this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
401 points (98.5% liked)

Today I Learned

17887 readers
148 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

According to Abba: The Official Photo Book, published to mark 40 years since they won Eurovision with Waterloo, the band's style was influenced in part by laws that allowed the cost of outfits to be deducted against tax – so long as the costumes were so outrageous they could not possibly be worn on the street.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jaybone 40 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to wear normal clothes when you perform?

Or were they so broke that they wore their costumes as normal clothes “on the street”?

This isn’t making a lot of sense to me either way.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 weeks ago

I prefer performers resemble superior race ambassadors from a yet undiscovered groovy exoplanet

[–] FlyingSquid 9 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

I'm guessing they didn't pay for the costumes themselves. They just got to write off the cost because they were wearing them. But I don't know how it works for sure.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I think it’s a case of the outfits essentially being akin to a work uniform. You wouldn’t wear it on the street, and you need it for work (as I guess stage and screen actors do too), and due to that you can claim it as a work expense and is tax deductible?

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I think that's it, yeah. This way they avoided paying tax on their costumes.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think it was even better than that. It wasn’t just the tax on the costume, it was the entire cost of them could be deducted from their tax bill. The more extravagant and expensive, the smaller that years tax bill!

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 4 weeks ago

There you go. Thanks for the explanation!

[–] jaybone 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

If someone else bought the costumes, then they certainly can’t write them off.

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

I think I figured it out!

They were going to have to wear costumes regardless, but they would be able to not pay taxes on them if the costumes were crazy enough.

[–] jaybone 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I appreciate the amount of thought you’ve put into this, while I just make cynical comments.

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 4 weeks ago

It made me start thinking about it and then it bothered me enough to try to figure it out.

As we often hear over in Lemmy Shitpost, "I know this is a shitpost, but..."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

It really seems like these would be more expensive by more than the tax benefits

[–] Iceblade02 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Not at all, Sweden during the ABBA age was completely nuts. There was no cap on taxes, and as such, you could incur a more than 100% marginal tax rate.

Astrid Lindgren (the beloved childrens book writer) was amongst those affected.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania

[–] FlyingSquid 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

@[email protected] explained it:

I think it was even better than that. It wasn’t just the tax on the costume, it was the entire cost of them could be deducted from their tax bill. The more extravagant and expensive, the smaller that years tax bill!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I've read the comment, but that's not how taxes usually work. (It is, however, like a lot of people with little knowledge about the topic think tax deductions in general work - which makes me suspicious)

It would take bit more of the than that comment at face value to convince me that apparent law exist(ed)

[–] Agent641 4 points 3 weeks ago

Band member 1 makes a costume for band member 2. Material cost: $12. Band member 1 sells it to band member 2 for $15,000.

Band member 2 makes costume for band member 3...

Write off not just the materials cost, but the purchase price.

The costume making income is below the taxable income so it's not taxed.

Band income goes into a trust, rather than being paid directly to members. Members are all board members on the trust and get paid a salary.

And so it goes, round the washing machine of accounting.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

They probably wanted nicer clothes than normal but were able to save more by springing for something that qualified for a deduction.