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.

  • Flying SquidOP
    link
    English
    93 months ago

    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]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      73 months ago

      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?

      • Flying SquidOP
        link
        English
        33 months ago

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          7
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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!

          • Flying SquidOP
            link
            English
            33 months ago

            There you go. Thanks for the explanation!

    • @jaybone
      link
      English
      63 months ago

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

      • Flying SquidOP
        link
        English
        33 months ago

        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
          link
          English
          33 months ago

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

          • Flying SquidOP
            link
            English
            33 months 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…”

          • Flying SquidOP
            link
            English
            23 months ago

            @[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]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              3 months 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
      link
      English
      43 months 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.