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.
This is simply not true. Says my lawyer and CPA. And every other CEO/CFO I've talked with.
> That self-selection left Republicans not a competitive amount of credibility or voter pool behind to work with. So by your logic New York is a better governed state than Florida? Net internal migration would seem to disagree.
Is it your opinion that the only factor relevant for those deciding what state to move to is quality of government? I'm surprised that things like the job market wouldn't come into play, for example.
I think quality of governance is a major reason, yes. When my parents immigrated to this country, they moved to a deep red state (Virginia) instead of the deep blue state next door (Maryland). Why? A focus on good schools, low crime, and low taxes, instead of a focus on economic redistribution.
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.
Foreign workers are to my knowledge effectively always a service contract, since it's pretty complicated (if even possible) to hire FTEs across borders without subsidiaries, which are expensive to maintain. I'm curious if contract work is really exempt, would look like a major loophole to me.
> Foreign workers are to my knowledge effectively always a service contract, since it's pretty complicated (if even possible) to hire FTEs across borders without subsidiaries, which are expensive to maintain.
It's impossible (yes, I'm being absolute) to hire an employee who lives in or outside the US who is not a citizen or doesn't have a green card. All employees must have an SSN and go through i9 verification, which requires in person verification of legal ability to work in the US.
The foreign developers I'm talking about are not US citizens and do not have green cards.
Their work is subject to 15 year amortization per section 174. Period.
Foreign workers are to my knowledge effectively always a service contract, since it's pretty complicated (if even possible) to hire FTEs across borders without subsidiaries, which are expensive to maintain. I'm curious if contract work is really exempt, would look like a major loophole to me.
Tax law is full of major loopholes. It’s highly political law, so doing one thing while saying you are doing another is a feature, not a bug.
There are definitely gray areas to the law, but in my decades of experience dealing with lawyers, they won't steer you to do something very far over the line. I think the companies that do step far over the line, to game the system, are doing so knowing full well they are breaking the law, but they believe they are unlikely to be caught. And they're very likely right. You could separate CEO's/CFO's in to two camps: stay legal and do what you need to do to make the almighty $$. In the 80's the phrase "greed is good" was born, but the last 2 decades have really upped the ante on this.
The company already pays payroll taxes on those salaries, and the employees pay income taxes. And the people hurt by this aren't the shareholders or top executives, it's the rank and file workers getting laid off, losing benefits, and being asked to work more for the same pay. What this change effectively did was make software developers significantly more expensive, without increasing the amount those developers get…
The company does not pay payroll taxes. Individuals pay those taxes.
It doesn't actually matter that much who actually writes the check to the government (although in the US, both parties pay taxes).
Either way, the total cost of employment is higher for the employer than the after-tax income of the employee.
> 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!
Welcome to the Democrat version of taxes. In Michigan, restaurant owners had to pay a tax on revenue and not profit around 2008 or so. lots of retaurants went out of business overnight.
Sales tax (which most US states collect) specifically is a tax on revenue, but it is the exception.
At first glance I support ... "social and economic equality" and "reforms to improve human conditions, combat corruption, and reduce inequality". Am I progressive? If you ask me "should corporations pay more taxes?" I will say, yes. Famously so does Warren Buffet, is he also a progressive? If you ask me, "hey should we gut tax incentives for R&D spending in the USA?" I will say, uhhh no? probably a bad choice?
Recently the progressives have latched on to culture war agendas against the wealthy, educated, white, male, straight and/or over the age of 35 crowd. In other words, they have a popular agenda, but are political morons that are going to eventually wonder why they can’t break out of solidly blue districts. https://runforsomething.net/run/candidate-support-system/
I think that is a misrepresentation of the fundamental progressive position, which is to make progress but never at the cost of the marginalized. Because we historically make most progress at the cost of the marginalized it can feel limiting or even discriminatory when we make sure they don’t beat the brunt of continued progress.
There is nothing against the group you mention except that it might be the group that most fights against progress toward equality.
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…
I have no doubt it's bad, but I can't believe that it's both fueling mass layoffs and also almost nobody has heard of it. Those are unlikely to both be true.
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…
I have no doubt it's bad, but I can't believe that it's both fueling mass layoffs and also almost nobody has heard of it. Those are unlikely to both be true.
Get better education for kids that grow to become citizens
There's another word for "educating" people until they reach the decision you want them to. 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…
No, education is not brainwashing. These terms have different definitions. One is by definition good, one bad. Words matter, definitions of words matter.