Crypto Investors Are Cashing In On a Trump Tax Break Meant To Help the Poor (yahoo.com) 102
"The mystery of how cryptocurrency miners are paying for their energy-intensive mining operations in rural areas has been solved," writes Slashdot reader fermion. "Instead of paying up to 40% in taxes, the miners build mining operations in 'opportunity zones.' There are few requirements to show these produce jobs or any income." The HuffPost reports: [Some cryptocurrency traders] are attempting to take advantage of a controversial tax incentive in Republicans' 2017 major tax legislation -- specifically, by investing in "opportunity zones," which were sold as a plan to buoy the poorest American neighborhoods but have evolved into a way for wealthy investors to funnel billions in untaxed profits into virtually any venture they choose. The law allowed companies and investors to delay and reduce their capital gains taxes after they sell a financial asset like stock, so long as they invest the money in a new project located in one of thousands of struggling American neighborhoods designated as opportunity zones. If the investment lasts for more than 10 years, the profits from the new business are completely tax-free. Investors face few requirements to prove that their projects will create jobs or housing for a community's existing residents, and scores of them have taken advantage of opportunity zones to erect high-end hotels and luxury real estate in gentrifying neighborhoods.
Crypto investors -- whose profits are subject to the capital gains tax of nearly 40% -- are making their own run at using opportunity zones by investing in energy-intensive crypto mining operations in rural places around the country. "It's a perfect fit," said Blake Christian, a Utah accountant who specializes in opportunity zones and has a newfound clientele of crypto investors. "They've just had this big windfall and invariably they're looking for a way to save some money because they're about to get drilled on short term capital gains taxes. And they want to keep rolling the dice" by staying invested in the crypto market. Fifteen or 20 clients of Christian's clients, who have made money in the low seven-figures mining or trading cryptocurrency, have set up warehouses in opportunity zones full of powerful computers that solve equations in order to "mine" cryptocurrency and lease the computing power to other customers. The ideal location for a crypto mine is close to plentiful, cheap electrical power -- of which many rural opportunity zones have plenty. One of Christian's clients is setting one up next to a Texas oil field that has promised bargain-basement rates on natural gas. Another client's startup has a similar arrangement with a solar power provider.
Tom Frazier's company, Redivider Blockchain, is raising money to manufacture prefabricated, moveable data centers that can be plunked down anywhere in the country; he sees opportunity zone status not as a black mark but as a political opportunity. He argues that by setting up shop in opportunity zones, crypto businesses could generate crucial goodwill around an industry and technology still facing widespread derision and skepticism. "We're creating jobs where Americans need them," he told HuffPost in a recent interview. Frazier said opportunity zones have gotten a reputation as a boondoggle because the vast majority of investments have involved glitzy, one-off real estate projects. Data center businesses could support tech and manufacturing jobs at locations all over the country, he said. [...] Critics say there's nothing wrong with ambitious business -- just that they don't require giant federal tax breaks. "Why are we taking forgone taxpayer revenue and subsidizing this, of all the things we want to spend our nation's money on?" said Brett Theodos, an Urban Institute senior fellow and skeptic of opportunity zones. "Is crypto mining a bad thing? Maybe yes if you're the environment, maybe not for an individual community. But is it something we need to be subsidizing, as the federal government, in order to produce? I'm not clear why we'd want to do that."
Crypto investors -- whose profits are subject to the capital gains tax of nearly 40% -- are making their own run at using opportunity zones by investing in energy-intensive crypto mining operations in rural places around the country. "It's a perfect fit," said Blake Christian, a Utah accountant who specializes in opportunity zones and has a newfound clientele of crypto investors. "They've just had this big windfall and invariably they're looking for a way to save some money because they're about to get drilled on short term capital gains taxes. And they want to keep rolling the dice" by staying invested in the crypto market. Fifteen or 20 clients of Christian's clients, who have made money in the low seven-figures mining or trading cryptocurrency, have set up warehouses in opportunity zones full of powerful computers that solve equations in order to "mine" cryptocurrency and lease the computing power to other customers. The ideal location for a crypto mine is close to plentiful, cheap electrical power -- of which many rural opportunity zones have plenty. One of Christian's clients is setting one up next to a Texas oil field that has promised bargain-basement rates on natural gas. Another client's startup has a similar arrangement with a solar power provider.
Tom Frazier's company, Redivider Blockchain, is raising money to manufacture prefabricated, moveable data centers that can be plunked down anywhere in the country; he sees opportunity zone status not as a black mark but as a political opportunity. He argues that by setting up shop in opportunity zones, crypto businesses could generate crucial goodwill around an industry and technology still facing widespread derision and skepticism. "We're creating jobs where Americans need them," he told HuffPost in a recent interview. Frazier said opportunity zones have gotten a reputation as a boondoggle because the vast majority of investments have involved glitzy, one-off real estate projects. Data center businesses could support tech and manufacturing jobs at locations all over the country, he said. [...] Critics say there's nothing wrong with ambitious business -- just that they don't require giant federal tax breaks. "Why are we taking forgone taxpayer revenue and subsidizing this, of all the things we want to spend our nation's money on?" said Brett Theodos, an Urban Institute senior fellow and skeptic of opportunity zones. "Is crypto mining a bad thing? Maybe yes if you're the environment, maybe not for an individual community. But is it something we need to be subsidizing, as the federal government, in order to produce? I'm not clear why we'd want to do that."
Well (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Gotta help out all your rich donor buddies first. https://www.cbpp.org/research/... [cbpp.org]
Re:Well (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
Was it really ever intended to be a tax break for the poor? I wasn't paying too close attention but I mainly seem to recall Trump giving tax cuts to the rich.
Re: Well (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't really raise taxes. He just stopped subsidizing overpriced homes with tax credits.
It's perfectly reasonable for the federal government to view New York and California as home price outliers and to let the tax burden of the states' policies fall on the state and not on poor states like Alabama where no one has a home worth more than $200k.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Sure, but what's not reasonable is to continue offering flood relief in its current form to those other states while arguing that we can't afford to subsidize housing prices in these states. Right now if your house is in a known flood zone and it gets wiped out by a predictable flood then you can still get paid from a government fund to rebuild in the same place. This is total batshit bullshit. I'm not against flood relief per se, although I'd like to see people with incomes above a certain level denied any
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Well (Score:5, Informative)
The median house price in Alabama is $176,000.00, so I'm not sure if that's true.
https://www.homes.com/alabama/... [homes.com]
https://www.redfin.com/state/A... [redfin.com]
Re: (Score:1)
TL/DR: Median list price seems to be between 299k and 320k right now. The first summary page you cite seem out of date or designed to show a lower price.
It's interesting that the second link you provide gives:
"There are currently 9,656 homes for sale in Alabama. The median list price in Alabama is $299,000..."
So how about a tie breaker. I looked at Zillow which claims:
"The typical home value of homes in Alabama is $186,367. This value is seasonally adjusted and only includes the middle price tier of homes
Re: Well (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Woah, woah. Hold on there. States receiving subsidies [businessinsider.com] are almost exclusively red states. That means blue states are paying more to prop up the red states. For example, Tennessee receives ~$21 billion more than it pays. Conversely, New York receives ~$24 billion less than it pays out.In other words, New York is subsidizing Tennesee.
Your taxes in Democrat states were always that high, they were just offset by other states' federal t
Re: Well (Score:1)
Re: Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Well (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest problem is its full of lawyers, not engineers.
Congress is no longer full of lawyers. Less than 40% now. Engineers and Lawyers are both very good at looking for loopholes / edge cases. It's not always clear whether the edge cases are intentional or unintentional consequences, so corruption can still let lots of bad things through. Congress is currently full of people who trust misinformation on Facebook and repeat it as their own talking points in favor of or against laws and take primarily reactive and not proactive measures. The problem with Congress is not their education and work background - just a lack of critical thinking skills. Otherwise, they'd be calling in subject matter experts (that were not cherry-picked) and actually listening to them when drafting laws. I'm not sure if any of them actually draft laws or if they just rubber stamp what a lobbyist hands them.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that there is a law frequently called "Obamacare" I don't think it is purely a right or left thing nor a particular publication's hang ups to associate a law with the president rather than the congress.
Regarding this particular law, if I recall right it actually leaves it up to the states to implement what zones were considered opportunity zones. The rich in some states were able to get some wealthy places (I want to say Portland was an example but I don't have the piece on this in front of me; I rea
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump likely had little or nothing to do with it. Congress makes laws, not the President.
Anyway, it's typical "feel good" legislation. Encourage investment in poorer areas, what could go wrong? Actually dealing with the root causes of poverty are hard, but passing a poorly thought out law - that's easy, and gets you votes. When the unintended consequences crop up, well, no one remembers who voted for the stupid law.
To which end: This finally became law with HR 1892 "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018". In the Senate, it passed 73-26. In the House it passed 411-1. So you cannot even claim it was a Republican Bill. Of course, this is one of those massive bills that contains everything including (probably) a kitchen sink. Really, the US needs to change its legislative system so that one bill can address only one issue. Otherwise the bills themselves become "too big to fail". Everybody gets his or her little piece of pork, in return for voting "yes".
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of paying companies to move to poor areas, they should have paid poor people to pack up and move to where the jobs are.
Re: (Score:1)
"Instead of paying companies to move to poor areas, they should have paid poor people to pack up and move to where the jobs are."
Yeah, but then they'd have to learn a new language. And go to the other side of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump likely had little or nothing to do with it. Congress makes laws, not the President.
Signing it into law is literally the opposite of little or nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump likely had little or nothing to do with it. Congress makes laws, not the President.
If Trump took credit for the tax break he can take the same amount of credit for the blame too. He only ever used the word "we" and "I" when talking about it, never "they" never "republicans in congress".
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
>Was it really ever intended to be a tax break for the poor? I wasn't paying too close attention but I mainly seem to recall Trump giving tax cuts to the rich.
I don't see how it could be a tax break for the poor when you have to have millions of dollars to invest to take advantage of it.
It's another one of those "trickle down" things. You basically give free money to the rich for "investing" in poor areas, such as setting up a warehouse full of crypto mining computers. This is supposed to then bolster the local economy somehow. Or the poverty zones include areas with million dollar houses which the rich then buy to rent to the "poor" (who can afford to live in million dollar houses).
Meanwhile, all that taxable money invested becomes tax free.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Look we need to move pass this knee jerk that once someone says "Trump" we're doing it solely because he's the worst worstness that could ever come out of worstville. Trump is a former President, some of his policies will be critiqued. We just recently got past the whole Bush + TSA thing where a person being critical of how stupid the airport screening can actually focus on the shittiness of the airport and not it being "Oh well you all just hate everything Bush did". And don't get me started on Obama's international policy and how being critical of that for a time got you the racist label.
President's make mistakes and sometimes President's make the right call. Recalling any of that doesn't put you in a camp. This is why history becomes some weird thing to talk about because everyone thinks you have an agenda. Because when you say something negative some people jump into the "WHY DID YOU MENTION THAT!? YOU MUST HATE <INSERT FAVORITE CAMP>!!"
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
President's make mistakes and sometimes President's make the right call.
Trump made mistakes, but none of them were with his policies, which were intended to benefit people like him. Some of those policies are rightly called bad policies by everyone not like him (i.e. wealthy and unconcerned with morality) but that does not make them mistakes if they were deliberate and profitable. It makes them evil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Way to completely miss the posters point and just complain about Trump. Look, I'm middle class, and my overall federal tax rate went down under Trump. Was it just me, nope, all of the people I know in my class ended up with more money to spend at the end of the month so yeah, he did help the middle class.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
At the cost of "higher budget deficit [wikipedia.org],[14] higher trade deficit,[15] greater income inequality,[16][17] and lower healthcare coverage and higher healthcare costs". Did your total costs actually go down? Did average americans' total costs actually go down, or is someone poorer than you paying for your tax cut?
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
Way to completely miss the posters point and just complain about Trump. Look, I'm middle class, and my overall federal tax rate went down under Trump.
If so, you didn't get as much of a break as you would have if you were rich. And the biggest break went to people whose income came from investments, rather than from working.
In any case: enjoy it now. The law had an interesting feature in it. The income tax cuts for the middle class were temporary. The tax cuts for corporations and billionaires, however, were permanent.
See https://taxfoundation.org/look... [taxfoundation.org] :
December 31st, 2025, will be a significant day for most taxpayers. Twenty-three provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [TCJA] directly relating to individual income taxes will expire, meaning most taxpayers will see a tax hike unless some or all provisions are extended. Some of the most impactful provisions scheduled to expire include the TCJA’s reduction of individual income rates, increased child tax credit, the increased AMT exemption and phaseout threshold, and the increased standard deduction. The individual income tax code is effectively scheduled to return to what it was before the TCJA, meaning personal exemptions, the overall limitation on itemized deductions, uncapped state and local tax deductions, and many other miscellaneous itemized deductions will return. Despite most of the individual income tax code returning to its pre-TCJA structure, inflation adjustments will continue to be determined by the Chained Consumer Price Index (C-CPI), as set by TCJA, which will result in most taxes increasing when compared to their pre-TCJA levels. Additionally, the qualified business income deduction, which allows pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20 percent of their income, will also expire."
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Yup, someone who makes makes more will get a bigger tax break because that is how percentages work. Please stop being a fool and thinking that you are entitled to take from people because YOU think they are somehow bad. I bet you were the same kid on the playground that took candy from someone else who had because you wanted it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
someone who makes makes more will get a bigger tax break because that is how percentages work
Tell us you willfully missed the point without literally saying "I am a trumpist bootlicker"
The tax breaks for everyone but the ultra-wealthy and corporations will expire in 2025. This is NOT about people in higher brackets paying more taxes and thus saving more. This is about the tax break you love so well being explicitly designed to fuck over everyone who's not rich. That includes you. Congratulations, you're getting screwed and cheering for it.
Re: (Score:1)
I am anything but that, but I am also tired of people like you who want more stuff, and who also feel entitled to tell others they must pay for your stuff. Last I checked, the top 10% percent pay like 70% of the total taxes paid into the government. You are free to act like a selfish brat for all I care, but be aware that there are some of us who do see through your childish rants about more, more and more. The end.
Re: (Score:3)
Last I checked, the top 10% percent pay like 70% of the total taxes paid into the government.
They make more than 70% of the profits, so fuck those fucking fucks if they won't pay their fair share.
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
and my overall federal tax rate went down under Trump
Was that a good thing? I mean your infrastructure is falling apart, your nation is getting poisoned by its own drinking water, your public transport is benchmark of what not to do... Maybe if you stopped focusing on getting a tax break to buy a new TV the country may not be flushing itself down the metaphorical toilet.
Re: (Score:1)
Was that a good thing? I mean your infrastructure is falling apart, your nation is getting poisoned by its own drinking water, your public transport is benchmark of what not to do...
The USA is a big place. For many people, these things you speak of may as well be happening in some overseas 3rd world country. As long as they have a nice big SUV to drive to their comfy upper-middle-class job and an average suburban house to come home to, the rest of the country could go to hell in a handbasket.
Also, those of us who are barely scraping by don't enjoy the prospects of higher taxes either, because it almost never goes towards directly improving our situation. For example back during the
Re: (Score:2)
The USA is a big place.
A big place with a big population and a high urbanisation rate. The funny thing is you actually need that big SUV because in some cases roads in the cities of wealthy districts are reminiscent of the kind of tire shredding suspension softening shit you drive over in a 3rd world country.
Yeah, it would be great to have health coverage, but I kinda need that money for rent, Mr. Sanders.
I wasn't addressing you specifically. Rather the middle class and rich fuckers. Taxes are not applied uniformly for reasons you state, and countries which apply the most uniform taxes seem to have some of the better social sa
Re: Well (Score:2, Insightful)
The Trump Tax Reform [Re: Well] (Score:4, Informative)
...Second, it's the State and local governments who decide the zoning and business licensing in these "opportunity zones."
No, not in this case. The "Opportunity Zone" tax exemption referred to is federal, part of the Trump tax bill (officially the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017", Public Law No. 115-97). https://www.irs.gov/credits-de... [irs.gov]
If someone built a luxury hotel it's because the zoning allowed it, if a neighborhood is being "gentrified" it's because the local politicians are making that happen. So when people find loopholes like this one, Congress and local Politicians immediately deflect the blame.
The discussion here is not about luxury hotels, zoning laws, or gentrification. It is about a break on the capital gains tax written into federal law.
Trump is an easy scapegoat because people will froth at the mouth when you mention his name, or puff up their chests, and within a few minutes the conversation will devolve into a pro/anti Trump argument and those who are actually responsible can simply wander away.
In this case, Trump advocated strongly for the tax plan and claimed credit for it when it was passed; and it was passed by the Republicans with no Democrats voting for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a direct copy paste from the page you linked to contradicting what you said in the paragraph where you posted the link:
States nominate communities for the designation, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury certifies that nomination.
I'm not for or against this tax legislation and I have a very low opinion of cryptocurrency, but your statement of "No, not in this case" in response to a quote of "it's the State and local governments who decide the zoning" is just wrong. You may have a valid point, but it's not what you wrote.
Re: (Score:3)
I would count the Department of Treasury as federal, but ok, you do make a valid point. I phrased my statement incorrectly. It is a federal law we are discussing, not a state law, but indeed the states nominate which communities.
But my point stands. The statement was "Second, it's the State and local governments who decide the zoning and business licensing in these "opportunity zones". It's true that state and local governments do this, but we're not talking about zoning or business licensingm nor even wh
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It is important to remember that tax cuts don't actually cost anything because the money doesn't belong to the public in the first place. People often react as if failing to steal a big enough cut of what someone earned is som
Re: (Score:3)
It is important to remember that tax cuts don't actually cost anything because the money doesn't belong to the public in the first place. People often react as if failing to steal a big enough cut of what someone earned is somehow stealing from them.
Your entire comment has been completely invalidated by your ludicrous "taxes == theft" horseshit. But I'll respond anyway. The money actually does belong to the public, because that's another name for The People, who are the government, and the currency is a tool of the government. You are wrong on literally every level.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry did you actually have some sort of argument or does having a differ conclusion circularly reinforce itself in your mind these days?
"The money actually does belong to the public, because that's another name for The People, who are the government, and the currency is a tool of the government."
The money belongs to the member/members of the public it is being taken from. it doesn't belong to THE REST of the
Re: (Score:2)
That farmer might have a surplus vs the person who bought the loaf of bread at the end so you might say "Why not take the surplus from the farmer and give it to the poor person who needs the bread more?" The answer is actually fairly simple even though there is more than one.
No, you're simple. Simply selfish.
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly you fall into the former. I tend to fall into the later as it reflects the re
Re: (Score:2)
The money actually does belong to the public...
Do you also believe, as the Gravel Institute does, that all profit is theft? Because that would imply the government, in taxing profits, is receiving money stolen from the people.
Or do you believe that if I am needy enough (as defined by the government) that I somehow have a right to a portion of your paycheck? And that failing to hand over the money would be stealing from me? The majority of the US government budget is collected from individual income t
Re: (Score:2)
Do you also believe, as the Gravel Institute does, that all profit is theft?
What I believe is that a business which literally cannot exist without the protection of government owes its very existence to the will of The People, and if it doesn't serve the public (in part through sustainability) then it not only deserves to be destroyed, but must be eliminated in order for the public good to be served.
The majority of the US government budget is collected from individual income taxes.
Which is a massive intentional failing of the system bought and paid for by the ultra-wealthy through the corporations they control.
Bribing of cheapest politicians? (Score:2)
Yes, of course we can blame [he whose name need no longer be mentioned] for this first tax loophole ever found with a well-intentioned tax break!
Quoted for visibility, though I'm not endorsing it, even if it wasn't a joke.
You were going for Funny, right? Apparently the censorious trolls have no sense of humor to go with their other mental flaws.
However the deeper problem is a tax system written by the most cheaply bribed politicians. The RoI on successfully bribing politicians is extremely high and their isn't even any penalty for failure as long as you aren't incredibly stupid about it. The rules around the bribery deserve the most Funny mod points
Then get the law fixed (Score:5, Insightful)
Every law has unintended consequences. That's life.
Re: Then get the law fixed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
/. moderation system is totally wonk-o (Score:2)
Insightful?
Have you people been smoking jimson weed again?
Re: (Score:2)
Every law has unintended consequences. That's life.
Incompetent Presidents and legislators who have alternate objectives are bound to write laws with unintended consequences.
Besides, how do you expect it to get fixed? What motive do the GOP Senators have to not filibuster a fix?
"Investors"? (Score:2)
Re: "Investors"? (Score:2, Insightful)
These people purchased equipment, negotiated energy contracts, and aren't involved in market speculation. They are investors of the most traditional kind.
Just because you don't understand someone's business model doesn't mean they're not investing in a business.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should read the article before spouting off and looking like a fucking moron.
Re: (Score:3)
These people purchased equipment, negotiated energy contracts,
Pumping
and aren't involved in market speculation.
Unless they dump the crypto later. Though it's hard to call it speculation when they have a hand in architecting the pump and dump.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pure gambling. They spend money, yes, but they do not produce any value. An actual investment is characterized by producing value, not just by hoping to take money away from others with nothing in return.
Personally, I would call them "greedy bastards".
Re: "Investors"? (Score:2)
Apple doesn't provide anything of value.
Because I don't use their products, they provide no value to me, so they must not provide any value...
What a retarded outlook...
Re: (Score:3)
How is dropping a couple of million bucks in capex in an attempt to create a revenue stream not investing?
Re: (Score:2)
"Investment" needs creation of value not just spending money. Gambling, on the other hand, is just spending money and redistributing said money with no value created.
Re: (Score:2)
The miners aren't gambling. They're performing a service that people are willing to pay for. If you want to characterize speculating on the value of bitcoin as gambling, then the miners are building and operating the backend datacenter for an online casino.
Re: (Score:2)
The miners aren't gambling. They're performing a service that people are willing to pay for. If you want to characterize speculating on the value of bitcoin as gambling, then the miners are building and operating the backend datacenter for an online casino.
Yes. Every good gambling scheme needs an operator. The miners are that operator. In this case the operator is stupid and gambling itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a bit less than opening an actual casino would be gambling. They have to buy some equipment, but it's got a pretty good resale value and has a short payback period. Their major expense is electricity, which is turned into money on a timescale that would make most businesses jealous.
I suppose a few might be mining and holding bitcoin, but I suspect the majority turn it into real currency as quickly as they can. They're running the casino and taking their fairly predictable rake.
Not easy to get into (Score:3)
Opportunity zone rules are actually fairly hard to use, you can't simply buy a house in an OZ and get the credit, there's specific approved organizations you have to work with.
So there may be actual fraud going on here as well, or perhaps non-compliance with the OZ requirements.
Re: Not easy to get into (Score:3)
Or, maybe they followed all the local regulations and are operating completely above board.
Your mind seems to have been poisoned by cryptocurrency haters who want to convince everyone the industry is a criminal enterprise.
Re: Not easy to get into (Score:4, Interesting)
This actually has nothing to do with cryptocurrency per se, it's really just pointing out that corrupt capitalists will find a way to dodge taxes, including setting up corporations that give nothing at all back to the community while reaping huge tax benefits for themselves. Regardless of how you view cryptocurrency, you can't argue that there are any jobs or investments into the community going on here, so the ostensible spirit of the law is being broken here.
Any other endeavour that does the same should be similarly scrutinized. It's a bad law taken advantage of by amoral people that don't care about anyone else, that's all.
Re: (Score:2)
omg my mind has been poisoned into thinking programs to benefit the poor in disadvantaged neighborhoods may not be intended for the rich to benefit only themselves. Freaking communism. I'm not even a leftist bro. You're projecting.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA etc. (Score:2)
There is no corruption without a "system" (Score:2)
* "Unfair" is anything done to/for certain groups, but not others.
Re: (Score:2)
* "Unfair" is anything done to/for certain groups, but not others.
No, that's "uneven". "Unfair" is when one group is suffering and another group isn't, and you either don't do what it takes to help the suffering group, or "give" the same help to everyone while taking the resources for it from everyone, including those who are suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the article moron (Score:2)
You can fuck off now.
Re: (Score:2)
And even if that were not the case (though it is) a deferral on a large amount of taxes which is provided only to someone who has a large amount of money (and is therefore not available to people who do not) still represents free money as they are not being charged what they normally would. That means they still have the money and can invest it and get paid more, or they don't have to have the money and have access to investments that someone else would have made and paid taxes on... providing tax revenue w
Re: (Score:1)
Except that is WRONG. That's my point. go talk to your accountant/financial advisor if you doubt me, don't trust some internet article.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.irs.gov/credits-de... [irs.gov]
There is a tax exclusion after 5, 7, and 10 years which amounts to a whopping total of 15% excluded if you wait the full period (of the capital gains, which would be higher than income anyway). Not 100%.
Again, stop hyperventilating about the 1% and being mad at Trump. This article is literally "FAKE NEWS."
Help me understand... (Score:2, Interesting)
How is this not a proper use of an opportunity zone?
They are buying or leasing commercial real estate.
They are paying local business taxes.
They are paying contractors to build out the space.
They are paying Electricians and HVAC techs to build the infrastructure for the space.
Then they have people locally to babysit the miners.
Is the complaint here "They aren't hiring a bunch of people in factory jobs."?
It is and that's the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason China banned crypto is that it's all cost and no profit for everyone but the miners. And the worst thing is it we all opportunities zone projects end up like this. The Entire thing is basically a scam. I forget all the details about why it's so useless and how and why it was built to funnel money directly into the pockets of lobbyists and Friends of the people who wrote the law. You can do a little googling if you care to find out the details for yourself. But at no point in time are these opportunities on laws meant to help communities.
Working as intended (Score:5, Insightful)
When you get the tax break BEFORE you create the jobs, that's not an accident, it's a feature. The lawmakers who write these laws know exactly what they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The great scam artist probably got a pay-off somewhere for this.
What did you expect? (Score:1)
It's pretty simple, really. People won't willingly submit to higher taxation when a lower alternative is available no matter how hard you brow beat them. Crypto mining has nothing to do with it. And Trump or the Republicans have nothing to do with it either. Furthermore, the harder you squeeze, the more likely people are to go elsewhere which means no matter what you do, the miners are going to go where the operating costs are lowest and if that means going out of the country, that's what's going to hap
"Trump Tax Break Meant To Help The Poor" (Score:1)
"Trump" tax break? (Score:2)
"The policy as we know it today is based on the bipartisan Investing in Opportunity Act, which was championed by Senators Tim Scott (R-SC) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Representatives Pat Tiberi (R-OH) and Ron Kind (D-WI), who led a regionally and politically diverse coalition of nearly 100 congressional cosponsors in the House and Senate. The bill was first introduced in 2016 in the 114th Congress and reintroduced in 2017 in the 115th Congress. "
this is why USA's taxes are SOOO bad (Score:2)
1) remove all tax exemptions, breaks, write-offs, etc for both corporate and personal income taxes.
2) create a federal VAT or sales tax of 10%, applied to everything except for food. Why do this? Because companies have moved off-shore.
3) change personal income tax to be:
a) a simple summation of EVERY $/bonus that you obtained: wages, salari
Do the math. It's a handout (Score:1)
But is it something we need to be subsidizing, as the federal government, in order to produce? I'm not clear why we'd want to do that."
A bit naive, the clarity couldn't be more obvious
Trump tax break (Score:2)
Thanks, Obama ! /sarcasm
So, just another loophole found and exploited (Score:2)
I honestly don't even think it's conceivable that you'd give Trump the credit to be crafty and intelligent enough to have purposely put this legislation out there to help wealthy crypto-miners?
This is just another example of unintended consequences of adding more legislation to the massive pile of it we've already got.
Sadly, some people just never seem to get that we need to REDUCE government's meddling in things and aim for LESS legislation. Instead, they'll want to write MORE addendums to this law to clos
Solve quations? Nah. (Score:1)
Nah. What the computers do is slog through mind-numbing calculations by applying a specified algorithm to any arbitrary number that falls within a range from 0 to a specified maximum. The more powerful -- the faster at doing these kinds of calculations -- they are, the better chance they have of being first among the competing miners to stumble upon the starting number that yields a "correct" result — one that is less than some m
Gentrification is the point (Score:1)
re:: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
it's how it's called, right?
Yes, exactly.