951–960 of 991 posts
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?
I think there is a limit on the number of bills that can make it through the procedures so it’s too low profile to get scheduled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Continuing your observation, this presumes they read and think deeply about the bills they vote on. They do not.
I remember the day I mentioned this in my high school^ honors sociology class and the eventual valedictorian exclaimed that I was stupid to think that. The system has been broken for longer than I have been alive, but the indoctrination has been working to make up for it. This was a Blue Ribbon School 1992-1993 yup. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/programs/nclbbrs/list-2003...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It depends on the department. My salary (in a mature product) was already amortized - I suspect the same is true of all their other mature products like Search, Maps, GMail, Chrome, YouTube, etc. But I think they were deducting salaries in the more research-like areas like Gemini, Jax, Assistant, etc. So there is net still a fairly large charge related to it, even if it isn't as large as it could be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Large companies always find a way to not pay taxes. It's the little guys that end up paying (a lot!) more, to the extend that it cripples and kills them. But transformative innovation happens with the little guys. As a result, this tax change cements monopolies for megacorps. They will be fine and still pay nothing.
The little guy always pays all taxes. Corporate tax is just a way to palatably shift tax burden to the low and middle classes and away from the owner class. It is pure double speak.
This is reductive and frankly stupid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t matter. Jim Bean doesn’t compete with an R&D software company. The R&D software company does compete with other companies in different jurisdictions with better regulations.
Jim Bean competes with other beverage makers who also operate out of different jurisdictions that may have different regulations ... not sure your point is as much of a "gotcha" as you think it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but if the insurance policy requires me to pay upfront, I'm out the entire ten years' worth of insurance premium. Amortization forces it to be divorced from actual cash flow.
Amortisation is for accounting/tax purposes. A large negative on the first year does not make sense. It should be divorced from actual cash flow, because cash flow doesn’t tell you the full picture of the company, while assets/profits do
Amortization is bad policy when it comes software. Software is inherently high risk. Every piece of software is unique and does not guarantee steady income over 5 years. Most startups won't survive 5 years to fully realize the deductions. This is the end of US software dominance.
Amortization makes sense for things that have some inherent value. Like a microscope or computer. A bankrupt company can still sell their computers. Selling you code, lol -- code is more of a liability really :)
Mine DEFINITELY is!
Once asked about this change during an all employee meeting. Even a large software company should care… The executives were not even aware of the policy change…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most programmers do approximately zero work that is R&D. The most you lose if they walk out the door is institutional knowledge. On the other hand, I've worked almost exclusively on software R&D for decades and seen the loss of a single person effectively end a project even when the software was essentially finished. Software R&D is about developing abstract knowledge, concrete implementation code is just a useful by…
> Most programmers do approximately zero work that is R&D. So, what you're saying is one or more of the following: 1) The work of most programmers should not be considered R&D, and shouldn't be covered by tax schemes intended for R&D. 2) Most "software IP" in the industry is not the result of R&D. 3) You've rarely been involved in the sale of non-R&D "software IP". (Do recall that your original statement was "As anyo…
I think the third statement is a bit personal so will leave that alone.