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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |