All Forum Posts by: Andrey Y.

@Andrey Y. to answer your question about 18 vs 19...QBI was new in 2018, so the reporting wasn't completely clear nor were syndicates completely up to speed on properly reporting based on the Regs.  We will likely continue to see changes around QBI reporting and before you know it...it will be gone!  

If I am understanding you correctly, at least several k-1s have multiple trades or businesses for QBI reporting.

Yes, technically you should report each of these columns of these separately. QBI is not something you elect in or out of, or volunteer not to report. There is an incredible volume of rules that will impact QBI reporting as it relates to losses, loss carryforwards, how they net against each other, what happens when losses are released. Then also depending on your income level you have the W-2 wage and UBIAQP limitations to contend with. Every one of these should be considered at a separate trade or business level.

If you decide the disregard the QBI reporting all together because you don't want to contend with the software you will either be throwing out a deduction of up to 20% of the income the activity is throwing off, or you'll be messing up your QBI loss reporting by not having the proper carryforwards and end up claiming too much of a QBI deduction in future years.

@Andrey Y. it’s one eight hundred-six five nine- two nine five five and when a customer rep picks up as them you want to talk to a tier 2 rep

I called a tier 2 representative and to my knowledge there is so many glitches and errors and my advice is to try to talk to someone. I called this morning and was told my business name didn’t match my bank account name which is only my name and we made changes and she marked it in her notes for immediate change and I made sure my bank account info was correct. My credit was ran 4/21 and I only did the short app I’m a sole proprietor. So hopefully now I get answers. 

@Andrey Y.

I mean if you really want to

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's easier to solve than a virus.

Autonomous driving would solve that issue.

Those deaths are preventable. A cure-all panacea on the other hand is a lot harder to make.

But I like your enthusiasm you've got spunk.

@Bryan Beal

Not sure if you changed your mind later, but theres plenty of people that go out knowing the risks involved. Those people are called trash , why would you knowingly spread a disease with no vaccine.

I 100% disagree with your logic those who want to go back to work should and those who dont shouldn't. It wouldn't work like that if you're "essential" and not important essential like medicine and food.

You're already forced to work at risk.

If it was optional, businesses would stay open and not pay the workers who choose to stay at home unless they got infected.

Personally the economy and businesses can go bankrupt and be forgotten for all we care as long as mitigating infectious diseases potentially saves any amount of lives.

People who arent turning a profit right now can take out a business loan or find a temporary corporate job. There are risks in running a business this is a risk that owners should take economically not workers with their lives.

You're talking just like the college students who went on vacations and to parties because YOLO who cares we know the risks and it doesnt seem that bad, but maybe I'm being harsh. The point is a total shutdown for an extended period of time would mitigate the situation.

Mortality rate is up in the air.

You quote .11%

Sure if you look at total infected vs deaths it might be that low, but people who get COVID don't immediately die upon infection.

Why dont you take a look at mortality from the recovered vs deceased patients. It paint's a bit worse of a picture.

But then again this isn't just another opinion I throw out into the internet debating morals and opinions.

I care about it, but it's hard to change anything unless you're in the right government position with connections.

The bottom line is who cares about the economic ramifications, for the most part anything that will effect quality of life,will stay in tact.

The country and world will continue to function and equally imperfect as it has been. Why not stop the spread a bit , give people vacation s who will work most their lives and watch some businesses burn it'll teach people important lessons

I have to say that sometimes, we should think a bit outside the box.

During the time when the Spring Breakers were doing their thing, AND we knew they were spreading the Virus.... What do you think was the WORST thing to do?

SHUT DOWN the spring Breakers at the time that they had all passed the virus to themselves and tell them to go home to where ever they came from.

Imagine you had 50 Petri dishes.

One of those dishes, call it Florida, had a spreading red spot and all the others were very clear and stable.

Then you took a drop of the Florida dish and put a tiny drop in all the other 49.

I think we can clearly see that this is probably the WORST policy one could have imagined to have done.

The BEST policy would have been to just allow the Florida dish to turn red and then after two weeks, turn back to Clear.

So, if you think about it, instead of spending several TRILLIONS of dollars to try and contain 50 dishes from getting to a red state.... it would have been much better to spend less than a Trillion to let the Spring Breakers enjoy themselves for the 2 or 3 weeks locked down in their party place while they developed the HERD Immunity.

In fact, I don't even think you would need more than a Billion or even less to make these Spring Breakers Happy and keep them contained for 3 weeks!

You would have contained the virus and made a whole bunch of Spring Breakers happy... and probably got a few babies out of that as well.

The Funny thing about this way of thinking is that if you had thrown MORE money to let the Spring Breakers have MORE freedom to party, we could have actually slowed down the spread of the Virus much better than forcing them to go home to the other 49 Petri Dishes.

In this way, I agree with Bryan. Thinking to shut down everything when we knew the Virus was spreading only made it WORSE, not better.

Allowing the Party Animals to Party, giving them Money to continue under the lock down in those areas, seems to be a WIN-WIN scenario. The Party Animals win as they are happy to Party on our dime... the nation wins because the Party Animals develop Herd Immunity BEFORE they go home.

Or am I way off here?

BTW, there are lock down related deaths that are NOT being counted. For instance:

1) Increased Child Abuse deaths due to the fact that School closures resulted in higher cases of Child Abuse

2) Domestic Violence Deaths as Families are force to stay together without respite generally from going to work

3) Increased Suicide from the Stress of losing jobs

etc.

Count ALL the deaths... not just the Coronavirus related deaths. The lock down related deaths should be compared to the Coronavirus related deaths. If it gets close in comparison, then you have to wonder if the lock down was worth it.

New to investing and trying to fully create a 10 year vision or business plan. Currently I plan to save 2k a month. To increase the amount of units I can purchase and cash flow I want to stick with property under 100k. My question is do you think we will continue to have these sort of properties 6-10 years from now or should I start off assuming a higher amount?