Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (684662)	11/13/2012 2:30:08 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572301

Too bad for me. Not a subscriber. But my point was that you can't sensibly talk about "corporate loopholes" in a generic sense because they are pretty much all there with good reason. To discuss "loopholes" intelligently, you have to understand why it is there in the first place, and what the downside of eliminating it would be -- to research this correctly, one would usually have to refer to the committee reports for the legislation to get the full picture. Some so-called "loopholes" are there because they are the most stimulative thing government can do -- for example, accelerated depreciation. Others are there to prevent double-counting of income, which is inherently unfair and may even present a wherewithal to pay conundrum. Some are there for public policy reasons. And some, perhaps, need to be eliminated. But to speak of "loopholes" in a generic sense is just waste of time as it means everything and therefore means nothing.