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 Squid@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    21 days 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.

    • Zip2@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      21 days 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?

        • Zip2@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          21 days 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 Squid@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 days 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          21 days ago

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

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            21 days 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 Squid@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 days ago

            @Zip2@feddit.uk 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!

            • fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              20 days 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      20 days 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.