Live data from Hacker News

The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

qz.com

781–790 of 991 posts

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#781
post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re likely overreacting. It makes software temporarily 16.7% more expensive in year one if you’re operating a profitable company, but you do eventually get to deduct that over time. Pay 8% on a 4 year loan and that drops to ~4%.

Eventually, as long as you survive that long. As has been said repeatedly in this thread, this change is purely a boon for existing big tech companies that now have even less to worry about from startups. It takes a startup 5 years before they'll be playing on an even field with big tech. > if you’re operating a profitable company You keep saying this across this thread, and keep ignoring that Section 174 has now red…

> You keep saying this across this thread, and keep ignoring that Section 174 has now redefined "profitable" for tax purposes to include companies who:

Because generating an asset IE software isn’t a pure loss that’s why you’re doing it in the first place. Companies with a cash flow problem are different than companies which an actual loss.

> i.e., a startup that earns $1mil and spent $8mil in software dev expenses is only able to deduct 10% * 8mil = $800k of expenses, which means that as far as the government is concerned they made a profit of $200k and owe taxes on that on top of their already-net-loss of $7mil.

That assumes 100% of expenses are software development related. But the numbers are imaginary so using your example taxes are 21% of 200k, so 7 million in losses = 7.042 million in losses. A 1/2 of 1% increase, the sky is fucking falling.

Further a competent account would likely want you to carry the majority of those expenses to the future. Given the option many companies voluntarily did so because it made financial sense. You can only carry 80% of losses forward a likely future issue, but these expenses don’t fall under that category.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#782
post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

for anyone curious, this wasn’t specifically trump, but it was indeed a republican congress bill. texas republican was the initial sponsor and then republicans lined up to cosponsor. this was done to fuel their tax cuts to a small group of a certain people. you can see all of the sponsors here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1/co...

what do you mean by "sponsor"?

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what moral conclusions?

For example: What’s the right way to live? How to relate to others? On what basis do we cooperate? What are/are not the overall goals of society? What’s the meaning of life? What is it to be a good person?

These are most certainly left up to the individual. None of these things were part of my, and most folks' public education.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is being roled back partly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44028106

too little too late? as we are seeing now on a number of issues, sure things can be rolled back, but that doesn't mean a return to normal. Yes, you can kick over a bee hive, then pick it up and set it back upright, but you are not going to put all the bees back in immediately. There are long term consequences.

Off topic! Having knocked over a beehive and got 50+ stings as they crawled up my trouser leg in the dark, I can confirm.

When I got to bed, my heart was beating so hard that it kept my wife awake.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#785
> Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess.

This is frustratingly accurate. Through a zero sum political lens it'd be a handout to "big tech," so many politicians argue for keeping this on the books, but in reality S174 deeply affects small companies, new companies, boutique agencies, and individuals who want to consult or start smaller operations. I worked for a ~20 person shop that was gutted by this tax code change. It completely changed the affordability of talent.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#786
post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for anyone curious, this wasn’t specifically trump, but it was indeed a republican congress bill. texas republican was the initial sponsor and then republicans lined up to cosponsor. this was done to fuel their tax cuts to a small group of a certain people. you can see all of the sponsors here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1/co...

It was indeed passed by Republicans in Congress (with Democrats mostly voting Nay), but it was signed by Obama (12/22/2017). Why did he sign it?

[deleted]

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#787
post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

> I think that is a misrepresentation of the fundamental progressive position, which is to make progress but never at the cost of the marginalized.

That just means that the marginalized become an anchor preventing progress. We can’t have nice things until we solve the problems of the bottom quantile—which we never will.

If progressives had been in charge, America and everything it created wouldn’t exist. They never would have allowed us to displace the Indian tribes so the land could be put to better use.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#788
post #138

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…

We are small and so have been on a hiring freeze since 2022. I’d like to hire but the upfront cost is high. For those around when this went into effect many business owners were surprised. Our accountants told us they seriously thought congress would fix this before it went into effect.

... they did that because that's exactly how Trump presented the change. The article points that out: this change was an attempt to lie to the congressional budget office, not intended to be an actual tax change.

And then it suddenly was an actual tax change.

Like so many Trump actions: "oops".

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#789

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 really is quite unambiguous and is unambiguously bad for anyone who builds software

Not "anyone". Anyone in America.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#790
post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A startup isn't likely to be making a profit yet, under either accounting rule. Is there a benefit to reporting a larger loss? As an example, A two person software startup; both drawing a salary, each making $100,000 per year. Each doing things related to software development. Startup brings in 200,000K in revenue. Under pre Section 174 changes, the profit is zero. Both salaries are expensible in the year they were…

This example only really has the emotional impact it does because of the specific numbers used, but doesn't really generalize for an arbitrary N. Clearly if two software engineers build a product that brings in $10M, and each pay themselves $5M, it doesn't seem so outrageous that the can't really claim they're running "a business that made literally no money." Clearly in this second example the problem is that the en…

In case you don't understand: obviously you still pay income tax. What you suggest would mean you now pay income tax on that $10M, which is going to be 40% or even 50% depending, far higher than corporate tax.

So with your suggested tactic the engineers get $2.55 million each. The rest, $4.5 million, is tax.

If those 2 engineers paid themselves $0, and instead paid the $10 million as dividends, they'd get 4.25 million each, and only 1.5 million would be paid as tax.

(Yes, this is a simplification, both situations are artificial and in both cases there'd be other taxes to pay, however, they'd be similar in both cases)

Post reply on HN