Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?

[Vandy Vol]

Obama overspent.  Bush overspent.  I think we both agree on that.  I'm not defending Obama here; I'm just pointing out that charts can be misleading, and that if we really want to look at the numbers and quantify blame, we should at least do so accurately.

The transition year argument is a farce.  This is a ridiculous assertion unless you can somehow show that Bush spent the majority of that $787B TARP and/or a significant portion of the other spending allocations during that initial three and a half month period.  We know that he did not, and many of the funds were distributed per Obama's direction.

One would logically think that this much money could not be distributed within a three month period, but headlines suggest otherwise (some of this is part of the bailout, and some of it is not, by the way):

October 6, 2008:  Federal Reserve doubles its auctions of cash to banks to as much as $900 billion
October 14, 2008:  Government decides to buy up to $250 billion of nonvoting, senior-preferred shares in U.S. banks.
October 21, 2008:  Federal Reserve loans $540 billion to bail out banks.
November 25, 2008:  Federal Reserve and Treasury create new lending program consisting of $800 billion.  This article goes on to indicate that, of $7.8 trillion in obligations taken on thus far in 2008, about $1.4 trillion of that has "been committed to loans, capital infusions to banks and the rescues of firms."

Regardless of the amount spent or not spent in 2008, my only point is that a fairly significant amount of money was spent in 2008 under Bush's administration, and thus a chart needs to reflect what was spent by Bush's administration and what was spent by Obama's administration; it shouldn't rely upon the fiscal year, which does not reflect spending accurately.

But yes, Obama's a moron.  We can all agree on that.

[Vandy Vol]

And you're taking a random (not real) example and trying to pin your entire hopes on that one argument.   I don't know how much servers cost.  I have people who spec them out and have a budget.  If they spend all the budget on one, that's their deal.  I don't know.  I do know that when we look at the taxes I've got equipment from three or four years ago still on there and they all dwindle down at varying rates depending on what rule was in place at the time of purchase.   And I don't get to take full credit for the one I bought this year. 

So let me make this simple for you, okay? 

Let's say I bought $200,000 worth of equipment. Had to.  No choice.  Had to keep things going.   I don't know off the top of my head what the schedule is so let's say I can only count 25% of the cost for THIS year's taxes.   That's $50,000.

 

I guess you still didn't bother to read the link on Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation, did you?

I'll try to sum it up in as few words as possible so that you won't have to decipher my babbling cluelessness.

2011.  Section 179 allows for an exception for capital expenses up to $500,000.  It allows you to claim the entirety of a capital expense as a deduction, up to $500,000, in the year you spent the money.

If your returns indicate that you're deducting this over five years, then your accountants haven't been keeping up with changes in the law.  Either that, or you haven't indicated to them that amortizing it bothers you, and thus they haven't changed the way that they report it.

Spend $200,000 on a capital expense in the form of a server?  Deduct $200,000 on a capital expense in the form of a server.  In one year, not five.

Spend $500,000?  Deduct $500,000.  In one year, not five.

Right now I've gunned down a nice bear and am in the process of skinning it and apportioning the pieces for others to use to make me more.

Can we have sex on it later?

[Kaos]

 

And now you know why people hate lawyers.  Ignore the primary point to quibble in semantics.

Server was an example.  Doesn't have to be a server.  Maybe it was a car.  Maybe it was a whore for a politician. 

Don't give a fiddling fucking fuck what statutes you quote.  Income minus deductible expenses does NOT equal cash on hand.  Period. 

[Snaggletiger]

And now you know why people hate lawyers.  Ignore the primary point to quibble in semantics.

Server was an example.  Doesn't have to be a server.  Maybe it was a car.  Maybe it was a whore for a politician. 

Don't give a fiddling fucking fuck what statutes you quote.  Income minus deductible expenses does NOT equal cash on hand.  Period.

What have I ever done to you?  I've always been straight with you.  Well okay.....except for that one night in Austin.  But he said Emu cream would clear it up in a week.  How was I to know it would raise up and turn blue like that? 

[Vandy Vol]

And now you know why people hate lawyers.  Ignore the primary point to quibble in semantics.

Server was an example.  Doesn't have to be a server.  Maybe it was a car.  Maybe it was a whore for a politician.

Dude...a car is also a capital expense.  I don't think this is getting through to you...you think that I'm quibbling about semantics because you don't appear to know enough about the rules to understand that I'm not just explaining how to treat a server.  I'm not just explaining how to treat a car.  I'm referencing all capital expenses which would normally have to be amortized over several years, which is a large part of what you have been griping about.

Computers, printers, cars, saws, ladders, dildos, pocket pussies, etc. ...all capital expenses.  Doesn't matter what example you use; the Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation rules allow for you to deduct the entire capital expense, up to $500,000 (with very few exceptions),  that would normally be amortized over several years.

Thus, when you keep talking about how your capital expense (whatever type of purchase that may be) of $200,000 would have to be amortized over five years, you're showing that you don't understand Section 179's $500,000 deduction limit for capital expenses.

If people don't like attorneys because they attempt to explain something that people don't appear to understand, then that's tough shit on their part.  I guess they can keep working with accountants who don't know what the hell they're doing, and can continue getting raped in the ass year after year because they didn't keep up with the tax code changes enacted by the Tax Relief Act.

Don't give a fiddling fucking fuck what statutes you quote.  Income minus deductible expenses does NOT equal cash on hand.  Period.

Never said it did.  I'm simply saying that there are statutes out there which make it a lot closer than what your examples suggest.

But who cares about laws anyhow, right?  It's not like they have any bearing on how tax deductions are handled.  Your accountants supersede all laws; if they file your taxes in a specific manner, then there is no other way.

[AUChizad]

2011.  Section 179 allows for an exception for capital expenses up to $500,000.  It allows you to claim the entirety of a capital expense as a deduction, up to $500,000, in the year you spent the money.

So what you're saying is that under OBAMA, as part of his evil stimulus plan, he actually took the tax burden Kaos is blaming him for, and eliminated it?

What a monster.

Computers, printers, cars, saws, ladders, dildos, pocket pussies, etc. ...all capital expenses.

I'm not so sure about this. Do hookers file taxes?

[RWS]

Here is some shit that makes me angry:

http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/01/obama_targets_skyrocketing_col.html

Obama wants to cut some funding to colleges who raise tuition to what he deems as unaffordable for too many families. He wants to keep money going to those colleges who "spend responsibly", and keep the poorer kids in school. What this will lead to is colleges lowering standards, and that is bullshit. It has already happened in the public school system. Alot of colleges are raising tuition because some states have cut their funding, because we're in a recession. The states realize there is less money coming in, so less money should be spent. Colleges receive less money. It has to be passed on somewhere, or those colleges may cease to operate. The logic used is crazy.

[GarMan]

Obama overspent.  Bush overspent.  I think we both agree on that.  I'm not defending Obama here; I'm just pointing out that charts can be misleading, and that if we really want to look at the numbers and quantify blame, we should at least do so accurately.

Misleading...  Well, Democrats certainly didn't have a problem using and passing around simplistic charts like this and the one below to show Republican overspending during the 2008 campaign.  Of course, they also forgot to identify who controlled the House and Senate during those times. 

As I said, if you can show where Bush spent a significant amount of that money during his last three and a half months, you might have something there, but you can't.  The chart was a good summary of the deficits year over year, and it clearly showed that Obama's overspending is approximately three times that of Bush, even if you'd like to argue the first three and a half months of the 2009 fiscal year. 

One would logically think that this much money could not be distributed within a three month period, but headlines suggest otherwise (some of this is part of the bailout, and some of it is not, by the way):

October 6, 2008:  Federal Reserve doubles its auctions of cash to banks to as much as $900 billion
October 14, 2008:  Government decides to buy up to $250 billion of nonvoting, senior-preferred shares in U.S. banks.
October 21, 2008:  Federal Reserve loans $540 billion to bail out banks.
November 25, 2008:  Federal Reserve and Treasury create new lending program consisting of $800 billion.  This article goes on to indicate that, of $7.8 trillion in obligations taken on thus far in 2008, about $1.4 trillion of that has "been committed to loans, capital infusions to banks and the rescues of firms."

I'm sorry, but the math doesn't add up here as the tally would have exceeded that authorized under TARP, the 2009 budget or any other legislation at the time.  Nevertheless, many of the final decisions as to who received much of this money did not occur until Obama took office. 

Regardless of the amount spent or not spent in 2008, my only point is that a fairly significant amount of money was spent in 2008 under Bush's administration, and thus a chart needs to reflect what was spent by Bush's administration and what was spent by Obama's administration; it shouldn't rely upon the fiscal year, which does not reflect spending accurately.

The chart does reflect overspending accurately over time, and we know who was in control of the House, Senate and White House throughout most of that time. 

But yes, Obama's a moron.  We can all agree on that.

At least we found one thing to agree on...

[Kaos]

Dude...a car is also a capital expense.  I don't think this is getting through to you...

Here's what I don't think is getting through to you.

I write the motherfucking checks every motherfucking quarter.  I know what I pay.  I know what my K1 says every single year.  I know what available cash I have month to month.  I know what I spend.  I know what I take in. 

I spend a fuckton of money on accountants and lawyers.

But you clearly know more about the situations I've been dealing with for the last 11 years than i do, than the people I pay to know about it do, than the lawyers I pay to monitor things do. 

If it were as GODDAM simple as you make it out to be "cash in - cash out = available cash" then there would be no need for accountants and no need for tax lawyers. 

Say whatever else you want from here on out.  I could give a fuck. 

[Vandy Vol]

Misleading...  Well, Democrats certainly didn't have a problem using and passing around simplistic charts like this and the one below to show Republican overspending during the 2008 campaign.  Of course, they also forgot to identify who controlled the House and Senate during those times.

Of course they didn't.  I'm not saying this is either a Republican thing or a Democrat thing; just saying that charts can be created so as to present numbers in a misleading, or even downright false, manner.

I'm sorry, but the math doesn't add up here as the tally would have exceeded that authorized under TARP, the 2009 budget or any other legislation at the time.

Yeah, like I said, some of those were not Wall Street bailouts.  In fact, I think one of the articles said that the $800 billion was a "new" program started in November, which suggests it wasn't part of the TARP deal.

Also, TARP actually had a range of $700 billion to (I believe) $1.5 trillion; don't quote me on that, I can't recall.  $700 billion was just the bare minimum that they indicated they'd need to spend.  Plus, various additional costs were approved by both Bush and Obama as things moved forward, so it's not going to add up to the initially estimated $700 billion.

[GarMan]

Dude...a car is also a capital expense.  I don't think this is getting through to you...you think that I'm quibbling about semantics because you don't appear to know enough about the rules to understand that I'm not just explaining how to treat a server.  I'm not just explaining how to treat a car.  I'm referencing all capital expenses which would normally have to be amortized over several years, which is a large part of what you have been griping about.

Computers, printers, cars, saws, ladders, dildos, pocket pussies, etc. ...all capital expenses.  Doesn't matter what example you use; the Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation rules allow for you to deduct the entire capital expense, up to $500,000 (with very few exceptions),  that would normally be amortized over several years.

Thus, when you keep talking about how your capital expense (whatever type of purchase that may be) of $200,000 would have to be amortized over five years, you're showing that you don't understand Section 179's $500,000 deduction limit for capital expenses.

There are actually quite a few limitations when you dig into this...  For instance, assuming I'm reading the correct version, the first year deduction limitation for passenger cars or trucks that have been purchased in 2011 is only around $11k.  You cannot deduct the entire amount during the first year. 

If people don't like attorneys because they attempt to explain something that people don't appear to understand, then that's tough shit on their part.  I guess they can keep working with accountants who don't know what the hell they're doing, and can continue getting raped in the ass year after year because they didn't keep up with the tax code changes enacted by the Tax Relief Act. 

You guys are talking on different planes.  I see both sides to this and understand the frustration Kaos is talking about.  Yes, Section 179 offers you some relief, but there are limitations as I identified above.  The problem here is that most in the government don't understand business, the free market, an operating budget or the difference between profit and income.  It's not as simple as you seem to believe especially when you're dealing with a 50 page federal tax return along with multiple states. 

[Vandy Vol]

I write the motherfucking checks every motherfucking quarter.  I know what I pay.  I know what my K1 says every single year.  I know what available cash I have month to month.  I know what I spend.  I know what I take in.

Congratulations.  None of those activities have anything to do with Section 179 and how capital expenses can be deducted.

I'm not saying that you don't know how to operate a business or fill out a basic 1040ES to report and pay estimated taxes; those are all irrelevant to even bring up.  I'm just saying that, if you (and your accountants) are of the impression that a $200,000 capital expense in 2011 has to be amortized over X number of years, then you're not up to date with tax law changes.  Plain and simple.

[Vandy Vol]

There are actually quite a few limitations when you dig into this...  For instance, assuming I'm reading the correct version, the first year deduction limitation for passenger cars or trucks that have been purchased in 2011 is only around $11k.  You cannot deduct the entire amount during the first year.

Yup, you're reading the correct version.  There's also a $25,000 limitations for SUVs and other vehicles above a certain weight.  There are also different limitations for restaurant equipment and assets.  There are also different limitations for farm equipment, I believe.

Considering that everyone bitches about how my posts are long, I wasn't going to ramble on with my alleged "cluelessness" that was just going to be dismissed anyways as "whippersnapper" shit.  If I can't get someone to look at a statute and acknowledge that their accountants just might be wrong, then there's really no need in trying to spell out every element and exception to the law.  I mean, hell, he's been doing this for 23 bazillion years now, and he has forty eight accountants reviewing everything ninety three and a half times; who cares what a federal law says?

My main point was that, for the vast majority of expenses (including the majority of capital expenses), there is a way to claim it in the year that you spent it.  This doesn't mean that it is as simple as "gross income -  all expenses = taxable income;" it's clearly not that simple.  But when virtually every operating expense and most capital expenses are fully deductible in one year, it's relatively damn close most of the time.  And if it's not, then it's time to have a talk with your accountants, because these new laws changed a lot that they might not be aware of.  I don't spend my time at the I.R.S.'s practitioner liaison group meetings and reading updates from them for my health and sanity.

[GarMan]

Yup, you're reading the correct version.  There's also a $25,000 limitations for SUVs and other vehicles above a certain weight.  There are also different limitations for restaurant equipment and assets.  There are also different limitations for farm equipment, I believe.

You're referencing only a few of many... 

Considering that everyone bitches about how my posts are long, I wasn't going to ramble on with my alleged "cluelessness" that was just going to be dismissed anyways as "whippersnapper" shit.  If I can't get someone to look at a statute and acknowledge that their accountants just might be wrong, then there's really no need in trying to spell out every element and exception to the law.  I mean, hell, he's been doing this for 23 bazillion years now, and he has forty eight accountants reviewing everything ninety three and a half times; who cares what a federal law says?

My main point was that, for the vast majority of expenses (including the majority of capital expenses), there is a way to claim it in the year that you spent it.  This doesn't mean that it is as simple as "gross income -  all expenses = taxable income;" it's clearly not that simple.  But when virtually every operating expense and most capital expenses are fully deductible in one year, it's relatively damn close most of the time.  And if it's not, then it's time to have a talk with your accountants, because these new laws changed a lot that they might not be aware of.  I don't spend my time at the I.R.S.'s practitioner liaison group meetings and reading updates from them for my health and sanity. 

You don't have to post a novel to get your point across, but I would expect you to keep from making factually incorrect statements or misleading assertions like the ones below.  I mean after all, you're a tax attorney.

Dude...a car is also a capital expense.  I don't think this is getting through to you...you think that I'm quibbling about semantics because you don't appear to know enough about the rules to understand that I'm not just explaining how to treat a server.  I'm not just explaining how to treat a car.  I'm referencing all capital expenses which would normally have to be amortized over several years, which is a large part of what you have been griping about.

Computers, printers, cars, saws, ladders, dildos, pocket pussies, etc. ...all capital expenses.  Doesn't matter what example you use; the Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation rules allow for you to deduct the entire capital expense, up to $500,000 (with very few exceptions),  that would normally be amortized over several years. 

[Vandy Vol]

You don't have to post a novel to get your point across, but I would expect you to keep from making factually incorrect statements or misleading assertions like the ones below.  I mean after all, you're a tax attorney.

Sorry, but there are only a handful of exceptions.  You do see where I stated there are exceptions, right?  I mean, you bolded it and all...cars, restaurant equipment, and farm equipment are the only ones of which I'm aware.  Even then, the exceptions are determined in such a manner that it is reasonable for any average business to not exceed those exceptions.

Like I said, I'm not going to elaborately expound upon all of the exceptions within a law, as most of you love to complain about the length of my posts.  The initial example that was proposed was a server; that capital expense does not fall under any exceptions.  You can claim the entire amount of the purchase of a server, up to $500,000.  Other capital expenses may fall under various exceptions, but those exceptions are few, and they are reasonable.

Yet again, my whole point was that not every capital expense has to be amortized over X number of years.  To blindly accept such a fact is to accept ignorance of tax law changes.  If your accountants claim that every capital expense must be amortized in its entirety, then they are not up to date with tax law changes.

[Kaos]

Congratulations.  None of those activities have anything to do with Section 179 and how capital expenses can be deducted.

I'm not saying that you don't know how to operate a business or fill out a basic 1040ES to report and pay estimated taxes; those are all irrelevant to even bring up.  I'm just saying that, if you (and your accountants) are of the impression that a $200,000 capital expense in 2011 has to be amortized over X number of years, then you're not up to date with tax law changes.  Plain and simple.

Congratulations.   You continue to fail to see the basic point because you're focusing on the irrelevant.  You're like a babbling brick wall. 

Simple fact and the only one that matters:  What the K1 says, that number that gives Obama license to consider small business owners "rich" and demonize us is not a true indicator of how much money that person "made" or has at his disposal. 

There's not a motherfucking statute on earth that addresses that. 

[Townhallsavoy]

I'm thinking needs to become K's tax attorney since he seems to know how to save him some damn money. 

[AUTiger1]

I'm not so sure about this. Do hookers file taxes?

Nope, but if we had a consumption tax like I am talking about they would pay their fair share every time they buy food, purfume, summers eve, stripper heels, and slutty clothing.    Oh my, does that generate new tax revenues without taking more of peoples pay checks?  What a novel idea!

[Kaos]

I'm thinking needs to become K's tax attorney since he seems to know how to save him some damn money.

Yep.  He knows more than all the accountants I pay to take care of this for me. 

His posts are so awesome they're like this:

[Vandy Vol]

Simple fact and the only one that matters:  What the K1 says, that number that gives Obama license to consider small business owners "rich" and demonize us is not a true indicator of how much money that person "made" or has at his disposal.

I don't disagree with that.  My only contention is that the one reason you cited for this ginormous discrepancy between the K-1 and what is actually profit was capital expenses.  My response was that there are now exceptions which rectify that to a very large degree.

Can you claim the entirety of every single capital expense in one year?  No.  There are exceptions to every rule.  But the vast majority of business expenses can be deducted in one year, including the majority of capital expenses.  It's not as simple as "gross income - all business expenses = taxable income," but it's pretty damn close now due to these capital expense rules, especially for self-employed business owners that aren't grossing millions.

I had asked you what expenses you can't claim out of honest curiosity; you brought up capital expenses, not me.  Sorry that your accountants didn't make you aware of new exceptions that allow you to not have to amortize the entirety of those expenses over several years.