Survivor 14

Ghoulish Delight · 05-14-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Unless tax law has changed since I took it. As I recall it, "The producers took care of it," was one of the defenses he put on or wanted to put on but which has no basis in law. It certainly wouldn't explain why he didn't pay taxes on a bunch of other income from the year in question.

Which is why I have my theory. I bet his contract said something along the lines of, "We're including extra cash to cover the taxes," and he played dumb. "They said they were covering taxes."

Strangler Lewis · 05-14-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Which is why I have my theory. I bet his contract said something along the lines of, "We're including extra cash to cover the taxes," and he played dumb. "They said they were covering taxes."

Except it didn't. He got $1,010,000 from the show. I guess the $10K was an appearance fee. He wanted to show, but I believe was not allowed to, that the producers agreed to pay his taxes if he agreed to keep quiet about them tampering with the game.

Ghoulish Delight · 05-14-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Except it didn't. He got $1,010,000 from the show. I guess the $10K was an appearance fee. He wanted to show, but I believe was not allowed to, that the producers agreed to pay his taxes if he agreed to keep quiet about them tampering with the game.

Ah. I didn't really follow it closely enough to know, I was just guessing. In that case, he's probably just a jerk.

Alex · 05-14-2007, 12:28 PM

Yes, and I was being nitpicky in response. Still don't think you're nitpick has anything to do with the example I was giving. Regardless of the price being taxed or the affect that the tax has on that price, the tax is itself taxed since the tax paid isn't directly a tax payment but income. By recursively applying the payment to account for the increased taxes you can achieve the true payment amount to cover the taxes on a given end amount.

But this is a really stupid thing to bicker about.

So, absent having actually watched the show let me just say that I am severely disappointed in the failure of any quality ogle-worthy boobies making it to the late rounds.

Ghoulish Delight · 05-14-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

So, absent having actually watched the show let me just say that I am severely disappointed in the failure of any quality ogle-worthy boobies making it to the late rounds.

This we can agree on. Honestly I was disappointed in the overall lack of quality ogle-worthy boobies from the get go. Very disappointing.

05-14-2007, 12:28 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes, and I was being nitpicky in response. Still don't think you're nitpick has anything to do with the example I was giving. Regardless of the price being taxed or the affect that the tax has on that price, the tax is itself taxed since the tax paid isn't directly a tax payment but income. By recursively applying the payment to account for the increased taxes you can achieve the true payment amount to cover the taxes on a given end amount. But this is a really stupid thing to bicker about. So, absent having actually watched the show let me just say that I am severely disappointed in the failure of any quality ogle-worthy boobies making it to the late rounds.
	Submit to Quotes