On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 16:37:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
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.

only someone who cannot back up his claims resorts to ad hominem
attacks.

Well, neither logic nor facts seem to work with you. From my
understanding of the situation is that Tony is correct.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens