A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hilarious why some are upset over the high cost of alimited-production lens



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old September 23rd 17, 08:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Hilarious why some are upset over the high cost of a limited-production lens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The fact that some people don't have a
situation where the loophole benefit isn't useful to them doesn't mean
it isn't available.


of course it does. if their situation does not allow them to use the
loophole then it's not available to them.


Of course the loophole is available.


but of no benefit to those who don't qualify to use it.

If you meant that not everyone
in the masses has occasion or need to use the loophole, then you
should have written that. "Available" means "it's there to use".


i did write that.

don't blame me because you're a retard who can't understand simple
english.

I've pointed out that these loopholes exist because people use
ambiguous language in drafting the bills, and this leads to loopholes.


and i've pointed out that it's normally intentional because they're
paid off for it to be ambiguous so that those paying them off can
exploit the ambiguity.

You've stated that these people should be fired.


you said the sloppiness is *not* intentional.

if that is true, then yes they should be fired because they're doing a
sloppy job. people normally get fired when they do sloppy jobs.

the reality is that they're bought and the sloppiness is intentional.

the rest of you babble snipped.
  #42  
Old September 24th 17, 05:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Hilarious why some are upset over the high cost of alimited-production lens

On 9/23/2017 10:08 AM, Neil wrote:
On 9/22/2017 9:30 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/22/2017 3:31 PM, Neil wrote:
On 9/22/2017 1:33 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:55:27 -0400, Neil
wrote:

On 9/22/2017 12:44 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2017-09-21 08:51, Neil wrote:

The value of a lens varies from person to person. For the hobbyist,
the cost is an out-of-pocket expense, but for a pro, the cost of a
lens is less important than the use one gets from it since it's a
business write-off anyway (one of the many "loopholes" that keep
businesses in the USA from paying our "highest tax rate in the
world"
that some politicians are selling to the ignorant).

Depreciating capital purchases or expensing costs is not a
loophole[1]
at all.Â* It reflects the cost of doing business.Â* Costs reduce your
income tax accordingly.

I can agree with your terminology, and it appears we agree about the
impact of loopholes on our real tax rate. My point was that countries
with a flat tax rate or lack such loopholes aren't really
comparable to
our situation.

A "loophole" is an unintended aspect that allows you to do something
that the writers of tax code did not intend for you to be able to do.
Loopholes are never written into a tax code.Â* They often exist because
the language used in the tax code was ambiguous.

OK, well I've heard it used both ways, but as I wasn't discussing the
"correct" semantics of that term, I'll just paraphrase my
granddaughter, "whatever!" and moving on.

You used to be able to deduct the cost of purchasing items on credit,
where there was no personal liability. Some people made a lot of money
selling book publishing rights, where the payment was only due out of
the proceeds. The proceeds from the sale of the books would never
reasonably be sufficient to pay for the cost of the books. There were
similar sales of real estate and mineral rights. Those loophole were
closed.

We could probably have saved a lot of time by accepting the proper term
being "exemptions" rather than "loopholes", since I recognize that the
way I used the latter was colloquial rather than technically correct. It
changes nothing with regard to the cost of equipment for hobbyists vs.
Pros, or in the way that they both reduce the effective tax rate in the
USA.


I would use the term "deductions," not exemptions. They are not the
same, and have specific meanings in the Code.
All I am saying is that the use of loopholes, is using the specific
language of the Code for something that was not originally intended. The
classic example is when I obtained a ruling that allowed all employees
of a company to put 100% of their salary into a deferred compensation
plan, it took the IRS about six months to revoke that ruling, and the
deferred compensation legislation was retroactively changed. I was using
a loophole in the code to give my client a business advantage over its
competition.


PeterN
  #43  
Old September 24th 17, 06:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Hilarious why some are upset over the high cost of alimited-production lens

On 9/23/2017 8:16 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 15:43:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

the rest of you babble snipped.


Always a reply. Never a cogent one.



Aw Tony. Since when isn't attacking the person who points out his error
or changing the subject, not cogent.

--
PeterN
  #44  
Old September 25th 17, 01:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Hilarious why some are upset over the high cost of alimited-production lens

On 9/24/2017 1:30 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:30:38 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

We could probably have saved a lot of time by accepting the proper term
being "exemptions" rather than "loopholes", since I recognize that the
way I used the latter was colloquial rather than technically correct. It
changes nothing with regard to the cost of equipment for hobbyists vs.
Pros, or in the way that they both reduce the effective tax rate in the
USA.


I would use the term "deductions," not exemptions. They are not the
same, and have specific meanings in the Code.



An "exemption" is something that need not be included. A "deduction"
is something that is included but is an offset in determining the tax
liability.

Deductions need not be claimed either. Personal exemption has a very
specific meaning. See IRC Sec 151. Organizations my be exempt from
specific sections of the tax code. most of the none personal exemptions
are mandatory, unless specifically stated otherwise in the Code.


A loophole *can* result in an exemption. If certain things are listed
as taxable income, something omitted from that list can be taken to be
exempted from taxation. The IRS may not agree.




Stick to your prior example of using a favorable section of the Code,
for an originally unintended purpose. If it makes you happy to use the
term to mean something else, i really don't care,

--
PeterN
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dpreview decries the high cost of in-lens I.S. Neil Harrington[_3_] Digital SLR Cameras 30 November 18th 09 10:29 PM
Dpreview decries the high cost of in-lens I.S. nospam Digital SLR Cameras 5 November 15th 09 01:18 AM
Dpreview decries the high cost of in-lens I.S. David J Taylor[_12_] Digital SLR Cameras 0 November 12th 09 09:39 AM
Dpreview decries the high cost of in-lens I.S. nospam Digital SLR Cameras 3 November 12th 09 04:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.