<DrumBeat: November 8, 2007 The Oil Drum £1 per Litre Petrol Drives Peak Oil on Mainstream TV>

151 comments on Clinton's New Energy and Climate Policy

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

eric blair on November 8, 2007 - 11:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I mistyped. 179.

http://www.moneysourceinc.com/irs-section-179.html

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PrisonerX on November 8, 2007 - 1:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Eric Blair,

are you saying that the 179 exemption should go, and you have to amortize/depreciate all equipment purchased for business use. From 3 years on very few items, usually 5 -7 years.

I doubt you have every run or owned a business Eric. Especially in these times when something goes out of date like, computers, hard drives, software, and equipment that just will not flat out last 5 years when used regularly. Eric I have to purchase new software and other cards on a regular basis from one to two years, and the old ones are shelf material. The switch from Standard Def TV to HD, is a real headache right now, with lots of new equipment that needs to be purchased. My industry and many others have the exact same demands from customers for the newest and best, or they go elsewhere.

If 179 were to go, the corporations would run all, because the little guy could not compete,

but I think you like that idea Eric.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
robert2734 on November 8, 2007 - 1:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The depreciation schedule for business? If someone made me dictator, I'd make businesses use cash accounting. You get to write off a piece of equipment when you actually pay for it.

RobertInTucson

I haven't escaped from reality. I have a daypass.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
musashi on November 8, 2007 - 3:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Presumably PV means personal vehicles.
The great majority of strip mall stores that aren't money laundromats are tax dodges. Like the lawyers or whatever that set their kids or wives up in a cookie business that makes $3 a month in profit from the one non english speaking minimum wage employee but is good enough to write off the 60K monster SUV.
There is a reason many of these vehicles are so huge and have a 6201# GVWR. The tax code.
It would take a forensic accountant 10 minutes to prove this if regulators would do their job. Hard to see from ivory towers.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
robert2734 on November 8, 2007 - 4:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I thought PV stood for photovoltaics. We wouldn't wanted businesses generating their own clean electricity.

RobertInTucson

I haven't escaped from reality. I have a daypass.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
musashi on November 8, 2007 - 6:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

My line of thought was that if it were photovoltaics and the business were legit, then it would be viewed as a good thing and it wouldn't make sense to repeal the tax credit.

I know for a fact that people use these tax dodges in vast quantities and it is one of the reasons why the super heavy vehicles are so popular. They can be depreciated much quicker then lighter vehicles. If this tax credit is repealed the number of oversized vehicles would fall like a rock. The tax code drives a lot of what appears irrational.

If you add the millions of one person LLC's that write all these vehicles off, you could get rid of them in very short order.

I guess we need to wait for clarification.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on November 9, 2007 - 11:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p946/ch02.html#d0e2211

you cannot elect the section 179 deduction for the following property.
Equipment that uses solar energy to generate electricity, to heat or cool a structure, to provide hot water for use in a structure, or to provide solar process heat, except for equipment used to generate energy to heat a swimming pool.

Thus you can not write down PV in one year, unlike other items.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on November 9, 2007 - 11:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Do you have a point you'd like to make? I do not understand your complaint about software costs. Why would anyone buy software?

Buying support on software, I can understand. But pay for software that is defective by design?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Pitt the Elder on November 9, 2007 - 4:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Why would anyone buy software?

Because not all valuable software is free.

But pay for software that is defective by design?

Because not all non-free software is defective by design.
And, sometimes, defective software is the best there is, and is better than nothing.

You sound like you're parroting the standard anti-Microsoft line; there's a world of non-free software outside of Windows and Office.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on November 10, 2007 - 11:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Because not all valuable software is free.

Huh? What are you trying to say?

And, sometimes, defective software is the best there is, and is better than nothing.

Having nothing or having something that is broken and defective, and you are claiming that it is better to use a broken tool?

Interesting view - that one should pay for crap.

You sound like you're parroting the standard anti-Microsoft line;

You just keep taking a swing and missing in this thread. 1st on small business, now this.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Pitt the Elder on November 11, 2007 - 8:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Why would anyone buy software?

Because not all valuable software is free.

Huh? What are you trying to say?

I'm answering your question.

People buy software because they find pieces of software which (a) have value to them, and (b) are for sale. Not all pieces of software are both (i.e., software might not have value and/or might be free rather than for sale), but for many people software exists which is indeed both.

And, sometimes, defective software is the best there is, and is better than nothing.

Having nothing or having something that is broken and defective, and you are claiming that it is better to use a broken tool?

Sometimes, yes.

A few years ago, used OpenOffice's spreadsheet to do some statistical analysis. It had some bugs in it that were irritating, but did not invalidate the result, and hence using it was better than doing the calculations by hand.

Or, for a more visceral example, consider a hammer with a broken handle. It's cleaerly a broken tool, but I'd certainly rather use that to try driving in a nail than use my hand. Broken tools are often better than no tools at all.

Interesting view - that one should pay for crap.

Interesting view, but not my view, suggesting you've misunderstood what I'm saying.

All I'm saying here is that if a piece of software's value is greater to a person than its (total) cost, it makes sense for them to use it. If that's not true - if, for example, it's so buggy as to be practically useless and is quite expensive, then my logic is that they should not use the software.

You just keep taking a swing and missing in this thread. 1st on small business, now this.

I suggest you re-read the thread, then. I haven't said anything about small business in this thread, so you appear to be somewhat confused.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

151 comments on Clinton's New Energy and Climate Policy

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version