you are just like Linus hand waving and making up stawman arguments.  A tax write off changes the amount of taxes you pay; which is what you just explained...are you seriously not mindful enough to realize that reducing your tax burden DOES save you money

 

Let me explain it to you simply.

 

You explained effectively what a tax write-off is.

 

A REGULAR CONSUMER CANNOT WRITE IT OFF.  So a regular consumer pays, $1000 and gets NO TAX DEDUCTIONS.

 

To put it simply again:

Person A, tax write off person:

Person A has $100,000 in his bank

Person A has $10,000 in business income and owes the government $5,000 in taxes

Person A buys a $1,000 phone for the "company" [i.e. tax write off]. 

Person A's $10000 is reduced down to $9000 business income, so actually only only owes $4500

 

So AFTER paying his taxes he has $100,000 - $1000 - $4500 + $10000 = $104,500 in his bank

 

Person B, regular person:

$100,000 in his bank

$10,000 in personal income and owes $5,000 in taxes

Buys a $1,000 phone [it's a personal phone so no writing it off]

Person B now owes $5,000 to the government still.

 

So AFTER paying his taxes he has $100,000 - $1000 - $5000 + $1000= $104,000 in his bank

 

 

NOTICE how Person A and Person B BOTH purchased a phone.  Except Person A ends up with $500 more at the end of the year than Person B.

 

You cannot argue about the fact that writing off a phone in this example SAVES 50% of the cost of the phone during taxes [assuming 50% tax rate].

 

You can try putting makeup on a pig all you want, by making an asinine argument about semantics that it's not a "discount" when I DIDN'T say it was, but ultimately it's stupid to ignore the fact that with tax writeoffs a person is ultimately saving themselves the percentage that they would be taxed at.  Plane and simple.

 

You want a more extreme example, if Linus does a tax write off his million dollar house [because he films in it].

A normal person would pay $1,000,000; and still pay taxes on their annual salary of $100,000

But a business write off on a business that is making $100,000 a year gets to write off the $1,000,000

So instead of paying $50,000 in taxes each year, they get to carry forward their "losses" and effectively pay no tax for 10 years [to the tune of $500,000 if the tax rate is 50%].  Now one might say that they can't live off a business, but what rich people can do is take loans against shares of their business thus not paying personal income taxes as they still make $0.

[da na]

15 hours ago, undergroundbeef said:

Do you try to maximize the taxes you pay, or pay more than you need to? 

Have you tried the new TikTok trend, 'Taxmaxxing'?

[dogwitch]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:39 AM, Kisai said:

Linus already addressed this 

 

Different countries, different tax laws.

many people forget that.

 

[undergroundbeef]

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You can dislike both the system and the people/companies that abuse the system. It's not like "I am just following the law" is a blanket statement that removes any personal responsibility and makes you immune from criticism. 

 

If the law allowed me to hit you in the face I'd still be a bad person for doing it, even if I'm just "following the law". I could simultaneously also think that the law allowing me to hit you in the face is dumb and should be changed. 

 

I'd like to think that we can hold people and companies to slightly higher standards than the absolute minimum that doesn't make them literally criminals. 

It gets a little more complicated when it’s a public company, as those running the company have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the shareholders, maximizing their value. Typically, part of doing that means reducing the tax burden as much as possible, while staying inside the law. 
 

For a private company, I can get onboard with what you’re saying, but for public companies there are two ways to look at what the “right” thing to do is, and they are at odds with each other. 
 

While you may see paying more taxes as morally right, the government isn’t going to do anything to them for following the tax code. While the stockholders could very well remove them from the company if they feel money is being needlessly taken out of the company by incompetent tax accounting. 

[Rocketdog2112]

On 3/28/2024 at 10:38 AM, OhYou_ said:

there is nothing wrong with TikTok
Youtube is garbage and now there is finally competition and what?
You complain about it??

maybe re-evaluate what matters to you because youtube is getting worse and worse for content creators and there NEEDS to be alternatives right now or the whole thing falls apart.

Yeah... I can't remember that last YouTube video i saw challenging kids to choke out, blackout, take excessive amounts of Benadryl or... 

https://wegotthiscovered.com/social-media/the-10-most-dangerous-tiktok-trends-of-all-time/

 

 

[LAwLz]

10 hours ago, undergroundbeef said:

It gets a little more complicated when it’s a public company, as those running the company have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the shareholders, maximizing their value. Typically, part of doing that means reducing the tax burden as much as possible, while staying inside the law. 
 

For a private company, I can get onboard with what you’re saying, but for public companies there are two ways to look at what the “right” thing to do is, and they are at odds with each other. 
 

While you may see paying more taxes as morally right, the government isn’t going to do anything to them for following the tax code. While the stockholders could very well remove them from the company if they feel money is being needlessly taken out of the company by incompetent tax accounting. 

In this case I have only talked about private companies and individuals though. 

[Kisai]

23 hours ago, dogwitch said:

Different countries, different tax laws.

many people forget that.

 

Not different enough.

 

You can write off things you use for business, and in some cases "disposing/destroying" the thing counts as a full write off of the entire value. Many things in Canada do not permit a 100% write off, like computer stuff is like 30-60%.

 

You can write of nearly all food if you have like, couriered or catered food every day. This is where the "working late, pizza" and "everyone gets a coffee" stereotypes come from in American television, these can be written off by the business when the business pays for it.

[wanderingfool2]

On 3/29/2024 at 3:28 PM, dogwitch said:

Different countries, different tax laws.

many people forget that.

 

On 3/29/2024 at 1:53 AM, crazzp said:

You sound like one of those dudes that Linus was talking about. The price of the phone isn't reduced in any way because of a tax write off.

 

If I'm a business and my profit was $1000, I used all that money to buy the phone and I write it off. I pay $0 income tax but the phone still cost me $1000! You don't gain any money from a tax write off.

So let's give a bit of "education" because that LMG Clip is mind numbingly deceitful as well.  Actually honestly the way @LinusTech explained it makes it so people like you crazzp buy into  the failed logic

 

If you are going to install a pool, whether or not you actually make a video on it, what would you rather do.  Include it in video shoots and make it into a project so you can claim the cost of the pool are part of a business expense...or not do it and now you don't get to claim it as a business expense.

 

It's like all my above examples from pervious posts, if a pool costs lets say $50,000 to install; if you just strictly label it as personal use then it costs $50,000.  If you do a "tax write-off" then you get to reduce your taxes by [in Linus' 50% example] by $25,000.   That is what people are implying, but Linus either through lack of clarity or his general superiority complex he seems to have fails to address that in his example.  Instead he introduces something completely unrelated to how people are saying tax write-off.

 

Since Linus can't seem to understand what people are referring to, here's the thing.  IF you tack on a video, they are implying that you are now using that as a business expense (where they are claiming it should be personal), in order to write off more of your taxes.

[dogwitch]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Not different enough.

 

You can write off things you use for business, and in some cases "disposing/destroying" the thing counts as a full write off of the entire value. Many things in Canada do not permit a 100% write off, like computer stuff is like 30-60%.

 

You can write of nearly all food if you have like, couriered or catered food every day. This is where the "working late, pizza" and "everyone gets a coffee" stereotypes come from in American television, these can be written off by the business when the business pays for it.

this is the internet.. people general dont do their own taxes and get others to do it.  also people blanket assumption way to much online.

[Lunar River]

On 3/29/2024 at 8:25 PM, LAwLz said:

I'd like to think that we can hold people and companies to slightly higher standards than the absolute minimum that doesn't make them literally criminals

God, i think if i was someone who only did the bare minimum that was legally required, people would think i was just a massive tool.

[crazzp]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's like all my above examples from pervious posts, if a pool costs lets say $50,000 to install; if you just strictly label it as personal use then it costs $50,000.  If you do a "tax write-off" then you get to reduce your taxes by [in Linus' 50% example] by $25,000.   That is what people are implying

Dude, NOBODY is arguing or comparing something for personal use vis-a-vis for business use. I agree with you in that business will pay less tax compared to it being for personal use in your example. People understood that business will write off expense from their tax. Linus is talking about people just labelling EVERYTHING eligible for write-off. You misunderstood his rant. 

 

You can't just write off a whole pool that is sitting in your personal home that you can't prove is used for business. You cant write off a pool just because it appear in a Youtube video once or twice. You need to prove that the pool is indeed used for business by other people frequently and you can only write off a portion of it. The trolls are implying that things like personal TV, his Porsche, home theatre, computer parts, meals etc are all things that Linus could write off and as though he didn't have to pay a single cent to buy the item. That's what he was ranting about. 

[LinusTech]

5 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So let's give a bit of "education" because that LMG Clip is mind numbingly deceitful as well.  Actually honestly the way @LinusTech explained it makes it so people like you crazzp buy into  the failed logic

 

If you are going to install a pool, whether or not you actually make a video on it, what would you rather do.  Include it in video shoots and make it into a project so you can claim the cost of the pool are part of a business expense...or not do it and now you don't get to claim it as a business expense.

 

It's like all my above examples from pervious posts, if a pool costs lets say $50,000 to install; if you just strictly label it as personal use then it costs $50,000.  If you do a "tax write-off" then you get to reduce your taxes by [in Linus' 50% example] by $25,000.   That is what people are implying, but Linus either through lack of clarity or his general superiority complex he seems to have fails to address that in his example.  Instead he introduces something completely unrelated to how people are saying tax write-off.

 

Since Linus can't seem to understand what people are referring to, here's the thing.  IF you tack on a video, they are implying that you are now using that as a business expense (where they are claiming it should be personal), in order to write off more of your taxes.

1. A pool at your personal residence is not a business expense no matter how many times you shoot a video in it.

 

2. I like your user name.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, LinusTech said:

1. A pool at your personal residence is not a business expense no matter how many times you shoot a video in it.

 

2. I like your user name.

Boo hoo, you think I'm a fool; you are still ignorant and blind at what people were implying.  Your whole rant video essentially didn't address a single thing that people were implying [which is that you are using it as a tax write-off]

 

You will find that there are MANY rich people out there who WILL use little justification to declare something as a business expense. [It's the whole joke that people will "go out to dinner" and call it a "meeting"]  Are you seriously that sheltered that you don't realize that?  It goes back to my post on page 1, people know they can usually get away with things [People stretch the rules all the time, need I remind you that you operated out of a non-commercial building and were effectively forced out of the house]

 

People, especially rich people, will generate "business expenses" for personal items, I've seen it happen and am friends with enough accountants of millionaires who frequently talk about how they see it happen frequently [although they never drop names or they'd get in trouble].  Seriously, I know of one person who has labelled their 3 decked out vehicles as business expenses because they use them for "business"...sure if they get audited it would likely be reversed but it will be statute barred by the time it's likely caught.

 

Utilizing a home as a film shoot also 100% would entitle someone to write off personal tax expenses as well [S4-F2-C2].  If one were to justify that the whole room cooling was intended for the whole video concept any "costs" associated with that would classify as a business expense.  It's a whole grey area of taxes.

 

The tl;dr there can and will be people who will write it off as an expense.  Just like how there are many family businesses who conveniently hired their family and pay them just enough to not get really taxed.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You will find that there are MANY rich people out there who WILL use little justification to declare something as a business expense. [It's the whole joke that people will "go out to dinner" and call it a "meeting"] 

I don't know what Linus has been accused of or what the "tax rant" video says, but this for sure happens. I mean... 

 

 

Even IF this video is a joke and he didn't write it off, it's still possible that he did. 

"i needed this for a video" and then he just continues to use it privately despite not having paid the usual amount of tax a private person would have needed to pay.

 

 

I kind of doubt Linus can honestly say that he has never used something in a video, put it as a business expensive (since resulted in him paying less tax than if he had bought it privately), and then used it for private use since the video was filmed. It's pretty safe to assume all major youtubers do this to some extent. It's basically free money. It's just a shame that "free money" would have gone to things like hospitals and schools if it hadn't stayed in the youtuber's pockets. 

[TylerD321]

I don’t know why anyone would not try and reduce the number of taxes they pay given that the system is designed to allow it.

 

You could make the argument that allowing tax write offs encourages people to spend their money instead of hoarding it which circulates money through the economy which is important.

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, TylerD321 said:

I don’t know why anyone would not try and reduce the number of taxes they pay given that the system is designed to allow it.

 

You could make the argument that allowing tax write offs encourages people to spend their money instead of hoarding it which circulates money through the economy which is important.

You can't write off very much as an individual tax payer. But you can write off nearly anything "bought by the business, for business use" even if that business item is ultimately destroyed or disposed of. The reason why certain write offs exist is to encourage investments in those industries. Nobody is going to start up a business selling X thing if they can't write of the logistics and advertising for X.

 

The individual is actually encouraged to buy real estate and write off the interest on it. If they have stocks, they have to pay taxes on capital gains, which is why some stocks are "losers" and also sold to write off the value of the gains of other stocks to reduce the tax burden. This is how some businesses end up "paying zero tax", is they are a "paper business" that represents the wealth of an individual.

 

[LinusTech]

On 3/30/2024 at 10:24 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Boo hoo, you think I'm a fool; you are still ignorant and blind at what people were implying.  Your whole rant video essentially didn't address a single thing that people were implying [which is that you are using it as a tax write-off]

 

You will find that there are MANY rich people out there who WILL use little justification to declare something as a business expense. [It's the whole joke that people will "go out to dinner" and call it a "meeting"]  Are you seriously that sheltered that you don't realize that?  It goes back to my post on page 1, people know they can usually get away with things [People stretch the rules all the time, need I remind you that you operated out of a non-commercial building and were effectively forced out of the house]

 

People, especially rich people, will generate "business expenses" for personal items, I've seen it happen and am friends with enough accountants of millionaires who frequently talk about how they see it happen frequently [although they never drop names or they'd get in trouble].  Seriously, I know of one person who has labelled their 3 decked out vehicles as business expenses because they use them for "business"...sure if they get audited it would likely be reversed but it will be statute barred by the time it's likely caught.

 

Utilizing a home as a film shoot also 100% would entitle someone to write off personal tax expenses as well [S4-F2-C2].  If one were to justify that the whole room cooling was intended for the whole video concept any "costs" associated with that would classify as a business expense.  It's a whole grey area of taxes.

 

The tl;dr there can and will be people who will write it off as an expense.  Just like how there are many family businesses who conveniently hired their family and pay them just enough to not get really taxed.

Neat. You know someone who committed light tax fraud, so I expensed by pool, evading 10s of thousands of dollars in taxes? 

 

That's the logical leap that I object to. 

 

Also, my explanation is fine. An oversimplification, but fine. 

 

Would I be wrong if I said "cars can only be driven by their owners"?

 

They are so easy to steal and people do it without getting caught so that's wrong then?

 

Look, if you want to have a conversation about how tax law is so complicated that compliance is difficult and enforcement is nearly impossible and the way the current system allows the wealthy to pay less than their fair share, that's fair game. I agree. Just keep accusations against me out of it, unless you work for the CRA.