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
  #11  
Old September 22nd 17, 07:17 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:


Depreciating capital purchases or expensing costs is not a loophole[1]
at all.* It reflects the cost of doing business.* 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.
  #12  
Old September 22nd 17, 07:58 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:

Depreciating capital purchases or expensing costs is not a loophole[1]
at all.* It reflects the cost of doing business.* 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.


ad hominem. game over. you lose.

No loophole can be intended.


yes they can. some absolutely are intentional. to claim otherwise is
ignorance.

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.


semantic games.

it's *intentionally* ambiguous so that certain people can benefit.

Loopholes are not created. They are discovered.


some are discovered. some are known ahead of time.
  #13  
Old September 22nd 17, 08:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default Hilarious why some are upset over the high cost of alimited-production lens

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.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #14  
Old September 22nd 17, 09:37 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 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.* It reflects the cost of doing business.* 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.
  #15  
Old September 23rd 17, 12:19 AM 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:

Depreciating capital purchases or expensing costs is not a loophole[1]
at all.* It reflects the cost of doing business.* 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"*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.
  #16  
Old September 23rd 17, 01:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Hilarious why some are upset over the high cost of a limited-production lens

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
  #17  
Old September 23rd 17, 01:44 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 9/22/2017 11:23 AM, Neil wrote:
On 9/22/2017 1:40 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/21/2017 8:20 PM, Neil wrote:
On 9/21/2017 6:29 PM, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 21 September 2017 08:51:13 UTC-4, NeilÂ* wrote:
On 9/21/2017 12:47 AM, RichA wrote:
1. The lens isn't going to be made in the thousands.
2. It's machined METAL, probably plated brass parts, unlike much
of what they make today.

Having said that, I had a 58mm f/2.0 Biotar and because I like
sharpness and contrast and round OOF highlights, it's not worth
$995.00 to me.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/503684...lades#comments


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).

--
best regards,

Neil

In Canada, it works like this:
Business write-offs don't really mean "no-cost."Â* It means you can
deduct the cost of the item (30% per year or whatever) against
income.Â* So, if you spend $15,000 on some camera gear and your
income is $50,000 that year you can deduct 30% that year (it might
be 100%, depends) against your income. Around $4750 is deducted from
your declared income and you pay income tax against the reduced
income figure.Â* That is your "write-off."
If you are lucky, at the end of it, you get back about 35% of total
value of your gear, in tax reductions.Â* Works with work vehicles,
tools, etc.

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.


Completely wrong. While we use the Tax Code as an instrument of
economic policy, any business expense must meet the test of being
ordinary, necessary and reasonable. For what that means I commend you
to the Tax Code, the regulations, and the cases decided thereunder.
You can Google and do your own research.


OF COURSE the business expenses, including capital purchases, must be
legitimate. I'm not discussing anything other situation. So, I guess
it's fortunate for me that the IRS disagrees with your opinion that I'm
"completely wrong", as most audits have gone in my favor and the few
others were minor omissions rather than erroneous applications of the
tax code.


Calling write offs of legitimate expenses is not a loophole. I will not
go further in this group.

--
PeterN
  #18  
Old September 23rd 17, 01:47 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 9/22/2017 2:58 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.


ad hominem. game over. you lose.

No loophole can be intended.


yes they can. some absolutely are intentional. to claim otherwise is
ignorance.

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.


semantic games.

it's *intentionally* ambiguous so that certain people can benefit.

Loopholes are not created. They are discovered.


some are discovered. some are known ahead of time.


So says the tax expert.


--
PeterN
  #19  
Old September 23rd 17, 01:49 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 9/22/2017 2:51 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:17:01 -0400, 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.

Yep.







--
PeterN
  #20  
Old September 23rd 17, 01:50 AM 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 , Eric Stevens
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.* It reflects the cost of doing business.* 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.


another ad hominem.

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

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.
 




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 02:00 PM.


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.