3 ms·
Rookie mistake, you should have created a company and gotten people to do it. Put everything under the company. And then the one in trouble is the company not y
by alightsoul 1mo ago
Rookie mistake, you should have created a company and gotten people to do it. Put everything under the company. And then the one in trouble is the company not you.
- serbuvlad 1mo agoEthics aside, you can create an NGO with three people and do a lot of stuff in it's name that you can't do as a private individual or it would be a lot more expensive to do. If everyone did this, it would stop being a special ability of some people.
- xnickb 1mo agoBonus points: kids need lego? Buy it without VAT. Write it off as a "client demo asset"
- pfisch 1mo agoTo write something off means you need revenue to offset. Revenue that would be taxed...
- cyberax 1mo agoRevenue is rarely taxed, usually only profit is. And it's easy to avoid it.
- mocamoca 1mo agoThis is not how VAT usually works. As a company you collect VAT from your customers and pay VAT to your suppliers. Depending on the resulting balance, you will either give back the amount of surplus collected VAT to your country/state/whatever or you will be provided with VAT credit. VAT collection is different from a profit tax or other taxes.
- apefulsin 1mo agoYes, that's how the trick works. Profit is revenue minus expenses. By increasing expenses, you decrease profit, and therefore tax. But it only works if you had a profit before, because the government doesn't pay you back tax when you lose money.
- sph 1mo ago> do a lot of stuff in it's name that you can't do as a private individual Can you do murder? Otherwise I’m not interested. Joking aside, what exactly could you do legally with an NGO?
- pllbnk 1mo ago> Can you do murder? Only if it kills many people over the long time.
- smolder 1mo agoStochastic murder, like selling oxycontin.
- cyanydeez 1mo agoIn the 90s a bunch of charities installed wells in Africa but didn't get them tested for water quality and poisoned whole villages. Intent is such an interesting moral stance as opposed to actual outcomes.
- abustamam 1mo agoI think the "intent" ( pun not intended) for "intent" to be a moral stance was to not discourage people from trying to do good things for fear they may do something bad and get in trouble or whatever. In an ideal world this would be good but then of course it's ripe for manipulation because it's hard to prove one's intent
- giancarlostoro 1mo ago> If everyone did this, it would stop being a special ability of some people. More like only the little guy loses this ability
- TheRealPomax 1mo agoWhat do you mean "in trouble"? We're literally seeing that stonks go up when crime.
- alightsoul 1mo agoSimple, create a company that becomes large enough to justify an IPO. Then stonks go up.
- pmontra 1mo agoThat did not work well enough for Kim Dotcom.
- skinfaxi 1mo agoThat was practically a different era.
- alightsoul 1mo agoApparently the only exception is, if your website is only used for piracy and you can see it and you do nothing about it when asked to. That's why mega, megaupload's successor, has encryption, so that the company can plausibly deny involvement with piracy, because they can't see anything on their servers.
- anjel 1mo agoCorporations are people too, but only when it's convenient.
- apefulsin 1mo agoIt's not that simple. You will still be charged if the company isn't worth a trillion dollars.