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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 09:29 PM |
Dpreview decries the high cost of in-lens I.S. | nospam | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | November 15th 09 12:18 AM |
Dpreview decries the high cost of in-lens I.S. | David J Taylor[_12_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | November 12th 09 08:39 AM |
Dpreview decries the high cost of in-lens I.S. | nospam | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | November 12th 09 03:13 AM |