Avoiding sales tax

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by wrightstuf

Now, before you say "this guy just wants to evade taxes," I do pay tax and ALOT of it! Sales tax where I live is over 8%. I also pay almost 8k in property tax. My thought is that now that I'm retired and enjoying the fruits of my labor, I'm entitled to a break! I also think that i'm out of California for a good part of the year not benefitting from all our sales tax is used for. And it's 100% legal. So, I'm not breaking the law, just bending it a little.

Almost everyone who is convicted of tax fraud rationalizes it in some way. It's never wrong in their mind.

[D&J Phillips]

By simple statistics, any given RV plate that says "Montana" likely belongs to a tax dodge from one of the other 49 states. Not guaranteed, but with those odds, and the ubiquity of this licensing practice, I'd place that bet.

Which is more troublesome - profiling or tax evasion? They both seem wrong to me.

[Boxster1971]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

Montana is ranked 44th out of 50 states for population, and is home to just 0.3% of the U.S. population.

By simple statistics, any given RV plate that says "Montana" likely belongs to a tax dodge from one of the other 49 states. Not guaranteed, but with those odds, and the ubiquity of this licensing practice, I'd place that bet.

This Montana LLC scam is not just for RVs. There is a orange Mclaren 570S often parked in the office building lot in my Maryland neighborhood, with Montana plates. The owner ain't from Montana.

It looks a lot like this and costs a lot more than most B-vans.

http://www.preowned.mclaren.com/used...13DAA0HW002373

[Boxster1971]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Almost everyone who is convicted of tax fraud rationalizes it in some way. It's never wrong in their mind.

You probably wont get convicted of a crime for using the Montana LLC tax avoidance scheme. You could get a bill from your state if they pursue you. This is a common issue in Washington State, next door to Oregon with no sales tax. In Seattle area the tax is now about 10%. The state mostly goes after folks buying the $500,000+ Class A motorhomes for a bigger payoff.

[Bruceper]

Originally Posted by avanti

Snideness aside, what he proposes is tax fraud plain and simple.

I'm aware, but I'm Canadian and was trying to be polite

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by D&J Phillips

Which is more troublesome - profiling or tax evasion? ....

It depends on who you ask. As a woman with a Master's degree in science, a minor in mathematics, and a graduate thesis that was based in part on a new application of the equation for binomial probability, I find it unspeakably offensive when people write off the realm of statistics in its entirety as "profiling". And I find tax evasion to be far more troublesome than statistical predictions.

But large swaths of our society are solidly anti-science and certainly anti-math. To them, everything having to do with statistics boils down to this evil thing that they call "profiling", which THEY find unspeakably offensive and far more troublesome.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

It depends on who you ask. As a woman with a Master's degree in science, a minor in mathematics, and a graduate thesis that was based in part on a new application of the equation for binomial probability, I find it unspeakably offensive when people write off the realm of statistics in its entirety as "profiling". And I find tax evasion to be far more troublesome than statistical predictions.

But large swaths of our society are solidly anti-science and certainly anti-math. To them, everything having to do with statistics boils down to this evil thing that they call "profiling", which THEY find unspeakably offensive and far more troublesome.

You said "I know".

Bud

[booster]

Statistics can show 99% of a group to be have a trait, but it is still wrong to treat all 100% as if they have that trait, IMO. Using statistics to justify any kind of discrimination or incrimination is just plain wrong. One is math and the other is a social issue.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

Many people in Europe smoke like chimneys. The whole cancer statistical thing... they haven't really connected with that yet. I spent some time working there for a client. I was surrounded by so many smokers that I lost much of my sense of smell in a few days. Their toilets might, indeed, have stunk to high heaven, but it would have been lost on me.
I'm saying that with levity but the underlying facts are true. Many of them smoke like fiends, even the ones with high levels of education.

Statistics too?, perhaps some old ones based on your small sample size but you still used them for profiling Europeans.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by booster

......................Using statistics to justify any kind of discrimination or incrimination is just plain wrong. One is math and the other is a social issue.

Ditto.

George.

[GallenH]

Appears to be a question of a legal issue vs. a moral/philosophical issue. Do you set up a LLC in another state to avoid paying sales tax in the state/locality that you live? It might be legal. But is not paying for the local/state things that you enjoy such as streets, libraries, parks, etc. ok? All of you are entitled to answer that whatever way you want. For me....and this is just me....I believe in paying for the things that I value in my community.

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by GallenH

Appears to be a question of a legal issue vs. a moral/philosophical issue. Do you set up a LLC in another state to avoid paying sales tax in the state/locality that you live? It might be legal. But is not paying for the local/state things that you enjoy such as streets, libraries, parks, etc. ok? All of you are entitled to answer that whatever way you want. For me....and this is just me....I believe in paying for the things that I value in my community.

I see a lot of rhetoric here regarding the ethics of tax avoidance but nowhere is there any discussion of the ethics of the tax itself. California is the 8th largest economy in the world but the state nevertheless seems to be eternally out of fiscal gas. Not examining the ethics and credibility of the tax itself leaves out a significant part of the ethics equation.

It's relatively easy to pay for the things that you value. Paying for things you don't value is not so easy, particularly when the taxes collected are diverted to fund beneficiaries never contemplated during the political formation of the tax itself.

[GallenH]

Again: I'm speaking only for myself. But I've met people who argue that they shouldn't be paying for education as their kids are grown or that they've never had any. I'm sure that we all can find things that we don't personally value that the local/state/fed does. Many people don't frequent libraries, or state or federal parks. Many people don't see the need to beautify streets with treed medians. Where I live sales and property taxes have slowly crept upward. Sometimes it's very defined where .01% tax is for education and that's usually in the form of a voter mandate. Majority rules whether you or I agree with it. But usually it's your city council or the state legislature that votes how money (taxes) are spent. These are people we vote in....or out. Options to change funding exist.

[GeorgeRa]

There are 2 good choices, vote or move.

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by GallenH

Again: I'm speaking only for myself. But I've met people who argue that they shouldn't be paying for education as their kids are grown or that they've never had any. I'm sure that we all can find things that we don't personally value that the local/state/fed does. Many people don't frequent libraries, or state or federal parks. Many people don't see the need to beautify streets with treed medians. Where I live sales and property taxes have slowly crept upward. Sometimes it's very defined where .01% tax is for education and that's usually in the form of a voter mandate. Majority rules whether you or I agree with it. But usually it's your city council or the state legislature that votes how money (taxes) are spent. These are people we vote in....or out. Options to change funding exist.

There is a viable argument that education benefits you even if you have no kids in school, if for no other reason that an educated kid is less likely to end up "liberating" your garage.

But it's certainly arguable that that a family that has five kids in school should pay more into the education system than a family with no children at all.

I think you are optimistically assuming that a tax itself is inherently fair. It's not necessarily so. Here's a good example: I am being asked to vote for a prospective local school tax. The proposal includes a pitch that because I'm 65 years or older, I can claim an exemption for the very tax that I'm being asked to support. In effect, the taxing authority is giving me the opportunity to righteously vote for a tax on others while while I can smugly assume no concomitant financial burden. As proposed, does this tax pass the ethical sniff test?

[GallenH]

GeorgeRa: Correct. Vote for changes or, if out-voted move. Totally agree. As I said: majority rules. That's the way our system has always worked.

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

There are 2 good choices, vote or move.

The beauty of Oregon is that you don't have to move far. You can live in coastal Oregon which politically is left of Lenin or you can live in Eastern Oregon which is right of Ghengis Kahn.

[GallenH]

cruising: For me: No. It doesn't pass the sniff test. Nor does "let's put an additional tax on cigarettes to support education." Or alcohol. For the very reason that it places a burden on a select few that we should ALL be absorbing. I assume that you agree when you state "righteously vote for a tax on others while while I can smugly assume no concomitant financial burden." So: don't vote for it. Work to see that it fails. If you feel an existing tax is unfair, similarly work to change it.

And I totally disagree that a family with no kids should be paying less than one that does have kids. Again, just me.

[wrightstuf]

Sorry, I couldn't resist...
blog_howard_jarvis.jpg

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by wrightstuf

Sorry, I couldn't resist...
Attachment 6582

LOL! Lots of different opinions about Jarvis but the unvarnished fact is that without Prop 13, the demographics of CA wouldn't even faintly resemble what they are today.