How U.S. Depreciation works Explain in brief?
If a business tool has a limited lifespan, it's value decreases (depreciates) from year to year. The business can capture that loss of value on some things that it couldn't otherwise write off as expenses. A few tools can be either expenses or depreciated, but only one of those can be chosen for that particular object. This is generally not relevant for individual taxpayers, unless you can show that the item is being used for income-producing purposes.
This is bullshit. The US government requires taxes to be paid in USD. There's your intrinsic value. If you want to be compliant with the federal law, your business and you as an individual are required to convert assets or labor into USD to pay them. This was such a wonderful and clear explanation. It has helped me to understand (at 28) a concept that I have always been a bit murky on. I would feel safe making the bet that you are a teacher of some sort. I would find it extremely interesting to hear you thoughts on why we don't use the gold standard anymore. Do you work in finance? On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask :  How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position.  This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position.  Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500.  This is the first point you are questioning.   (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment :  I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option.  Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement.  For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call.  The net being $500 = $1000-$500.  This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer. "While you have asked for general principles, I am going to seize onto a specific example you gave in order to illustrate the difficulties here: Argentina. Argentina's bonds are probably not safer than US treasuries. Argentina is presently in the business of seizing foreign oil businesses (Repsol YPF) while championing leftist causes. At the very least this indicates an elevated level of political risk: S&P, which affirmed Argentina's ratings five notches into junk territory at B, said policies such as those enacted since the country's October presidential election could also weaken Argentina's macroeconomic framework and external liquidity... ""Actions of this type continue to shorten the economic planning horizon in the country and contribute to Argentina's deteriorating economic and political links with the international community."" -- ""S&P Lowers Argentina Outlook To Negative"". The Wall Street Journal, 23 April 2012 You're not going to be able to capture that sort of a risk with raw budget numbers. It's hard enough to figure out creditworthiness for a business; for an entire nation it's even harder. That's why credit-rating firms, as faulty as they may be, employ dozens of people to try and figure this sort of thing out. Additionally, there is a currency risk associated with buying bonds denominated in foreign currencies. It doesn't matter much if $nation repays all its bonds if they have so much inflation that the repayment is worth half of what it used to be (nor is it much help if your own nation's currency rises in value while your investment's value is stable elsewhere). Ultimately the value of a bond is ""how much money am I actually going to get back?"" and while operating a budget surplus isn't a bad sign in and of itself, it's hardly the complete picture. A fair accounting of the relative creditworthiness of any two nations needs to unite two massive fields of study: Macroeconomics and Politics. It is possible that the right sort of degree in economics, risk management, or a similar field of study could prepare you to know exactly what sort of research is necessary to make a meaningful analysis. :) Now, if you just want some commentary on which bonds are safe to buy, ask a credit-rating agency -- for example, read Standard and Poor's sovereign ratings - or find a mutual fund which may invest in international bonds at its own discretion and have someone else make the decisions." "The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to ""buy"" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a ""basket"" of things they produce that another country will want, and a ""shopping list"" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency." Illustrating with a shorter example:  Suppose I deposit 1,000 USD. Every year I deposit another 100 USD. I want to know how much money will be on that savings account in 4 years.  The long-hand calculation is Expressed with a summation  And using the formula derived from the summation (as shown by DJohnM) So for 20 years Note in year 20 (or year 4 in the shorter example) the final $100 deposit does not have any time to accrue interest before the valuation of the account. Money itself has no value. A gold bar is worth (fuzzy rushed math, could be totally wrong on this example figure) $423,768.67. So, a 1000 dollars, while worthless paper, are a token saying that you own %.2 of a gold bar in the federal reserve. If a billion dollars are printed, but no new gold is added to the treasury, then your dollar will devalue, and youll only have %.1 percent of that gold bar (again, made up math to describe a hypothetical). When dollars are introduced into the economy, but gold has not been introduced to back it up, things like the government just printing dollars or banks inventing money out of debt (see the housing bubble), then the dollar tokens devalue further. TL;DR: Inflation is the ratio of actual wealth in the Treasury to the amount of currency tokens the treasury has printed. To understand this fully one would need to understand quite a few things. Not in scope here. In short, whenever China sells goods to US, it gets USD as most of the trades are in USD. China uses this money to buy other things it needs like Oil etc. After this they still have quite a bit of USD left with them. The money is left with them because US is buying more things from China and selling less things to China. This creates a surplus USD with China. So if US were to borrow money from China or any other country, it would be this excess money. Ofcourse how money gets created in first place is a different topic altogether. "For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc.  There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds.  The ""National Debt"" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the ""Bonds"" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong.  If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (""Default"" on its payments).  This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future.  Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default.  Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge." The first method is the correct one. You bought an asset worth of $1000 and you put it on your depreciation schedule. What it means is that you get to write off the $1000 over a certain period of time (and not at once, as you do with expenses). But the value you're writing off is the $1000 regardless of how much you've written off already. Assume you depreciate in straight line over 5 years (that's how you depreciate computers for Federal tax purposes, most states follow). For the simplicity of the calculation, assume you depreciate each year as a whole year (no mid-year/mid-quarter conventions). The calculation is like this: If you sell the computer - the proceeds above the adjusted basis amount are taxed as depreciation recapture up to the accumulated depreciation amount, and as capital gains above that. So in your case - book value is the adjusted basis at the end of the year (EOY), depreciation this year is the amount you depreciate in the year in question out of the total of the original cost, and the accumulated depreciation is the total depreciation including the current year. In Maryland they do not allow depreciating to $0, but rather down to 25% of the original cost, so if you bought a $1000 computer - you depreciate until your adjusted basis is $250. Depreciation rates are described here (page 5). For computers (except for large mainframes) you get 30% depreciation, with the last year probably a bit less due to the $250 adjusted basis limitation. Essentially imported goods from the country (in this case the US) that is improving against your local currency will become more expensive. For the most part, that is the only practical effect on you on an individual financial level. "Other than the inconvienent fact that Treasury cannot sell to the Fed by law your theory is nice. You forget the step where the open market buys from the Treasury since they desire bonds to invest in, and the Fed can buy only from the open market.  Secondly, the Fed does not give cash to the Treasury. The mint (a branch of the Treasury, not the Fed) prints cash.  So it seems your understanding of how the money system works is quite wrong, yet since this is the Economy subreddit instead of the Economics subreddit, I expect you to get upvotes for saying what is popular even though it is laughably incorrect.  You seem to not like cash that was not ""even existing previously"". All cash was not existing previously. How do you expect people to make transactions? Barter?  You call them interest free loans (but above claimed they will never be paid back?), but then the Fed is making a profit on them? It seems you contradict yourself with all that handwaving.  It would be interesting for you to explain how (and why) money (not cash) gets added and removed to the economy.   Yay for ignorance!" Question:  So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam,  it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash.  So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is.    And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary?   But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off?  You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system. "First, to clear up your misconceptions: The balance is not merely made up of deductible and non-deductible contributions.  There are also earnings implied in the balance .. i.e. the whole reason you invest in the first place is to realize some return on investment.  That return, a.k.a. the earnings, are included in the balance of the account.  The balance is the sum total of everything in the account, the ""bottom line"". Generally speaking, basis for an account is all of the money that has been contributed (deposited) to the account.  In the context of an IRA as described in the article, however, they are using basis to refer to only the non-deductible contributions.  Of note, however, is that basis specifically excludes earnings.  If you have deposited, say, $5000 one year and $5000 the next, then your basis is $10,000, even if the balance has grown to, say, $12,000 (which includes the earnings). As may be evident by now, earnings are not equivalent to deductible contributions.  Earnings may arise from such contributions but they are not the same.  Rather, earnings are the net positive investment results from all contributions.  Again, if you had contributed $5000 one year and $5000 the next and the balance has grown to $12,000, then the earnings portion is $2000. So to interpret what happened in the specific example provided: Over the years, the account holder contributed (deposited) a total of $15,000 into his account.  These must have been non-deductible contributions in the case of the IRA in order to arrive at basis of $15,000. Over time (and coincident with the deposits), that $15,000 grew to $24,000 .. i.e. earned $9,000 in earnings. Then, the nearly 50% drop caused the balance to decay to $13,000.  This means all $9,000 of his earnings were wiped out, plus $2000 of the original basis. The remaining $13,000 is all basis .. that is, considered to be original money deposited to the account, no earnings. In effect, the account has lost $2000 of basis, because $15,000 was deposited and only $13,000 remains.  Simplistic way of looking at it:  A $15,000 investment resulted in a final $13,000 sale, i.e. a net loss of $2000. It doesn't matter that it hit $24,000 in the meanwhile .. it could have hit $250,000 in value and then dropped to $13,000 and the net result would be the same: a loss of $2000 in basis. Traditional IRA earnings are always tax-deferred .. i.e. whether earnings arise from deductible or else non-deductible contributions, when one takes a distribution (withdraws) from an IRA and the distribution includes earnings, the earnings portion is always taxable income.  Doesn't matter if the earnings arose from one kind of contribution or the other. I don't think in this example there were any deductible contributions whatsoever. Does that make sense / help?" Recessions are prolonged by less spending and wages being 'sticky' downward. My currency, the 'wallark', allows a company to pay its workers in it's own scrip instead of dollars which they can use to purchase its goods, thus reducing it's labor costs and allowing prices to fall faster. While scrip in the past purposely devalued to discourage hoarding, the wallark hold's it's purchasing power. The difference is, a worker can only use it to purchase their company's good *on the date the wallark was earned or before*.  In other words, each good is labeled with a date it was put on display for sale, if  a worker earns scrip on that same day, they can trade the scrip for that good, or any good that was on the shelves on that day it was earned *or before that date*. Any good that comes onto market after the date that particular wallark was earned cannot be purchased with that wallark(which is dated), and must be purchased either with dollars or with wallark that was earned on that good's date or after. This incentivizes spending without creating inflation, and allows costs to fall which helps businesses during rough economic times.  Please feel free to read it, and comment on my site! Any feedback is welcome!