What's so fantastic about Apple?

[WildCat]

If I spend £1200 on a computer, that full amount is deducted off my annual profits. I pay tax on profits (after I reach my personal tax allowance). I buy a cheaper computer and it translates to making more profit, which in turn means paying more tax. I'd rather have a more expensive computer and pay less tax, than have a cheaper computer and pay more tax. It's not necessarily about saving money using the tax deduction, it's about me spending my money on me and not donating it to the government.

Does that make more sense?

You'd pay more tax, but you'd also have more profit.

Why would you want less profit because you bought a more expensive computer?

 

[WildCat]

But if you made a smaller expenditure on the computer, then sure, you'd have more profits to be taxed, but you'd still have higher profits. So unless you're at the cusp of the next tax bracket

That makes no difference at all, you still make more profit by buying the less expensive computer.

 

[WildCat]

You're still not getting it. It's not about having more money to spend on me, it's about giving the government less.

So why work at all? If you don't have income the government can't tax your income at all.

 

[Stray Cat]

So why work at all? If you don't have income the government can't tax your income at all.

Some reasons off the top of my head:
I love my job
Stuff isn't free
I'm not a benefit scrounging git

Jeez you people are uptight.

 

[Stray Cat]

You'd pay more tax, but you'd also have more profit.

Yes the "you'd pay more tax" part doesn't appeal to me one jot.
And I make enough money to not want any more profit.

 

[Brian-M]

As I pointed out originally, the tax portion of my reasoning is only a part of my choice. Overall considering my situation, the tax deductability of my Macs is relevant to me.

I don't have a problem with the rest of your reasoning for preferring a Mac over a PC. (I've never used a Mac, so I can't evaluate the validity of your statements from personal experience.) It's the tax argument that has me confused.

All computers purchased for the purpose of running a business are tax deductible. For tax purposes, is a Mac treated any differently from a PC? If not, how is being able to deduct it on your taxes in any way relevant to your choice in computer purchase?

(Slightly irrelevant... I'm not sure how you do things over there, but over here I think a computer would be considered a capital purchase rather than a business expense. But that only means you deduct the depreciation of the value of the computer over several years, rather than the purchase price from your income in one go. But it works out to the same amount.)

Seems to me that what he's trying to say is,

Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

If I spend £1200 on a computer, that full amount is deducted off my annual profits. I pay tax on profits (after I reach my personal tax allowance). I buy a cheaper computer and it translates to making more profit, which in turn means paying more tax. I'd rather have a more expensive computer and pay less tax, than have a cheaper computer and pay more tax. It's not necessarily about saving money using the tax deduction, it's about me spending my money on me and not donating it to the government.

Okay, you're pandering yourself by getting a computer you enjoy using rather than a more economical computer. That's fair enough. But it's somewhat dishonest to pretend you're doing it for tax reasons.

Pointless rambling that others have already beaten me to...

I don't know what your marginal tax rate is, but for the sake of this example I'll assume that you're paying a corporate tax rate of 30%...

Let's say you spend If £1200 on a computer, you end up paying £360 less in tax, making the net cost of the computer £840.

But if you only spent £1000 on a computer, you end up paying £300 less in tax, making the net cost of the computer £700.

So, financially you're £140 better off getting the cheaper computer.

From this, the only motive to buy the more expensive computer would be either because you have chosen the more expensive computer for non-tax reasons (such as personal preference, or it does a better job), or you are willing to throw away your money in order to deny the government a smaller amount of money in tax revenue (but this could just as easily be achieved by buying a very expensive PC, unnecessary office supplies, or charging your clients less money).

Either way, there's no tax reason to pick a Mac over a PC.

You're still not getting it. It's not about having more money to spend on me, it's about giving the government less.
The larger my profit margin, the more tax I pay.

That's hardly a Mac vs PC issue. There are many ways you could achieve the same result. Buying a more expensive PC, maybe with dual monitors, huge memory and the most expensive graphics card on the market. Or just charge your clients less. Or buy more advertising. Or put your money into a tax-shelter, like a superannuation fund.

Over here, superannuation is a great tax shelter. You can deduct 100% of up to $5000 of voluntary contributions, and 75% of contributions above that. Unlike buying a more expensive computer, you get your money back when you retire, plus profits (which are only taxed at 15%).

So unless you're at the cusp of the next tax bracket and the (admittedly large) price difference between the two computers is the only thing stopping you going over that limit into paying higher taxes,

Even then it wouldn't make much difference. The higher tax bracket only affects the portion of your income that falls within the bracket, not your whole income.

 

[Stray Cat]

That's hardly a Mac vs PC issue.

Well that's where you're going wrong then.
I'm not involved in a Mac v PC discussion... that's your beef.

I'll refer you to this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7939902&postcount=8

 

[Brian-M]

Well that's where you're going wrong then.
I'm not involved in a Mac v PC discussion... that's your beef.

I'll refer you to this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7939902&postcount=8

But then you made these posts...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7967830#post7967830
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7969091#post7969091

... which provide the (possibly incorrect) impression that you were arguing the advantages of a Mac over PC (ie, the Mac vs. PC debate).

I apologize for forgetting that you'd claimed detachment over the issue a couple of hundred posts earlier.

 

[John Albert]

Yeah, this discussion is getting rather absurd.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yeah, this discussion is getting rather absurd.

This discussion actually illustrates my biggest frustration with Apple. The cognitive dissonance Apple fosters in it's clientele through Apple's marketing strategies is disgusting (and potentially dangerous).

 

[Kid Eager]

This discussion actually illustrates my biggest frustration with Apple. The cognitive dissonance Apple fosters in it's clientele through Apple's marketing strategies is disgusting (and potentially dangerous).

I don't think the dissonance is confined to one camp however - try re-reading the thread and replace Mac and PC with Dem and Republican and see how it looks...

 

[John Albert]

This discussion actually illustrates my biggest frustration with Apple. The cognitive dissonance Apple fosters in it's clientele through Apple's marketing strategies is disgusting (and potentially dangerous).

Dunno about dangerous, but it's certainly laughable.

It's a great object-lesson about the power of marketing though, isn't it?

I don't think the dissonance is confined to one camp however - try re-reading the thread and replace Mac and PC with Dem and Republican and see how it looks...

There is no "Mac vs. PC." There are no "two camps."

"Mac vs. PC" has been a thoroughly outdated concept ever since 2001 when Apple switched away from its PPC processor platform over to Intel x86.

The perpetuation of the "Mac vs. PC" war is a false duality created through Apple's marketing.

There is in fact one platform, the Intel-based x86 "PC," which has a variety of operating systems that can run on it. Microsoft and Apple just happen to be the two largest corporations that manufacture operating systems and hardware on that single platform.

This particular thread happens to be about Apple, which sells its OS pre-installed on vastly overpriced hardware designed by fashionistas, and why so many of its users feel it's so great when in fact it's just another tech company that engages in some extraordinarily deceptive business and marketing practices.

 

[Darat]

Indeed, some people are a bit silly for not first researching the products they want aren't they.




Next time I need a new oven I'll make sure I know what fuels it first.

Not the same type of comparison, the adverts in the UK did not make it clear that it required a PC to do what the company said you could do, there was no reason from the adverts to think that a PC was required, they were not sold as a PC accessory.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't think the dissonance is confined to one camp however - try re-reading the thread and replace Mac and PC with Dem and Republican and see how it looks...

I'm sorry, how does replacing Mac vs PC with Dem vs Republicans (or the other way around) prove that it's not just one camp exercising cognitive dissonance?

And, ftr, most of the conversations here wouldn't work as Dem vs Repub...just sayin...

 

[kajata]

It's amazing how marketing, along with great customer service and products that have the highest customer satisfaction in ther class will lead to great success.

 

[John Albert]

It's amazing how marketing, along with great customer service and products that have the highest customer satisfaction in ther class will lead to great success.

You appear to be overlooking the fact that one trait (marketing) might be the cause of the other (customer satisfaction). I understand most religious adherents feel a high degree of "customer satisfaction" from their chosen god(s), as well.

 

[Kid Eager]

Dunno about dangerous, but it's certainly laughable.

It's a great object-lesson about the power of marketing though, isn't it?






There is no "Mac vs. PC." There are no "two camps."

"Mac vs. PC" has been a thoroughly outdated concept ever since 2001 when Apple switched away from its PPC processor platform over to Intel x86.

The perpetuation of the "Mac vs. PC" war is a false duality created through Apple's marketing.

There is in fact one platform, the Intel-based x86 "PC," which has a variety of operating systems that can run on it. Microsoft and Apple just happen to be the two largest corporations that manufacture operating systems and hardware on that single platform.

This particular thread happens to be about Apple, which sells its OS pre-installed on vastly overpriced hardware designed by fashionistas, and why so many of its users feel it's so great when in fact it's just another tech company that engages in some extraordinarily deceptive business and marketing practices.

My my... such emotion. Calm down, people are allowed to disagree with your opinion.

 

[John Albert]

My my... such emotion. Calm down, people are allowed to disagree with your opinion.

Those are facts, not emotions.

 

[Kid Eager]

You appear to be overlooking the fact that one trait (marketing) might be the cause of the other (customer satisfaction). I understand most religious adherents feel a high degree of "customer satisfaction" from their chosen god(s), as well.

Incorrect. Customer satisfaction starts with an appropriate matching of perceptions to expectations established by the marketing.

Subsequent levels of satisfaction are achieved through the ongoing achievement of the utility and warranty of a product or service, compared to what was offered or marketed.

 

[Kid Eager]

Those are facts, not emotions.

They are opinions, not emotions, actually.