551–560 of 991 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could Congress get less powerful than now?
That's how they like, more time to campaign and less work that may be impopular. Thinking about it, the US government is going exactly the same way of the Roman republic.
We're gonna conquer and annex Egypt? What an awesome time to be alive!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition. Other measures discourage voters likely to vote against them, like people who cannot easily take time off to vote in person or who have changed their name. Blocking rank choice and maintaining first past the post also disenfranchise third parties, and reinforces the power of incumbents…
> Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition. This thread is talking about the Senate. The senate isn't gerrymandered. Both senators are state-wide races. If you want to view it that way, you can view the senate as "pre-gerrymandered". But the last time that was an option was in 1959, and both of those are just "the entire area…
That is quite explicitly the history of the US Senate (and House), FWIW.
The Connecticut Compromise was reached to give low-populations states outsized legislative power in the senate. This is the main reason the senate exists.
Building on that, the 3/5th compromise was reached as part of this to give slave states outsized legislative power in the house.
The state of Maine used to be part of Massachusetts, but it was later set up as an independent state in order to increase the number of anti-slavery states in the senate (the Missouri compromise).
There are some misunderstandings in the comments that seem to stem from not having read the section, so I thought it was worth referencing the actual text [0]. It's quite short and easy to read. The most important bits: * Subsection (a) requires amortizing "Specified research or experimental expenditures" over 5 years (paragraph (2)) instead of deducting them (paragraph (1)) * Paragraph (c)(3) is a Special Rule that…
This is one of the worst things MAGA has done. Tech startups are the source of so much of our wealth, and this makes it very challenging to ever build one. I can’t believe this still exists, and no one has changed it. We truly are governed by morons
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The chef doesn't create a meal once that you can sell for the next 10 years though. You pay him for time X, he makes a meal, you sell that meal. That's fundamentally different from regular software development outside of agencies where there is no direct relationship. Software development is closer to an investment than an expense. Amortization sucks in general, yes, because the money is gone and it doesn't affect yo…
> The chef doesn't create a meal once that you can sell for the next 10 years though. You pay him for time X, he makes a meal, you sell that meal. What if the chef invents a new signature dish that makes your restaurant famous for the next 10 years?
For chains like McDonalds where they actually research and develop ways to make pink slime look like a burger, maybe? But do you call them chefs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if the R&D uses foreign workers, because you can't afford to pay US wages, then the 5 years goes to 15 years! This hurts small companies (like mine) that were priced out of the US developer market.
I’m not sure this is exactly true. If your foreign workers are a service contract then those are services expenses immediately deductible. Same if you are using local service contracts. My understanding is this creates a drag for companies that want to hire f/t.
I'm curious if contract work is really exempt, would look like a major loophole to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Often the way this works is that some time bomb is added to the tax code so that forecasts for future tax revenue will be higher (justifying more spending in the short term) and congress then needs to remember to remove the time bomb before it blows up. So it isn’t that uncommon for these things to be reverted.
There are some misunderstandings in the comments that seem to stem from not having read the section, so I thought it was worth referencing the actual text [0]. It's quite short and easy to read. The most important bits: * Subsection (a) requires amortizing "Specified research or experimental expenditures" over 5 years (paragraph (2)) instead of deducting them (paragraph (1)) * Paragraph (c)(3) is a Special Rule that…
It's pretty bad. It had a huge impact on my personally, I'm a small R&D shop and basically I have had to end all risky long-term research projects. In addition to the research costs, I'd also have to pay taxes on the research costs mostly up-front. Significantly, if the project doesn't work out, I'm still out of pocket for the tax money. It's a penalty for taking a risk, and it kneecaps American innovators in a globa…
There is definitely a lot of misunderstanding here. This provision can and does lead companies to owe significantly more in taxes than they make. The only reason it hasn't been bigger news, is because most companies are pretending it doesn't exist and just sweeping it under the rug, hoping it will get fixed before enforcement gets serious.
> The only reason it hasn't been bigger news, is because most companies are pretending it doesn't exist and just sweeping it under the rug, hoping it will get fixed before enforcement gets serious. Why pretend that it doesn’t exist? Why not vocally lobby for a change in the tax code?
I worked as a network engineer for a software company and had to report how many work hours was R&D. It was very silly.
Trump is just getting started. By the time he is finished, your economy will be shot to pieces. The US dollar will no longer be the reserve currency for global trade.