The Poojer Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I am in dire need of a car, and would gladly find a way to pony up the 7 gr for a brand new 30 gr car. The point made by guest is a valid one. Sure, getting a $28000 car for $7000 is a steal to US, but the people in this audience were there because they were in dire need of a new car. Someone took the time to write to the Oprah show because these people were unable to go out and get themselves a car they needed. Thus, the giveaway. Like guest said, if these people had $7000 laying around, they would obviously have a car. Hell, i think you can get a new Kia of some sort for $9,999 or LESS. If they had $7000, they could make a huge down payment on that car and have payments of like $40 a month. Giving the cars away was great, but giving someone who is already accepting charity a bill for $7,000 hardly seems convenient. And to those who say they should just sell the car? Well, then the show should have just given them $28,000 in cash. They pay the $7000 in taxes, and then can go buy a NICE used car for like $12,000 and pay the tax. my $.02 42790[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Good point. Oh, and Pontiac picked up local taxes only. Not the "income" tax for receiving the gift. 42845[/snapback] Yeah, I saw that when I read the link. The news, I think it was Foxnews, said Pontiac was picking up the taxes and customization so I may have read into it a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Ahh, that is where you miss the big picture.....This is NOT a random act of kindness. This is plain and simple a PR move by Oprah. No. No. No. I agree with KRC. Oprah should pick up the bill. If she is really cool she would do this "random act of kindness." The tax bill is a big chunk of change for the poorer driver to pick up. Basically the 28k car is probably out of their means. 42829[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 No. No. No. I agree with KRC. Oprah should pick up the bill. If she is really cool she would do this "random act of kindness." The tax bill is a big chunk of change for the poorer driver to pick up. Basically the 28k car is probably out of their means. 42829[/snapback] Fine it's a catch 22 though. If she give them 4,5,6 thousand to pay the taxes that's great. But then they owe taxes on that. There is a dimishing amount over time, but these people will have to pony up some money to keep the cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Ahh, that is where you miss the big picture.....This is NOT a random act of kindness. This is plain and simple a PR move by Oprah. 42851[/snapback] AND a PR move by General Motors to advertise their new model. It worked. As soon as I saw the story, I thought to myself, "What's a Pontiac G6?" and went to their website. Looks like a nice car with a nice package of standard options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 The point made by guest is a valid one. Sure, getting a $28000 car for $7000 is a steal to US, but the people in this audience were there because they were in dire need of a new car. Someone took the time to write to the Oprah show because these people were unable to go out and get themselves a car they needed. Thus, the giveaway. Like guest said, if these people had $7000 laying around, they would obviously have a car. Hell, i think you can get a new Kia of some sort for $9,999 or LESS. If they had $7000, they could make a huge down payment on that car and have payments of like $40 a month. Giving the cars away was great, but giving someone who is already accepting charity a bill for $7,000 hardly seems convenient. And to those who say they should just sell the car? Well, then the show should have just given them $28,000 in cash. They pay the $7000 in taxes, and then can go buy a NICE used car for like $12,000 and pay the tax. my $.02 42790[/snapback] Excellent post and I totally agree...but id bet almost anything Oprah didnt pay for those cars, Pontiac got the advertising and great PR from this, shelving out 28 grand to each person wouldnt be sponsored Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Simple solution for these "poor" people: sell the cars and get a car they CAN afford, taxes and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 We all understand that "gift" and "prize winnings" are taxable, and while I do not have a problem in general with paying taxes on "prizes", why in the world should the government be able to tax a gift, of any size? Why shouldn't one be able to give their child $25,000 or $50,000 tax free (gift) to help them buy a house, or even "just because"? To accumulate that "gift", many taxes were already paid two, three, four times or more in various ways, etc. Same goes for inheritance taxes. Doesn't matter the amount, just because it transfers from one person to another, in the land of the free, the government should not have "dibs" on any of it. Sure, there exist some legal ways to get around a chunk of the "gift" taxes, (make it a loan and sign promisory note with very low payments, etc), but why must one have to weasel around the tax code at all? We all understand that the Govenment needs capital to fund the programs , roads, security, etc., we all want, but enough is enough. Damn, I sound a bit too conservative here, even for my own tastes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 We all understand that "gift" and "prize winnings" are taxable, and while I do not have a problem in general with paying taxes on "prizes", why in the world should the government be able to tax a gift, of any size? Why shouldn't one be able to give their child $25,000 or $50,000 tax free (gift) to help them buy a house, or even "just because"? To accumulate that "gift", many taxes were already paid two, three, four times or more in various ways, etc. Same goes for inheritance taxes. Doesn't matter the amount, just because it transfers from one person to another, in the land of the free, the government should not have "dibs" on any of it. Sure, there exist some legal ways to get around a chunk of the "gift" taxes, (make it a loan and sign promisory note with very low payments, etc), but why must one have to weasel around the tax code at all? We all understand that the Govenment needs capital to fund the programs , roads, security, etc., we all want, but enough is enough. Damn, I sound a bit too conservative here, even for my own tastes. 43138[/snapback] How else are you going to pay for all of those effective government programs? Double, triple tax people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 We all understand that "gift" and "prize winnings" are taxable, and while I do not have a problem in general with paying taxes on "prizes", why in the world should the government be able to tax a gift, of any size? Why shouldn't one be able to give their child $25,000 or $50,000 tax free (gift) to help them buy a house, or even "just because"? To accumulate that "gift", many taxes were already paid two, three, four times or more in various ways, etc. Same goes for inheritance taxes. Doesn't matter the amount, just because it transfers from one person to another, in the land of the free, the government should not have "dibs" on any of it. Sure, there exist some legal ways to get around a chunk of the "gift" taxes, (make it a loan and sign promisory note with very low payments, etc), but why must one have to weasel around the tax code at all? We all understand that the Govenment needs capital to fund the programs , roads, security, etc., we all want, but enough is enough. Damn, I sound a bit too conservative here, even for my own tastes. 43138[/snapback] See, liberal positions suck when you stop and think about how it affects you! Oops...sorry, forgot this wasn't PPP Actually, you can gift to your children tax free (to a certain amount) and inheritance does have a floor of $600,000 (double if married) before taxes kick in. Otherwise, property transactions are taxed to stop you from bartering to avoid taxes. But I happen to agree with you. We shouldn't tax people on what they receive (ie., earnings, gifts), we should tax people on what they USE (consumption taxes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Fine it's a catch 22 though. If she give them 4,5,6 thousand to pay the taxes that's great. But then they owe taxes on that. There is a dimishing amount over time, but these people will have to pony up some money to keep the cars. 42853[/snapback] Is there a tax on somebody paying your tax? If there is, then you got this liberal VERY SCARED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Ahh, that is where you miss the big picture.....This is NOT a random act of kindness. This is plain and simple a PR move by Oprah. 42851[/snapback] I knew it was a PR move. The RAoK would be above and beyond the PR move. Call it a PR stunt followed by Oprah's "Good Will"... I don't think she could lose. Why not include the tax in the price of the car? That is still pay the tax. Then again, I take that somebody is making money on the deal???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Is there a tax on somebody paying your tax? If there is, then you got this liberal VERY SCARED! 43318[/snapback] Well, that $6-7000 would also be considered a gift, wouldn't it? So then you'd have to report that in addition to the car, and jeez, that might even bump you to a higher tax bracket...... Let's hear it for the 16th Amendment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Is there a tax on somebody paying your tax? If there is, then you got this liberal VERY SCARED! 43318[/snapback] Of course there is. If you are giving them a $7000 cash gift, that is a taxable event too. I've done several employee settlements and the smart ones always negotiate for 'net of tax'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Of course there is. If you are giving them a $7000 cash gift, that is a taxable event too. I've done several employee settlements and the smart ones always negotiate for 'net of tax'. 43328[/snapback] Ya... But if they are going to the county tax office and paying it for you... Or doing the paperwork and sending it to the proper places? It is not a cash gift then... Just somebody paying your bill? ??? "Womb to the Tomb Baby!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Ya... But if they are going to the county tax office and paying it for you... Or doing the paperwork and sending it to the proper places? It is not a cash gift then... Just somebody paying your bill? ??? "Womb to the Tomb Baby!!!" 43336[/snapback] I could be wrong, but somehow, I doubt that explanation would suffice with the IRS. Then they'd probably staple a 'conspiracy to commit tax fraud' charge on top of the billing invoice....... Hey, this could get fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 A few misconceptions: 1. Pontiac provided the cars, not Oprah. 2. Pontiac paid the sales tax and registration, which could be as high as $2240 at an 8% sales tax. The "winners" didn't have to cough up this. 3. The cars are considered prizes and need to be reported on each of their income tax. They do not need to come up with the money until April 15, 2005. Therefore, they could sell the car, buy a lesser car and have the cash available to pay the income tax. 4. This is how all prizes work, whether on Let's make a deal, Survivor, or whatever show. 5. Nice publicity stunt, but too fuggin bad that they have to pay the tax. They still each got an after tax gift of at least $15,000 depending on what they sell the car for. I love the part about some of the people may just forfeit the car instead of paying the taxes. This is like throwing away 15,000 and the people should be sterilized for being this stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 We all understand that "gift" and "prize winnings" are taxable, and while I do not have a problem in general with paying taxes on "prizes", why in the world should the government be able to tax a gift, of any size? Why shouldn't one be able to give their child $25,000 or $50,000 tax free (gift) to help them buy a house, or even "just because"? To accumulate that "gift", many taxes were already paid two, three, four times or more in various ways, etc. Same goes for inheritance taxes. Doesn't matter the amount, just because it transfers from one person to another, in the land of the free, the government should not have "dibs" on any of it. Sure, there exist some legal ways to get around a chunk of the "gift" taxes, (make it a loan and sign promisory note with very low payments, etc), but why must one have to weasel around the tax code at all? We all understand that the Govenment needs capital to fund the programs , roads, security, etc., we all want, but enough is enough. Damn, I sound a bit too conservative here, even for my own tastes. 43138[/snapback] I dont know why gifts are taxed... I know you can give your spouce a one time gift up to a certain amount tax free (I learned that from Shawshank Redemption ).... but if you didnt have to pay taxes on gifts, the Bills would never leave Buffalo. So, this thread kinda is on topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I could be wrong, but somehow, I doubt that explanation would suffice with the IRS. Then they'd probably staple a 'conspiracy to commit tax fraud' charge on top of the billing invoice....... Hey, this could get fun. 43347[/snapback] You are right Lori! Just look at what happened to the Blues Brothers when they attempted to pay a tax bill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Just to clarify - the cars were not a gift. AFAIK, gifts for tax rules can only be given by individuals. The gift taxes and related exemptions that people are talking about in this thread, are taxes levied on the donors, not the receipients. The reason is that the IRS doesn't want to lose out on the inheritance(death) taxes and doesn't allow people to trickle their estates away while they're still alive. Thus, they set a $12K/yr tax free amounts. Real gifts are always tax free to the receipients. The Oprah thing is not a gift from the IRS standpoint, but a marketing promotion by Pontiac, thus is fully taxable to the receipients. Of course as others have clearly pointed out, anytime you have to pay $7,000 for something that's worth $21,000, you are a winner. I can buy a hell of a lot of $14,000 cars that will run for another 100,000 miles. Quit crying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts