Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by fastsix, Jul 13, 2014.
LOL ... yeh, it really changed the nature of the discussion on this thread!!!! :^O
'barry soetoro', lmao. like a dog with a bone, aren't you?
sorry philo, someone whined at me about the robber baron thing, and all i did was translate the meaning of it wrt today's corporations. and the complaint was, it didn't have anything to with this particular thread. sort of like what you posted about immigration. hey, i don't personally care, what directions these threads go, but you and ya boys gotta be fair about it.
edit: and in actuality, the original post about 'robber barons' is registering a complaint about the plutocrats, and the many methods they employ to avoid paying taxes. corporate welfare. which does have a place in this discussion. more so than immigration.
Gaslighting? I'm not familiar with that term.
But regardless, you're proving my point. Bonus depreciation was a tax cut initially put in place to provide a temporary stimulus. That's why it was given an expiration date. Now you guys who love low taxes are acting like this is the baseline.
Federal revenues are growing. That's what happens when the economy improves. No doubt, the spending increases and tax cuts the government implemented to combat the recession played a part in that. Now that the economy is stronger, its time to reign both of them back to normal levels. If we don't, when the next recession inevitably happens, the pain is going to be all the worse.
After the recession in the early 2000s we did the same nonsense with resetting the baseline because the economy improved, and guess what happened? Stimulating up from the new normal resulted in deficits north of a trillion dollars per year. What do you think is going to happen next time if we leave the baseline where it is?
When the economy is strong is the time for everyone to tighten their belts and prepare for the future.
Better a dog with a bone that a dog without a ........... oh never mind.
So ... you're saying Congress should eliminate "tax cuts" and raise taxes ... further increasing the rate of federal individual and corporate income tax collections by the US Treasury?
But ... on bonus depreciation ...... how can something be a "tax cut' if you end up effectively paying the taxes .... ie a taxpayer doesn't receive any more of a "tax write off" that the tax basis of the qualifying asset, regardless of the depreciation methodology employed - bonus, accelerated, straight-line, units of production, etc. It's not a new expense category that was once non-deductible but is now deductible. In fact, one can argue that the bonus depreciation deduction represents just a partial replacement of the old Investment Tax Credit.
As an American, parent and grandparent, I worry about our country, my children and my grandchildren.
Fighting over who is the worse in raising the insurmountable debt is useless, inane, a waste of time and of no use whatsoever in dealing with a problem that everyone should be concerned about.
The fact is that we are in debt by $17 trillion, and it is growing by the minute. If anyone cares about our country, their children, their grandchildren and future generations, they should start demanding that our so-called "representatives" cut spending.
Finger-pointing is nothing more than an excuse for pretending that the extremely serious problem has been and is being created by some other person.
Some seem to think that the staggering debt will never have to be repaid. The fact is that we are stealing from future generations.
It's a tax cut because it allows you to defer your tax obligations until a later date. Since money today is more valuable than money tomorrow, that change amounts to a cut, regardless of the fact that the same nominal amount is due. This is why businesses want bonus depreciation to remain in the first place.
If you don't understand this simple concept after all these pages, it's not worth my time to keep repeating. Let's just agree to disagree.
let's use another cliche', how about, 'you really know how to beat a dead horse, don't you?'
p.s. you DO realize that calling him 'barry soetoro' makes you a 'birther', right? puts you out in the universe with the rest of the extreme types.
and the funniest part about that is how apparently no one, not the bush administration, not the mccain campaign, the clinton campaign....all the kings horses and all the kings men...yet, they found not one iota suggesting that obama was ANYTHING besides being a real honest-ta-god citizen of the united states, born and raised?
oh yeah, that's right, donald trump said HE found something....so all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't find what donald frickin trump found? and what did donald find? he never did share. neither did that nutjob sheriff arpaio. just publicity whores, like the ex-governor of alaska. you're throwing in with a real crazy lot, there, you know. they DO know whose noses to dangle those carrots in front of, they KNOW their audience!
It is not a tax cut because ... it's quite likely the taxpayer could find themselves paying more in federal income taxes because they decided to invest in new, incremental capital equipment because of the bonus depreciation deduction .... than they would have otherwise without making the investment. I guess you could call that a "negative tax cut" or a "reverse tax cut" since you end up paying more in taxes. I would submit that the exposure to future incremental liabilities would more than offset the year X1 savings, especially considering the nominal discount rates you'd use in PVing the future tax expense. AND ... in your analysis you've failed to even consider the impact of taxpayer A buying qualifying equipment from taxpayers B, C, D, etc .... has on gross federal income tax receipts by the US treasury. You realize the contribution margin on the equipment they sell to taxpayer A serves to increase their current year taxable income and federal tax liability. Without the bonus depreciation deduction ... they would not have sold that equipment to taxpayer A.
Oh yeh ... we disagree because you are waaaaayyyyyy off base.
Wrong again. They want to grow their business and make more money. When faced with the prospect of adding a piece of equipment for $100,000 that will allow you to produce more income, you have a choice to make. Do I spend $100k to get a $14k deduction and then have to pay federal income on top of that??
Most small businesses can NOT afford to do this without a sec 179 deduction and/or the 50% bonus depreciation rule. THAT is why they like it, the fact that taxes get deferred for a year is like dessert.
The Mercatus Center, a research center at George Mason University, recently completed a comprehensive study on state economic prosperity and taxation. Its key findings:
Higher taxes reduce economic growth. A 1% increase in taxes results in a 1.9% decrease in growth.
Taxes impact where people live. People move to states with lower rates and leave those with higher ones.
Income tax progressivity (higher rates as income increases) affects new firm creation.
Bonus deduction appeared for the first time in September 2001 and ran through 2005, then reappeared from 2008 through 2011, with the 100% bonus deduction for certain qualifying capital purchases between 2010 and the beginning of this year.
Yet somehow small businesses have managed to make capital purchases at plenty of other times outside of those 7 years.
Why do small businesses want bonus deduction to stick around? Because who the hell is going to say "no, I would prefer that the federal government not give me what is, in essence, an interest free loan to pay part of my taxes with."
Damn, a leftist attacking the middle class, small business owner. Obama and Hillary are not going to like this ..... Repubs will pick up on this leftist war on the middle class.
Of course, he doesn't understand that the taxpayer will likely pay more in federal income taxes over the life of the at issue equipment, than he would without it.
I have been a CPA for 20 years. What most people do is sec 179 the property after the 50% bonus.
Seeing as how the government is taking part of your profit without any negotiation on your part and the part the tell you they are going to take is determined by them in both percentage and how the a amount is determined, I tend to side with the taxpayer in almost all instances.
I had a farmer who bought two new header and combine for $350k. It allowed him 2 more bushel per acre on beans and 2.5 bushels per acre on corn. He figured 4000 acres on beans times 2 times $13 per bushel yielded him an extra $104k in profit. He has about 6000 acres in corn times 2.5 times $7 per bushel yielded 63k in profit. In 2 years, this equipment paid for itself. Without being able to write off the cost of this equipment in year 1, he wouldn't have been able to purchase this equipment and pay his taxes. Under this scenario, which is pretty close to real numbers, the government collects taxes on an additional 170k per year and offer no additional deduction over the life of the asset.
Punch that into you time value of money and you will see this results in a huge net gain in tax revenue to the feds.
SCOTUS said it, must be true, people are corporations.. same tax tables and deductions for all . You, me, and the "robber barons"...Thanks Vertigo for giving that perfectly timed definition for those who did not study American history.
It pays for itself quickly and you want to buy it now, but can't afford to and still pay your taxes?
A thing called a "bank" exists, and they do this tricky thing called a "loan" where they give you money and you pay them back over time plus interest. And, given that banks exist, why should the government do something that is functionally indistinguishable from making an interest free loan to a business for them to pay part of their taxes with?
Literally the only function of doing so is as a tax handout to businesses by letting the government eat the interest costs by deferring otherwise due tax payments instead of having the business owner pay interest on the amount they would have to borrow from a commercial lender if bonus depreciation didn't exist..
You have your opinion no matter how wrong it is. You think all money is owned by the government. I don't.
Wow! So , do you use a sub-s corp to avoid payroll taxes on earnings ala John Edwards?