Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

kbkg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 395 posts

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#51

Post by mindslight »

9283409232 wrote: post #35
cheriot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the last 10 years, have there been more than a handful of bills that got 60 votes in the senate? I wouldn't like what the current congress would do without the filibuster, but at this point a paralyzed system might be worse.

The answer is to vote out politicians. Getting ranked choice voting on your states ballot would go a long way to fixing this. They would not have Mamdani on the ballot for NY mayor if it wasn't for ranked choice voting. Certain politicans know this and have made RCV illegal in their state. Get RCV on the ballot for your state.

RCV / Ranked Pairs of course. The IRV decision process is still a relic of the two party system, with the possibility for some pretty terrible strategic-voting dynamics as votes diverge from just two major parties.

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#52

Post by unmole »

beebmam wrote: post #12
Izikiel43 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

Extra $250 fee for visa applications: https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/big-beautif... 3.5% remittance fees on sending money out of the US: https://www.globalimmigrationblog.com/2025/06/what-are-the-i... Also (in above source), no ACA subsidies for H-1B visa holders (and others), which likely means employers they will have to pay more for health care if they want to cover their immigrant workers

> 3.5% remittance fees on sending money out of the US:

The version of the bill that passed a 1% excise is applicable "only to any remittance transfer for which the sender provides cash, a money order, a cashier’s check, or any other similar physical instrument".

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#53

Post by Calavar »

sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #44
dragonwriter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s an overstuffed bill because nobody will compromise on anything so the only way to pass a bill that has anything even remotely controversial to either party is one reconciliation bill a year. No, and lots of controversial bills have passed other than as reconciliation bills, and especially so during trifectas where they "controversial" within the minority party but broadly supported by the majority; reconciliat…

The last time something like that happened was probably the Patriot Act.

The 2024 Ukraine defense funding bill passed despite having < 50% support in the majority party in the House, and it was not part of a reconciliation.

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#54

Post by acheron »

yieldcrv wrote: post #46
agwa wrote: post #42

As a small software business owner, I have to agree with Michele Hansen (who spent 2 years advocating on behalf of small software businesses for this very change): "we’re finally going to get Section 174 relief, and I couldn’t be angrier" https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mjwhansen_it-looks-like-were-...

I disagree, every rider was independently lobbied for and the outcome would be the same if passed separately by Congress or as a rider in a larger bill like it was. There is no reason to have cognitive dissonance over it.

It proves they never actually cared in the first place, it’s just arguments as soldiers.

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#55

Post by djoldman »

mindslight wrote: post #45
tomrod wrote: post #14

If correct, this is a good thing on a generally bad, overstuffed bill. Immediate expensing never should have been changed in the first place, and it was always weird seeing people twist themselves in knots defending it.

Twisting not required. Depreciation straightforwardly applies to every other business capital expenditure. Hire someone to put a new roof on a rental property, and you're out the tens of thousands of dollars cash while only getting an immediate deduction for one thirtieth of the value. If you were expecting to pay that cash out of income, it's effectively a realized income and then reinvestment. The recent (-ly undon…

?

This applied to salaries, it wasn't a capital expenditure as "capital expenditure" has traditionally been defined.

This was an operational expense.

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#56

Post by rpiguy »

sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #44
dragonwriter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s an overstuffed bill because nobody will compromise on anything so the only way to pass a bill that has anything even remotely controversial to either party is one reconciliation bill a year. No, and lots of controversial bills have passed other than as reconciliation bills, and especially so during trifectas where they "controversial" within the minority party but broadly supported by the majority; reconciliat…

The last time something like that happened was probably the Patriot Act.

Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was the most sweeping legislation ever passed via reconciliation.

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#57

Post by thomquaid »

apsec112 wrote: post #32
cheriot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the last 10 years, have there been more than a handful of bills that got 60 votes in the senate? I wouldn't like what the current congress would do without the filibuster, but at this point a paralyzed system might be worse.

"Despite Democrats holding thin majorities in both chambers during a period of intense political polarization, the 117th Congress (2021-2023) oversaw the passage of numerous significant bills, including the Inflation Reduction Act, American Rescue Plan Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Postal Service Reform Act, Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, CHIPS and Science Act, Honoring Our PACT Act, Electoral Count…

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/yearlycompari...

It does seem like things are trending toward less public laws passing over the last decade, as well as record low time in session and other congressional activity.

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#58

Post by tomrod »

9283409232 wrote: post #36
apsec112 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Despite Democrats holding thin majorities in both chambers during a period of intense political polarization, the 117th Congress (2021-2023) oversaw the passage of numerous significant bills, including the Inflation Reduction Act, American Rescue Plan Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Postal Service Reform Act, Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, CHIPS and Science Act, Honoring Our PACT Act, Electoral Count…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#59

Post by mlinhares »

9283409232 wrote: post #36
apsec112 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Despite Democrats holding thin majorities in both chambers during a period of intense political polarization, the 117th Congress (2021-2023) oversaw the passage of numerous significant bills, including the Inflation Reduction Act, American Rescue Plan Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Postal Service Reform Act, Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, CHIPS and Science Act, Honoring Our PACT Act, Electoral Count…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

#60

Post by mindslight »

djoldman wrote: post #55
mindslight wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twisting not required. Depreciation straightforwardly applies to every other business capital expenditure. Hire someone to put a new roof on a rental property, and you're out the tens of thousands of dollars cash while only getting an immediate deduction for one thirtieth of the value. If you were expecting to pay that cash out of income, it's effectively a realized income and then reinvestment. The recent (-ly undon…

? This applied to salaries, it wasn't a capital expenditure as "capital expenditure" has traditionally been defined. This was an operational expense.

Yes, salaries spent to build a capital asset. Half the cost of a new roof is paying salaries, right? And yet, you still depreciate the whole value of the completed thing, not just the cost of the input materials. If you hire the roofers yourself as employees, you're still supposed to be accounting this way - although obviously there are many ways to fudge it.

The point is that building a piece of software that is going to be in use for several+ years is creating an asset. It just goes against our intuition since this industry is so driven by fast fashion, and the bookkeeping of specific components, their depreciation schedules, early end of life, (etc) seems like needless complexity.

Post reply on HN