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

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.

--
PeterN

On 9/22/2017 4:15 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:31:26 -0400, 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. 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.

Only someone like nosmarts uses it to mean an intentional inclusion.
Only someone like nosmarts thinks the correct usage of a word is
"semantic games". Only someone like nosmarts is ignorant enough to
defend his ignorance.



I suspect arrogance, not ignorance.

--
PeterN

On 9/22/2017 10:05 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 01:29:11 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 9/21/2017 9:45 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:20:16 -0400, Neil
wrote:


In the USA, the loopholes change every couple of years, and almost
always with a change of party in control. Some years you can write off
the whole cost of capital goods items like camera gear (and much more
expensive items, such as machinery). During years where the amount one
can deduct exceeds the allowed amount (which can result in paying no
business income tax whatsoever), the balance can be written off during
the next year(s). Bottom line is that for pros, the cost of the gear is
pretty much irrelevant.

I'm not, and have never been, a professional photographer. However, I
owned a business for most of my working life.

First of all, the IRS does not let you write off $15,000 of purchases
of capital equipment. The codes of changed over the years, but the
maximum write-off is now $2,500 for a single item, and that used to be
$500. Over the max figure, and the item has to be depreciated over
the expected life of the item, so only a portion of the expense is a
business deduction that year.

I don't know how it's done with a camera kit expenditure. Maybe you
can break it up into components and write more off that way, though.

As to the cost being irrelevant, that's just silly. A photographer
who buys $15,000 of equipment has to come up with $15,000 to pay for
it or reduce his additional borrowing ability by $15,000. He doesn't
get a check back from government at tax time; his liability is simply
reduced.




Check Sec. 179. the limit is now $500,000 of qualifying property. But it
must be a real purchase, at the going realistic price.

Are you saying that any capital equipment item purchased for $500,000
or less can be written off in that tax year? You sure the comma
doesn't need to be moved a couple of places to the left?

I can remember, when first starting my business, setting up the
depreciation schedule for an IBM Selectric typewriter.


Yes
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:26%20section:179%20edition relim)

--
PeterN

On 9/22/2017 7:19 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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. They often exist because
the language used in the tax code was ambiguous.

some loopholes are very much intended, often the result of lobbyists,
or because the people writing the tax code want them there so *they*
can benefit.

Ahhh...here we go again. nosmarts wants to argue, but is discussing
something he doesn't understand. No loophole can be intended. The
very *meaning* of the word is "an ambiguity or omission in the law".
If there's a something in the tax code that is intentionally placed
there to allow someone to benefit, it's not a loophole.

Loopholes are not created. They are discovered.

Lobbyists, or others who influence or prepare legislation or tax
codes, aren't interested in creating loopholes. Use of a loophole may
result in a contested use and end up costing fines or interest
charged.

They want exceptions for their clients or those they want to benefit.
Clear exceptions/exemptions. That's the result a lobbyist is paid to
get. The legislator who crafts a bill to benefit some of his
constituents also has that aim. The bill may have an obvious omission
or inclusion, but that's intentional and not the result of a loophole.

semantic games.

at the end of the day, certain people are obtaining a benefit not
normally available to the masses. i call it a loophole. you call it an
exception. other people may have other names.

and at least one certified public accountant disagrees with you:
http://www.h-kcpa.com/what-is-a-tax-loophole.php
The very phrase "tax loophole"Â*suggests that somebody is outsmarting
the IRS.Â*Not True! All so called "tax loopholes"Â*are put there
intentionally by lawmakers. Not only are they legal,Â*they were put
there by lawmakers for a purpose.


I made a lot of money defending the former clients of firms who gave
that kind of advice.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


Lobbyists, or others who influence or prepare legislation or tax
codes, aren't interested in creating loopholes. Use of a loophole may
result in a contested use and end up costing fines or interest
charged.

They want exceptions for their clients or those they want to benefit.
Clear exceptions/exemptions. That's the result a lobbyist is paid to
get. The legislator who crafts a bill to benefit some of his
constituents also has that aim. The bill may have an obvious omission
or inclusion, but that's intentional and not the result of a loophole.

semantic games.

at the end of the day, certain people are obtaining a benefit not
normally available to the masses. i call it a loophole. you call it an
exception. other people may have other names.

and at least one certified public accountant disagrees with you:
http://www.h-kcpa.com/what-is-a-tax-loophole.php
The very phrase "tax loophole"*suggests that somebody is outsmarting
the IRS.*Not True! All so called "tax loopholes"*are put there
intentionally by lawmakers. Not only are they legal,*they were put
there by lawmakers for a purpose.


I made a lot of money defending the former clients of firms who gave
that kind of advice.

that's odd, since no advice was offered.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


at the end of the day, certain people are obtaining a benefit not
normally available to the masses.

No, if there is a loophole, anyone can obtain the benefit if they have
an accounting situation that fits. Nothing to do with the "masses".

no different than with what you're calling an exception.

The only people who can't take advantage are people who are not in
that situation. The people who have the right accounting situation
who don't take advantage are either people who didn't know about the
loophole (or their tax preparerers didn't) or people who are sensible
enough not to risk the possible fines and penalties.

so not 'anyone'.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

call it whatever you want, but the fact is that most 'loopholes' are
intentionally there.

You are confusing tax breaks for special interests with loopholes. Tax
breaks are intentionally included, but loopholes are the unintentional
results of poorly or ambiguously written additions to the tax code.

semantics. nobody gives a **** *why* it's there. the end result is the
same.

and if it really is poorly or ambiguously written, then those who are
writing it are doing a **** job and should be replaced with qualified
people.

if they really were unintentional, then they'd be removed after someone
finds and exploits them. since many, if not most, remain on the books,
it's clear as can be that they're very much intentional.

You should peek out of that basement and see the real world sometime.

another ad hominem.

The 3.7 million word tax code is not written by the IRS. The IRS has
no power to change the tax code. The IRS cannot just change the tax
code when they see a loophole being exploited.

i never said the irs wrote the tax code or has the power to change it.
once again, you lie about what i said.

It takes congressional action to change the tax code. If you have any
awareness at all of what is going on in congress, you know how
efficient they are in passing legislation.

it's not a matter of efficiency. it's a matter of corruption. those who
can change the tax code have zero interest in fixing anything because
*they* benefit from all the crap that's in there.

You were the one who mentioned lobbyists. The lobbyists work to
influence the members of congress to *not* close loopholes because the
lobbyists are employed by the people who are in a position to take
advantage of them.

not only not close them, but make sure they're there in the first place.

once again, you agree with me yet you argue. truly bizarre.

Tax accountants don't want the loopholes closed. By knowing what
loopholes can be taken advantage of, they make themselves valuable to
their clients. Even that two-person CPA firm in Arizona you cited
references tax loopholes that are available as a way of selling
themselves and their expertise.

yep, accountants are another part of the problem.

if the tax code was simplified, nearly all accountants would be out of
a job, which is one reason why it'll never happen.

Really, no one has the incentive to close loopholes. Any
congressperson who is thinking of authoring a bill, or an amendment to
a bill, to close a loophole knows that he or she will **** off some
possible donor to his campaign warchest. If he or she does try to do
the right thing, the bill has to get through committee to even be
voted on.

exactly the problem.

the entire system is corrupt.

You really are naive.

all of your babble is just a longer version of what i said, so if you
consider me to be naive, then you must also be naive, except that
you're too stupid to realize it.

On 9/22/2017 9:49 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


Lobbyists, or others who influence or prepare legislation or tax
codes, aren't interested in creating loopholes. Use of a loophole may
result in a contested use and end up costing fines or interest
charged.

They want exceptions for their clients or those they want to benefit.
Clear exceptions/exemptions. That's the result a lobbyist is paid to
get. The legislator who crafts a bill to benefit some of his
constituents also has that aim. The bill may have an obvious omission
or inclusion, but that's intentional and not the result of a loophole.

semantic games.

at the end of the day, certain people are obtaining a benefit not
normally available to the masses. i call it a loophole. you call it an
exception. other people may have other names.

and at least one certified public accountant disagrees with you:
http://www.h-kcpa.com/what-is-a-tax-loophole.php
The very phrase "tax loophole"Â*suggests that somebody is outsmarting
the IRS.Â*Not True! All so called "tax loopholes"Â*are put there
intentionally by lawmakers. Not only are they legal,Â*they were put
there by lawmakers for a purpose.


I made a lot of money defending the former clients of firms who gave
that kind of advice.

that's odd, since no advice was offered.


You used that asinine statement as proof that you were right.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


I made a lot of money defending the former clients of firms who gave
that kind of advice.

that's odd, since no advice was offered.

You used that asinine statement as proof that you were right.

another meaningless comment from you.

On 9/23/2017 1:26 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 23:23:40 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


at the end of the day, certain people are obtaining a benefit not
normally available to the masses.

No, if there is a loophole, anyone can obtain the benefit if they have
an accounting situation that fits. Nothing to do with the "masses".

no different than with what you're calling an exception.

What? What does what you just wrote have to do with defending your
incorrect statement that loopholes are not available to the masses?

The only people who can't take advantage are people who are not in
that situation. The people who have the right accounting situation
who don't take advantage are either people who didn't know about the
loophole (or their tax preparerers didn't) or people who are sensible
enough not to risk the possible fines and penalties.

so not 'anyone'.

Are you completely unable to rationally process what you read?

You can't take advantage of a loophole if it doesn't apply to your
situation. That two-person CPA firm you cited listed using a 401K
rollover to fund a start-up business as a "loophole". You can't do
that if you don't have a 401K. Anyone who qualifies by having a 401K,
can.

And if you try to do that, and do it wrong, you can easily have a
prohibited transaction.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4975


You're floundering.



I hope that none of the good people here take advantage of his tax advice.

--
PeterN