[dead]
The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
741–750 of 991 posts
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#742Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Post Section 174, the profit is now $160,000 each year. Now they pay taxes on $160,000, even though they literally have no money left over because revenues equaled expenditures. They have the $200k they pulled from their startup, far more than what most people earn. If you make enough to pay yourself $100k then you make enough to pay taxes.
They do pay taxes. They each pay personal income tax on their $100k.
Still plenty left to pay their business taxes.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#743Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fortunately our system is setup such that passionate folks like you can work to effect change. Go do it - volunteer for your local PTA, run for school board positions, show up to public hearings. Be the change you want to see in the world. God Speed my friend.
Having the ideology of the majority taught in schools is the outcome of a strictly democratic process like the one you’re describing. I’m suggesting that the separation between church and state be extended to any ideological teaching.
I get it, I'm not trying to chat about that.
I am saying if you can convince enough other people that this makes sense you can effect change. And im wishing you good luck with that.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#744Earlier quoted context omitted.
By what logic?
Assuming this change is causing the layoffs, then these companies know about this. If these companies don't know about this change, then why would we believe this change is causing it.
They didn't know the change was coming. Then it happened, now they have to revisit their budgets. Some thought it was going to be changed back before it went into effect, it wasnt.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#745Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> The rule as written means contractors who write Windows drivers could deduct their expenses (as they would have no residual rights to a closed-source work product), but contractors who write Linux drivers may not (as they would have some rights to open-source Linux drivers). Is it just me or are you conflating two orthogonal things? An open-source Windows driver would have the same issue, no? And a closed-source pr…
You are correct. I picked this example under the general assumption that the Windows driver would be closed-source, but you are correct that it doesn't necessarily have to be closed source.
The problem goes with the license, not with the OS.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#746Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a source control system that hides the source files from the contributor's view of the repository. How would that work? > You'd need a custom license where everyone in the world could use the results except for the contributor That one is incompatible with copyright laws in many countries outside USA.
The point is that it's a ridiculous and impractical workaround that makes no sense
^^ this
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#747Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> The rule as written means contractors who write Windows drivers could deduct their expenses (as they would have no residual rights to a closed-source work product), but contractors who write Linux drivers may not (as they would have some rights to open-source Linux drivers). Is it just me or are you conflating two orthogonal things? An open-source Windows driver would have the same issue, no? And a closed-source pr…
You're right, the law text doesn't specifically call out the Windows operating system or the Linux operating system. The example you gave of Open Source Windows drivers is valid.
The Grandparent's point about that "it double-dings open source developers" is still correct and poignant even with this clarification.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#748Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having the ideology of the majority taught in schools is the outcome of a strictly democratic process like the one you’re describing. I’m suggesting that the separation between church and state be extended to any ideological teaching.
I get it, I'm not trying to chat about that. I am saying if you can convince enough other people that this makes sense you can effect change. And im wishing you good luck with that.
> No, education is not brainwashing.
I’m directly responding to your point. Ideological education is brainwashing. In fact “brainwashing” is usually just another way of saying “an ideological education I disagree with”, also known as “indoctrination”.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#749Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> The rule as written means contractors who write Windows drivers could deduct their expenses (as they would have no residual rights to a closed-source work product), but contractors who write Linux drivers may not (as they would have some rights to open-source Linux drivers). Is it just me or are you conflating two orthogonal things? An open-source Windows driver would have the same issue, no? And a closed-source pr…
I could see it being inferred that way but, the way I read it, they are not meant as unilateral facts. Rather, they serve as rhetorical examples of where you might find contractors doing similar work, but where the one more in service of "public good" is taxed higher because it's open source. Strictly speaking, Windows bits are not all closed source and there exist closed source Linux bits. But it's not a point that really matters in the context of the conversation.
I think it's fair to use Windows and Linux as stand-ins for closed vs open source because it's a very accessible example. And knowing the technicalities clearly doesn't undermine the argument.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#750Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously?
Sadly, that is entirely serious. Arguably, that's the whole of politics: why should I give you something if you don't give me something? The people involved are, generally, not deep thinkers, aren't aren't thinking much beyond their direct short-term advantage. The system selects against that.
No, the system selects for people who are brilliant for using it to maximize their own individual benefit. Never take the bait that these people are in anyway stupid.