L
LMP
Guest
kiplinger.com/features/archives/2008/11/tax-planning-tax-law-changes4.html?kipad_id=44
In 2011, the original bill comes back, (simplistically) resets the amount of CTC to $500.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
In 2011, the original bill comes back, (simplistically) resets the amount of CTC to $500.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The devil is often in the details of tax laws. There are all kinds of ways to increase taxes while seeming to reduce them.
My impression is that the Democrat tax reductions will pretty much all go to people who don’t pay taxes anyway. They will simply get a bigger check than usual, and more people will get checks than previously. Essentially, it seems to me a “constituency” is being purchased by giving some peoples’ money to others, and that very few will actually get a “reduction in taxes”. Some will definitely pay more. Whether there will be circuses to go along with the bread is, as yet, undisclosed.
Most of the “small business” benefits I have read about are illusory. As a small business owner, I never go over the “immediate deduction” amount for new equipment, though doubtless some do. Whether most larger small business owners will greatly prefer immediate deduction to putting part of it on a schedule is unknown to me. It would depend a lot on what you thought your net would be like in future years. My accountant always asks me that before making the election whether to deduct immediately or put the expense on a schedule.
But in any event, you don’t buy equipment if you don’t have the money to do it, or the reasonably immediate prospect of making the investment pay. In considering that, you would also want to consider whether some future spike in your earnings would put you over the $200,000 limit in that year. You might well be ahead deferring the deduction. A lot of businesses are cyclical. One year you’re up, next year you’re down.
My impression is that the Democrat tax reductions will pretty much all go to people who don’t pay taxes anyway. They will simply get a bigger check than usual, and more people will get checks than previously. Essentially, it seems to me a “constituency” is being purchased by giving some peoples’ money to others, and that very few will actually get a “reduction in taxes”. Some will definitely pay more. Whether there will be circuses to go along with the bread is, as yet, undisclosed.
Most of the “small business” benefits I have read about are illusory. As a small business owner, I never go over the “immediate deduction” amount for new equipment, though doubtless some do. Whether most larger small business owners will greatly prefer immediate deduction to putting part of it on a schedule is unknown to me. It would depend a lot on what you thought your net would be like in future years. My accountant always asks me that before making the election whether to deduct immediately or put the expense on a schedule.
But in any event, you don’t buy equipment if you don’t have the money to do it, or the reasonably immediate prospect of making the investment pay. In considering that, you would also want to consider whether some future spike in your earnings would put you over the $200,000 limit in that year. You might well be ahead deferring the deduction. A lot of businesses are cyclical. One year you’re up, next year you’re down.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m not sure what you consider “the lower classes” or “cheap labor”. But it seems to me the world does need labor, and reducing it in an advanced economy doesn’t seem like all that good an idea, particularly since the welfare states with low birth rates also seem to have high unemployment rates.I want decreased incentives for having children, especially among the lower classes. The world doesn’t need more cheap labor.
So, in the U.S. context, what do you consider “the lower clases” and what do you consider “cheap labor”?
E
estesbob
Guest
The small business tax breaks they offer are the kind of incentives only someone who never ran a small business would dream up. The most ridicolous is the proposed job creation credit-as if I am going to go out and hire someone I dont need to get a tax credit.The devil is often in the details of tax laws. There are all kinds of ways to increase taxes while seeming to reduce them.
My impression is that the Democrat tax reductions will pretty much all go to people who don’t pay taxes anyway. They will simply get a bigger check than usual, and more people will get checks than previously. Essentially, it seems to me a “constituency” is being purchased by giving some peoples’ money to others, and that very few will actually get a “reduction in taxes”. Some will definitely pay more. Whether there will be circuses to go along with the bread is, as yet, undisclosed.
Most of the “small business” benefits I have read about are illusory. As a small business owner, I never go over the “immediate deduction” amount for new equipment, though doubtless some do. Whether most larger small business owners will greatly prefer immediate deduction to putting part of it on a schedule is unknown to me. It would depend a lot on what you thought your net would be like in future years. My accountant always asks me that before making the election whether to deduct immediately or put the expense on a schedule.
But in any event, you don’t buy equipment if you don’t have the money to do it, or the reasonably immediate prospect of making the investment pay. In considering that, you would also want to consider whether some future spike in your earnings would put you over the $200,000 limit in that year. You might well be ahead deferring the deduction. A lot of businesses are cyclical. One year you’re up, next year you’re down.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The proposal to give an incentive for an employer NOT to fire someone is even stranger. How is that going to work?The small business tax breaks they offer are the kind of incentives only someone who never ran a small business would dream up. The most ridicolous is the proposed job creation credit-as if I am going to go out and hire someone I dont need to get a tax credit.
R
ribozyme
Guest
People who are hedge fund managers definite are not part of the lower class or “cheap labor.” Let’s say cheap labor are those people willing to work for less than $11 an hour with few benefits. Doesn’t fewer people put a scarcity premium of labor raising its price which is a good thing?I’m not sure what you consider “the lower classes” or “cheap labor”. But it seems to me the world does need labor, and reducing it in an advanced economy doesn’t seem like all that good an idea, particularly since the welfare states with low birth rates also seem to have high unemployment rates.
So, in the U.S. context, what do you consider “the lower clases” and what do you consider “cheap labor”?
E
estesbob
Guest
Like I said they have no understanding of how a small business works. remember when obama said he was going to exempt smalll busnesses from capitail gains tax? Captial gains taxes on what? They have no idea what the nature of the income is for a small business. And that scares me.The proposal to give an incentive for an employer NOT to fire someone is even stranger. How is that going to work?
E
estesbob
Guest
Why do I have a feeling that you have never had a job paying even close to $11.00 and hour? in fact why do I have a feeling youve never had a job?People who are hedge fund managers definite are not part of the lower class or “cheap labor.” Let’s say cheap labor are those people willing to work for less than $11 an hour with few benefits. Doesn’t fewer people put a scarcity premium of labor raising its price which is a good thing?
R
ribozyme
Guest
So do you think fewer people (especially cheap labor) is a good thing? It would mean less poverty though, and that is good.Why do I have a feeling that you have never had a job paying even close to $11.00 and hour? in fact why do I have a feeling youve never had a job?
E
estesbob
Guest
Does that mean I was correct that you have never had a job?So do you think fewer people (especially cheap labor) is a good thing? It would mean less poverty though, and that is good.
R
ribozyme
Guest
What does that have to do with anything? I am asking whether fewer people as cheap labor is a good thing. They also do not pay much taxes so less cheap labor is a good thing.Does that mean I was correct that you have never had a job?
Fine, let’s concede that I do not have much “experience.” I’ll ask why do you know more about the labor market than people who work at the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for American Progress. What makes you more enlightened than those people who work at those think tanks?
So why is more cheap labor in the United States and around the world a good thing?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Is it your belief that you would be able to identify for abortion, in advance, those who would be willing to work for less than $11/hour?Let’s say cheap labor are those people willing to work for less than $11 an hour with few benefits. Doesn’t fewer people put a scarcity premium of labor raising its price which is a good thing?
And if they would be willing to work for that, and could manage to live a life satisfactory to them with it, what would the reason be to prevent their entry into the economy?
Would you also limit imports, or would you allow <$11.00/hour work to, in effect, enter the country in that manner, rather than allow it to occur within these shores?
R
ribozyme
Guest
People will usually work for anything in certain impoverished circumstances. The question to me is not whether people will work for less than $11, but how can we construct a labor market where the equilibrium (or some sort of intervention) would price unskilled labor at a high price. One way is to make it scarce (therefore raising its price), although that might encourage investments in AI to replace such labor.Is it your belief that you would be able to identify for abortion, in advance, those who would be willing to work for less than $11/hour?
And if they would be willing to work for that, and could manage to live a life satisfactory to them with it, what would the reason be to prevent their entry into the economy?
Would you also limit imports, or would you allow <$11.00/hour work to, in effect, enter the country in that manner, rather than allow it to occur within these shores?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Okay. I’ll bite. What’s Al?. One way is to make it scarce (therefore raising its price), although that might encourage investments in AI to replace such labor.
R
ribozyme
Guest
artificial intelligence, robotics, stuff like that.Okay. I’ll bite. What’s Al?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I see. Well, maybe one of these times Sweden won’t need Swedes at all.artificial intelligence, robotics, stuff like that.
L
LMP
Guest
Your accountants are nice enough to ask, most try to hide the choice because it is a nightmare with depreciation schedulesThe devil is often in the details of tax laws. There are all kinds of ways to increase taxes while seeming to reduce them.
My impression is that the Democrat tax reductions will pretty much all go to people who don’t pay taxes anyway. They will simply get a bigger check than usual, and more people will get checks than previously. Essentially, it seems to me a “constituency” is being purchased by giving some peoples’ money to others, and that very few will actually get a “reduction in taxes”. Some will definitely pay more. Whether there will be circuses to go along with the bread is, as yet, undisclosed.
Most of the “small business” benefits I have read about are illusory. As a small business owner, I never go over the “immediate deduction” amount for new equipment, though doubtless some do. Whether most larger small business owners will greatly prefer immediate deduction to putting part of it on a schedule is unknown to me. It would depend a lot on what you thought your net would be like in future years. My accountant always asks me that before making the election whether to deduct immediately or put the expense on a schedule.
But in any event, you don’t buy equipment if you don’t have the money to do it, or the reasonably immediate prospect of making the investment pay. In considering that, you would also want to consider whether some future spike in your earnings would put you over the $200,000 limit in that year. You might well be ahead deferring the deduction. A lot of businesses are cyclical. One year you’re up, next year you’re down.
and state tax returns, (most states don’t enact fed laws immediately.) It actually cost YOU more in accounting fees to take advantage of these nice little things offered by the feds.
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
Glad to know you favor eugenic solutions. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger would be proud of you.I want decreased incentives for having children, especially among the lower classes. The world doesn’t need more cheap labor.
The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.
- Margaret Sanger in Women and the New Race, 1922
Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.
- Margaret Sanger in Women, Morality and Birth Control, 1922
Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems
- Margaret Sanger in The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, 1921
E
estesbob
Guest
I suspect as an employer for 27 years and having dealt with thousands and thousands of small businesses over that time . I know a lot more about the labor market than you and the policy wonks at special interest think tanks. It is easy for you sitting your dorm room to pontificate on the need to lower the number of lower class people and what the proper rate of pay for people whould be when the only downside for you is perhaps a lower grade on your term paper.What does that have to do with anything? I am asking whether fewer people as cheap labor is a good thing. They also do not pay much taxes so less cheap labor is a good thing.
Fine, let’s concede that I do not have much “experience.” I’ll ask why do you know more about the labor market than people who work at the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for American Progress. What makes you more enlightened than those people who work at those think tanks?
So why is more cheap labor in the United States and around the world a good thing?
Cheap labor is a relative term . For instance what we call cheap labor in the United States would be expensive labor in Mexico. You seem to believe the solution to everything is to let the government regulate the economy so that everybody comes out ahead. The truth is the exact opposite- the more government regulation the worse off people are. We do need regulation to protect the health of employees such as working conditions in hours worked but the more the government tries to create a command economy the worse things get.
E
estesbob
Guest
The Section 179 deduction is been around for a couple decades and is not difficult to account for at all. The problem, as Ridgerunner points out , is that in order to write off equipment you have to pay for it. And when times are tight you don’t run out and buy equipment just to get a tax write off -you try and make do with what you have.Your accountants are nice enough to ask, most try to hide the choice because it is a nightmare with depreciation schedules
and state tax returns, (most states don’t enact fed laws immediately.) It actually cost YOU more in accounting fees to take advantage of these nice little things offered by the feds.
I don’t need incentives to hire employees. If I need them I hire them. I’m not about to hire somebody I don’t need just to get a tax cut Likewise incentives to keep me from laying people off are useless also. If I can’t afford to keep somebody all the incentives in the world are not going to keep me from laying them off unless the govt is going to step in and pickup their full salary -which is not likely to happen
- Status
- Not open for further replies.