701–710 of 991 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real neoliberalism (with land value tax and pigouvian tax) has never been tried.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
This is insane, how does it make sense? Employee salary expenses are no different from other expenses to run your business. Imagine they did this for raw material instead, a restaurant could only expense 20% of the food that they sell. If they purchased $100 worth of food, but could only sell $50 worth of it, they have to pay tax on that even when making a net loss overall. It just does not make any sense. There woul…
Now imagine that a restaurant buys 100 tables, 500 chairs, kitchen equipment, cutlery for 800 people, signage, a security system, and does a remodeling before opening. (Or an airline buys an airplane. Or a hotel chain builds a hotel.) Should they be able to expense all of those items that provide value for multiple years in a single year? Does software development provide value exclusively in the year it's done? Or o…
If software lasted longer than 18 months or was otherwise tangible, this could also make sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the implications of this. As I understand accounting, this means that reported profits would be higher, and therefore incur more corporate income tax liability. Cash flow isn't effected besides tax. A startup isn't likely to be making a profit yet, under either accounting rule. Is there a benefit to reporting a larger loss? My first thought is that this effects Google and suchlike, not startups. But... assum…
I'm not an accountant, but as I understand it, you don't pay taxes on profits, but on revenue. So previously, some 20% of all revenue would be owned as corporate income tax, and startups would deduct it all as they're spending much more on R&D than they owe in corporate income tax. But with this tax change, the deduction would be much lower (80% lower IIUC).
That can't be right. It definitely isn't in my country.
If own a car dealership, and I sell a car for $50,000 that I bought from the manufacturer for $40,000, surely I would pay tax on the $10,000 profit? The tax on the the full $50,000 revenue might exceed my profit!
If your payroll ends up being about the same, after 5 years it all evens out in the sense that you will be expensing 100% of your payroll each year (but the expensing will be 20% from each of the prior 5 years). If your payroll is quickly growing You experience the problem on all payroll growth. If your payroll is decreasing, you get a tax benefit. Your outgoing cash is less, but you are getting deductions from prior…
Additionally, having to wait 4 additional years to deduct that 80% is a huge drain on capital.
Combine this with higher interest rates and the effect is essentially pouring sand into the gears of the tech industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The destructive power of the Section 174 change cannot be overstated. It has been reported on a lot, but its harms are generally poorly articulated. I do not like many things in BBB, but I am glad to know there is at least something in there that I can be glad for.
Lol only for it to kick back in in 2029 during the next administration. Your employment has now become a bargaining chip in the GOP's handbook.
If the other party allows these cuts to expire, why wouldn't you blame that party?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get better citizens.
Get better education for kids that grow to become citizens
Brainwashing.
You know it's completely possible that people have a different outlook or opinion or perspective on things and that is why they disagree with you, not necessarily a lack of education?
Some people think these are good ideas and they vote or welcome them. Some people think they are bad ideas and they vote or oppose them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 174 is so small it can't go through both chambers on its own so it needs to get attached a larger bill like OBBA. There's a minimum size for laws?
Why would a senator from Kentucky vote for a bill that doesn't benefit his state to a meaningful amount?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an accountant, but as I understand it, you don't pay taxes on profits, but on revenue. So previously, some 20% of all revenue would be owned as corporate income tax, and startups would deduct it all as they're spending much more on R&D than they owe in corporate income tax. But with this tax change, the deduction would be much lower (80% lower IIUC).
> you don't pay taxes on profits, but on revenue. That can't be right. It definitely isn't in my country. If own a car dealership, and I sell a car for $50,000 that I bought from the manufacturer for $40,000, surely I would pay tax on the $10,000 profit? The tax on the the full $50,000 revenue might exceed my profit!
lots of retaurants went out of business overnight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the implications of this. As I understand accounting, this means that reported profits would be higher, and therefore incur more corporate income tax liability. Cash flow isn't effected besides tax. A startup isn't likely to be making a profit yet, under either accounting rule. Is there a benefit to reporting a larger loss? My first thought is that this effects Google and suchlike, not startups. But... assum…
Google was reportedly amortizing (by choice) long before this was in effect, so while it might “affect them”, in practice it’s likely business as usual.