791–800 of 991 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Thanks Obama! singing terrible bills even after he left office.
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…
> 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…
Although for a startup it might be least bad, because for their first few years, their revenue might well be closer to zero; they tend to burn money, sometimes for quite a while.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if it’s employees? Do you ask them to contribute to the company’s taxes as well? After they’ve paid their own?
You pay them less money so you can afford your taxes, like literally everyone else.
Which is what's happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
However, whether it is right or wrong, valid or invalid, is an ideological argument. Schools should simply teach that it occurs in humans, and leave the question of whether to accept or reject it to parents (there are plenty of other natural behaviours many of us reject on ideological grounds, polygamy for instance). There are countless other examples where ideology is taught as curriculum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s the same for movies, other intangible assets that are valuable and produce income over several years. And it’s done for many tangible goods, like servers in a datacenter, the kitchen equipment in a restaurant.
I think you may misunderstand. For most of those, you get the choice to amortize if you prefer. In this instance, you must amortize, which is a big problem for startups.
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...
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…
The article also blames it for 2022 mass layups at existing big tech companies with cash reserves.
That seems like a big stretch compared to the "oops we over-hired in 2021" theory, especially if it's net-advantageous for big tech vs up and comers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You pay them less money so you can afford your taxes, like literally everyone else.
... or you never have the startup, and just have 2 people unemployed and no produce nothing of use to anyone. Which is what's happening.