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

321–330 of 395 posts

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

#321

Post by forty »

eric-burel wrote: post #259
forty wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite common knowledge :) if you want journalist material, I think there was a Cash Investigation on the topic a few years ago. I have discussed this topic with many other engineers (known from engineering school, from working 13+ years in the Paris tech startup ecosystem and from my worker union, whose scope include most tech companies) and I have never heard any of them saying they did not write bullshit CIR r…

My experience is different, so far I've defended R&D that I believed to be eligible to tax credits, in order for companies to be competitive with other countries that also subsidize R&D and innovation, namely USA and Canada. You can't generalize a 7 billion tax cut system based on one journalist work (the same and the same is quoted again...), opinions based on a few rotten fruits in the basket, and an anti-startup t…

It's not only the tech startups, I've mentioned it because that's what a know best, but my brother works for a large industrial company, and they use the same tricks and also have their reports done by professional bullshit companies whose jobs is to make it look like some research happened (in their case it's sometimes somewhat the case - unlike tech startups - but most of it is just bullshit).

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

#322

Post by xlii »

phil21 wrote: post #300
xlii wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have approx. 15 years of experience working remotely for various companies all across the globe and was always an advocate of thesis that remote work is difficult and most people aren’t cut for it and (to horror of many proponents) and on average are less efficient than on-site hires. There are many reasons: It’s difficult to understand _intention_ when deprived of non-verbal communication and working in a choppy n…

I have nearly 3 decades (ugh…) now of forming fully remote startups and working remotely. It used to be totally non-controversial and completely validated by direct personal experience that only a minority of the population is built to work remotely. It’s so silly this is even an argument when our entire society and education is built on in-person interactions. I think the 10% number is variable depending on the org…

I read, wanted to reply but would only echo what you wrote. 100% agree.

Just a note that my 10% experience is based on general population of people who were working remotely for at least 6 months (and being a contractor I’ve switched orgs more often than average engineer)

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

#323

Post by okanat »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #245
CalRobert wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the heady days of 2022 but six figures shouldn't be impossible for someone with 10+ years of experience. But the trick is to (mostly) ignore the European companies and go for the American ones operating in Europe. Switzerland, Norway, and Ireland can be decent too. I'm still stunned when I see what devs are paid in Germany and southern Europe though.

>I'm still stunned when I see what devs are paid in Germany and southern Europe though. Are German wages really low? I thought Germany as the richest country in Europe.

Usually one earns half to a third of net wage in Germany compared to East Coast US. A maximum of 100k total cash compensation is usually the norm for mid-size companies. That is for the most senior engineers. It is also taxed almost at 50%.

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

#325

Post by 9283409232 »

nerdsniper wrote: post #320
9283409232 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely makes sense. You need buy in from the public. RCV is the most known alternative and it has taken a decade to get it that far. If you want to start the work of informing people about STAR voting then be my guess but RCV is a tremendous improvement from what we have and an acceptable alternative.

Personally I think “approval voting” is almost as good as RCV but orders of magnitude easier to sell to the public. There’s just a checkbox next to each candidate and you check the box next to any candidate you’re “okay” with. Results in the most “okay-est” candidates getting elected so when the winner is announced everyone goes “…okay.” Also could make primaries less important, because multiple candidates from a par…

If I recall the problem with approval voting is that it is much easier to tamper with than RCV. Filling in an empty bubble is a lot easier than changing the order of ranking on a ballot

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

#326

Post by BobbyJo »

noodletheworld wrote: post #76
johncole wrote: post #26

I think we will see this lead to a boost in software developer employment.

Are you being serious or sarcastic? I cant tell. Seriously, that seems unlikely. Changes like this may have an impact on employment but it’s impossible to observe the results in a vacuum. Given that most large companies are towing the “AI means less jobs required” line, it seems likely that this will, at best, modestly slow the rate at which companies divest themselves of software developers. I cant see any reasonabl…

> I cant see any reasonable reason, in a broader context, this would have a meaningful impact.

A significant amount of software dev employment is in startups. Companies that are spending on development, but aren't making much money yet, will see a huge benefit from this. The change in tax liability could mean a single seed or series A round paying for an extra 1-2 devs.

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

#327

Post by Spivak »

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #38
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.

What does that matter? We're talking trifectas here, not supermajorities. The filibuster is a cute remnant of "decorum." It's a vestigial rule which will disappear when too inconvenient. (Fun question with not-so-fun answers: why isn't the filibuster gone already?)

Because I don't think it's vestigial, I think it's serving an important function of governance that never made it into the official rules but is nonetheless necessary as a stabilizing effect. It doesn't have to be the filibuster but something ought to provide the effect. It should be easier to block legislation than to pass it. It wouldn't be a good thing if you could have huge policy swings when a 51-49 becomes 49-51. Being able to, with effort, demand specific pieces of legislation reach a higher bar biases us toward the status quo.

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

#328

Post by nerdsniper »

9283409232 wrote: post #325
nerdsniper wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I think “approval voting” is almost as good as RCV but orders of magnitude easier to sell to the public. There’s just a checkbox next to each candidate and you check the box next to any candidate you’re “okay” with. Results in the most “okay-est” candidates getting elected so when the winner is announced everyone goes “…okay.” Also could make primaries less important, because multiple candidates from a par…

If I recall the problem with approval voting is that it is much easier to tamper with than RCV. Filling in an empty bubble is a lot easier than changing the order of ranking on a ballot

That’s a good point. Seems like that could be a problem for current ballots too - add a second checkmark to invalidate ballots voting for the “other” guy. Doesn’t seem to be a widespread issue, but detecting it for current ballots would be more obvious.

Maybe that breaks this idea. Maybe ideally you’d maybe want a touchscreen+printer to fill in the bubbles with printer ink and show it to the voter for them to double-check before putting in the stack (or, if wrong bubble filled, put it in rejected stack).

Would love more feedback from people to get a better sense of all pros and cons.

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

#329

Post by phonon »

mindslight wrote: post #273
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The recent (-ly undone) change went against decades of how things were, was crippling for medium size cashflow-positive startups, effectively increased taxes, etc. But it was really just a straightforward application of the general principles that apply to most everything else. The error was in reconciling them by getting rid of it for software R&D instead of allowing other business expenses to be deducted when the…

Sure, a lot of that understanding was included in my recognition of the downsides. The fundamental dynamic is that the government wants there to be a forcing function on having to actually realize profits, so that taxes have to be paid in a timely fashion. They don't want people to be able to reinvest all of the effective profit and keep kicking the can into the future indefinitely. Capital gains and retirement plans…

...and 1031 Exchanges. People defer profits on real estate across generations, now.

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

#330

Post by archagon »

perihelions wrote: post #190
archagon wrote: post #153

Oh, goody! Also, ICE has a bigger budget now than most of the world's militaries[1]. But let's not talk about that. [1]: https://www.newsweek.com/immigration-ice-bill-trump-2093456

That (initially) $175 billion/year will pay for itself in forced labor. I think most countries with large-scale systems of concentration camps converged on that solution, when the costs of those systems ballooned into something unsustainable. Modern China has that. Their system makes use of their (reportedly millions) of incarcerated Uyghurs as low-skill forced labor, mainly in textiles/clothes. Few talk about it, bu…

The fact that this is downvoted is deeply disturbing. Timothy Snyder has similar thoughts on concentration camp labor: https://snyder.substack.com/p/concentration-camp-labor

Meanwhile, SV darling Curtis Yarvin is plainly insinuating that we should bring slavery back: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:gqqqg5xi4p2x4bfgphr7akip/po...

What in the fuck is wrong with people?

Post reply on HN