Merge said:

No...

A piece of machinery is not a start up cost, and would currently be allowed a full deduction under section 179.
The government doesn't "pay for the machine" You get a deduction against your income immediately instead of over the life of the asset which would have been depreciated over time anyway.

Also, if you want a "new revenue stream" you could expand your business and costs related to doing so would already qualify as a start up cost for immediate deduction. No need to try and game the system there. It is designed to help people start a business and expand them. Changing the credit from $5k to $50k is what you're objecting to if you're against this.

And lets be clear, if you spent $50k this year... you still wouldn't pay tax on any of that. It would just be a $5k deduction now and the rest over the next 15 years.

Click to expand...

Kamala Harris pledges to help more restaurants and other small businesses get off the ground

In a campaign speech Wednesday, the Democratic candidate promised to raise the tax credit for startups to $50,000, from the current $5,000.

www.restaurantbusinessonline.com

Kamala Harris proposes $50,000 tax break for small businesses

She also announced a goal of receiving 25 million new small business applications in her first term, up from the 19 million filed under Biden administration.

www.yahoo.com

knowknow456 said:

You're missing the point. He has scumbag friends. Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are.

Click to expand...

Merge said:

No...

A piece of machinery is not a start up cost, and would currently be allowed a full deduction under section 179.
The government doesn't "pay for the machine" You get a deduction against your income immediately instead of over the life of the asset which would have been depreciated over time anyway.

Also, if you want a "new revenue stream" you could expand your business and costs related to doing so would already qualify as a start up cost for immediate deduction. No need to try and game the system there. It is designed to help people start a business and expand them. Changing the credit from $5k to $50k is what you're objecting to if you're against this.

And lets be clear, if you spent $50k this year... you still wouldn't pay tax on any of that. It would just be a $5k deduction now and the rest over the next 15 years.

Click to expand...

SHUHoopsFan said:

The way the government just handed out ERC money to fraudulent companies, $200,000+ you think they're going to be looking at $50K. At the same time all a t shirt embroidery company needs to do is open up a new LLC to make T-shirts he's going to sell for NIL or any other new revenue stream purposes. Nothing fraudulent about that. Buy a new piece of machinery and now he's got a new machine the government paid for which he'll use for his existing business and he'll sell 10 shirts with that 2nd revenue stream.

Click to expand...

Merge said:

That's just dumb rhetoric to be honest.

The costs they would need to incur would be specific to starting up a business without operations. I don't really see the benefit there unless they are open to committing tax fraud... which an immediate deduction up to $50k instead of the current $5k is probably not worth the risk there.

There are certainly better / legal ways to avoid tax.

Click to expand...

Halldan1 said:

Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

SHUHoopsFan said:

I have friends who all say they're going to close their businesses and open up new LLC's the day she enacts that.

Click to expand...

SHUHoopsFan said:

I have friends who all say they're going to close their businesses and open up new LLC's the day she enacts that.

Click to expand...

Merge said:

Trump skipped all of the debates during the primary. The American people deserved to see him in that setting as well. Maybe they would have seen his mental decline as being unfit standing next to DeSantis and we would have a better option right now.

Click to expand...

Merge said:

She described some of the policy positions during the debate when talking about the "opportunity economy", the rest are on her website.
I don't agree with them all, but certainly more well defined than those of her opponent.

Click to expand...

SHUHoopsFan said:

The American people deserve 3 debates. The American people deserve both people to be put in the Lion's Den. If a debate is easier than sitting with Putin, they're showing us nothing.

Click to expand...

SHUHoopsFan said:

It's amazing we have a clear winner of the debate and very few can define her positions. Nobody knows what the hell an opportunistic economy is.

Click to expand...

silkcitypirate said:

She has a political stradegy and whatever it is she is sticking to it. She wants another debate with him and he is backing off which is another good political strategy by him although I would love one .Both teams will be spending most of their time in battle ground states I would assume . The undecided votes in the battleground states will win the election . That is my take for what it's worth (not much) Although I have worked on local and county campaigns this is a different animal.

Click to expand...

SPK145 said:

So you have no issue about a someone relaying a private chat to you and then you to here? That's slimy, PAB stuff. I expected better out of you.

How is a private chat "pissing on anyone's efforts"?

Click to expand...