COMPUTER for BI

[fenderman]

As a business person, it supports tax management as it becomes a legitimate business expense as the equipment is either deducted 100% in the tax year or depreciated over time. It is not an issue of "HAVE" to but what does competent tax management support offsetting taxable profits.

That is one of the things I like about being a professional photographer and owning the business. So many deductions that the general public are not able to use (or were deleted over the years). Hadn't really planned on deducting mine as part of the home office, but it does protect a significant inventory. I can of course deduct the obvious - cameras/lens, computers/software, mileage (or depreciate autos), tolls, utilities etc, none of which the non-business can do.

Stanley71 - While you never indicated where you were from, and this forum is international, I am assuming the USA - thus the tax discussion should be viewed in that context.

Sorry but that makes ZERO business sense...a deduction is NOT a credit..he still blew most of that money.....even if that faulty tax logic was accurate, he would be much better off spending it on an enterprise vms or better cameras...

 

[Tizeye]

Forget tax credit, as it doesn't have to be a credit which is typically a 100% reduction in taxes. Deductions offset profits and reduce taxes in proportion to the tax rate, or even dropping overall taxes to a lower bracket. Most business reviews their tax liability in the final quarter and decide if should have capital expenditures in the current tax year or defer to the next tax year. Yes, I can understand your second part "would be much better off spending it on an enterprise vms or better cameras" but that is a judgment call, product A vs product B and personally see the advantage of minimizing the computer cost to accommodate the other equipment - but that is not our call. My point is that tax planning throws the economics off where an 'overpriced' computer (or whatever) may serve it's purpose for expenditure that others would not consider.

To illustrate, while I would have liked a Sony A9 camera body ($4500) and could rationalize it's use, two days ago I bought (true statement) another Sony A7rII camera body ($2700), and hypothetically lets say you liked that camera too and bought one. In your case, you are out the $2700 (plus more for a lens) and it has no impact on your taxes despite the fact that you used your hard earned money to purchase it. In my case, it reduced my hard earned net taxable business income by $2700 which at the 30% tax bracket (I wish) would have an effective cost of $1890 as it reduced my taxes $810. Now if I truly had profits that pushed me into the 30% bracket, that A9 would be sitting on my desk - but that is my call, not anyone elses. The additional body is not just a tax deduction but also makes solid business sense as well, besides qualifying me for Sony Pro support, it enables me to increase future business income by hiring a second shooter for a wedding or corporate event shoots and not increase post processing workload as color balance between the two cameras would match. The A7rII is a phenomenal camera and we could argue if should have gotten the original A7 (now $900) or the recently introduced A9 or the two cameras in between, A7II A7sII. Believe me, those senarios went through my head. But ultimately, it was may call for the second A7rII to join my camera portfolio which also includes the A6000.

 

[fenderman]

Forget tax credit, as it doesn't have to be a credit which is typically a 100% reduction in taxes. Deductions offset profits and reduce taxes in proportion to the tax rate, or even dropping overall taxes to a lower bracket. Most business reviews their tax liability in the final quarter and decide if should have capital expenditures in the current tax year or defer to the next tax year. Yes, I can understand your second part "would be much better off spending it on an enterprise vms or better cameras" but that is a judgment call, product A vs product B and personally see the advantage of minimizing the computer cost to accommodate the other equipment - but that is not our call. My point is that tax planning throws the economics off where an 'overpriced' computer (or whatever) may serve it's purpose for expenditure that others would not consider.

To illustrate, while I would have liked a Sony A9 camera body ($4500) and could rationalize it's use, two days ago I bought (true statement) another Sony A7rII camera body ($2700), and hypothetically lets say you liked that camera too and bought one. In your case, you are out the $2700 (plus more for a lens) and it has no impact on your taxes despite the fact that you used your hard earned money to purchase it. In my case, it reduced my hard earned net taxable business income by $2700 which at the 30% tax bracket (I wish) would have an effective cost of $1890 as it reduced my taxes $810. Now if I truly had profits that pushed me into the 30% bracket, that A9 would be sitting on my desk - but that is my call, not anyone elses. The additional body is not just a tax deduction but also makes solid business sense as well, besides qualifying me for Sony Pro support, it enables me to increase future business income by hiring a second shooter for a wedding or corporate event shoots and not increase post processing workload as color balance between the two cameras would match. The A7rII is a phenomenal camera and we could argue if should go the original A7 (now $900) or the recently introduced A9 or the two cameras in between, A7II A7sII. Belive me, those senarios went through my head. But ultimately, it was may call for the second A7rII to join my camera portfolio which also includes the A6000.

You proved my point, if you can buy a machine with the SAME exact power for 700, but choose to spend 1600, that is at least 600 down the toilet..pointless.

 

[Stanley71]

Guys give it a break. You are two sharp individuals who know their stuff. How I spend my money is no ones concern. Lets move on to beating up some else. Just joking . I've learned my lesson.

 

[Tizeye]

You proved my point, if you can buy a machine with the SAME exact power for 700, but choose to spend 1600, that is at least 600 down the toilet..pointless.

Not even CLOSE to being the same exact power, or even the other features which makes the price difference immaterial. 24mp sensor vs a 42mp sensor that was also the first to use Sony's backlit Exmore R technology in a full frame sensor, same technology use in the 1/2.8 sensor Starlights. Phase detection focus points 117 vs 399, better ergonomics as body changed for more substantive grip and angled shutter release button vs on top/straight down on the A7...and the list goes on. Don't get me wrong, the A7 is a good camera, a leader in it's day and still sells as the low cost entry. Same could be said of my A6000 which has been replaced by 2 modes yet if you go into Best Buy you will see all three on the display next to each other. The A7rII is so strong that droves of Canon and Nikon (like myself) are selling their equipment and shifting to Sony. and the A9 strikes at Canon and Nikon's highest end cameras.

Which was my point. The user ultimately decides what is best as they live with the decision and cost may not be the deciding factor. If you review the original poster, he only asked where to buy...not what to buy.

 

[fenderman]

Not even CLOSE to being the same exact power, or even the other features which makes the price difference immaterial. 24mp sensor vs a 42mp sensor that was also the first to use Sony's backlit Exmore R technology in a full frame sensor, same technology use in the 1/2.8 sensor Starlights. Phase detection focus points 117 vs 399, better ergonomics as body changed for more substantive grip and angled shutter release button vs on top/straight down on the A7...and the list goes on. Don't get me wrong, the A7 is a good camera, a leader in it's day and still sells as the low cost entry. Same could be said of my A6000 which has been replaced by 2 modes yet if you go into Best Buy you will see all three on the display next to each other. The A7rII is so strong that droves of Canon and Nikon (like myself) are selling their equipment and shifting to Sony. and the A9 strikes at Canon and Nikon's highest end cameras.

Which was my point. The user ultimately decides what is best as they live with the decision and cost may not be the deciding factor. If you review the original poster, he only asked where to buy...not what to buy.

Again you completely missed the point I don't care about your cameras I was referring to the PC the dude spend more than double on an INFERIOR pc (depending on the actual load, quite possible spend 5x what he had to)...the alienware has a shorter warranty, windows home vs pro... he will have to remove the video card and find a blank...complete waste of money.

 

[fenderman]

Guys give it a break. You are two sharp individuals who know their stuff. How I spend my money is no ones concern. Lets move on to beating up some else. Just joking . I've learned my lesson.

sorry, but dumb ideas get called out here...humor us and tell us why? OCD?

 

[Tizeye]

Again you completely missed the point I don't care about your cameras I was referring to the PC the dude spend more than double on an INFERIOR pc (depending on the actual load, quite possible spend 5x what he had to)...the alienware has a shorter warranty, windows home vs pro... he will have to remove the video card and find a blank...complete waste of money.

On that we agree. Personally, I never liked Alienware even before they were taken over by Dell. At least I gave him the link to look at the Optiplex, but bottom line, the choice was his.

 

[fenderman]

On that we agree. Personally, I never liked Alienware even before they were taken over by Dell. At least I gave him the link to look at the Optiplex, but bottom line, the choice was his.

We will never know why folks make stupid choices...