131–140 of 369 posts
So why just software and not all fields that produce durable intellectual property?
We need temporary relief, immediately. But long term, how about we shrink the size of the federal government? Then we don’t have to flog small businesses to death to feed the massively inefficient and wasteful machine!?
Republicans have been talking about shrinking the size of the federal government for decades. They routinely fail to come up with substantive cuts in spending that would not set off a disaster for them at the polls, or for the country economically, or both.
There is this perception that the federal is full of wasteful spending, but this perception is false (there is waste, it's not a large percentage of the huge overall federal budget). This means that to actually cut the revenue needed will require truly substantive cuts to the services provided and performed by the federal government.
Maybe you could be more successful at proposing what those cuts would be than any Republican has for 50 years, but it seems unlikely.
You got it all wrong, sure that first commit was R&D but the rest of the year? Maintenance. Or- sure we launched the platform and that was R&D but now we're just doing data entry.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-23-63.pdf
is extremely clear on this. New features, improvements? All costs must be amortized. You can only expense bug fixes and GUI changes that don't add features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I amortize a server because you buy it now, it does work, then is eventually obsolete and you toss it. Does a developer keep doing work for me after he quits/dies?
The code you hired the developer to write/maintain should keep working for you after he quits/dies. Or you made a real bad investment.
I think that might have a lot of unintended side-effects.
I have said this before and attracted downvotes for it, but here goes. There are two possible arguments here to try, and I have only ever seen people lobbying against this change use the one, less persuasive argument. That argument is what I will call the "incentives" argument: that change in the rule provides bad incentives against doing R&D. This argument goes along the lines of "this will cost jobs for R&D workers…
Two factors also don't help matters either:
* Most people, which perhaps surprisingly includes most commenters here, don't understand what taxes are levied against or what losses and amortization even are. You can't effectively argue against something you don't understand.
* Of the people who do understand taxes and income/loss sheets, it's only the business owners and accountants who like putting as big a number as possible under losses to reduce net profit and thus taxes owed. The commons rightfully see it as tax avoidance, which unsurprisingly is met with "fuck you".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it’s an election year so even a literal statement of fact is going to be downvoted by some people. Hopefully at some point they’ll have an epiphany about whether they should self-identify with a party so strongly when an accurate descriptions of its actions feels like an attack, but I’m not as optimistic about that as I used to be.
It’s a partisan statement since you only mention the upper tax bracket and not that it also slashed taxes for the lowest one completely and reduced them for basically everyone while making changes to a ton of other things (like child tax credits) as well. You’re over simplifying and singling out your pet political issue in an effort to sway opinion to your political leaning. If you had just said it was due to those t…
[0] https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/summary-latest-fe...
Take action and sign up for the Small Software Business Owners Association newsletter and petitions to the government: https://ssballiance.org/ Michele Hansen is doing an incredible job here and should be recognized for it. Latest news was sent yesterday: Republicans and Democrats finally struck a tax deal that includes a partial fix for Section 174. It includes expanding the Child Tax Credit, a key Democratic priori…
>a script to follow Going on a tangent here, but I always hated this idea of reading off a script to try and lobby politicians. If I were the politician, I would ignore all such communiques as indoctrinated spam.
Now for tweets, it’s important that each tweet is unique. Otherwise it’s clearly coordinated/automated. But as a casual scroll of Twitter shows, many people hate comfortable expressing themselves through that medium.
Also, I kinda wrote a whole book with scripts (for customer interviewing)… if I didn’t provide scripts, it just wouldn’t be true to my work!
This is exactly why I decided to not make my single-member, zero employee LLC an S Corp; if I'm paying no salaries, I don't have the Section 174 craziness. With an S Corp, you have to pay yourself a salary, and if your work is primarily software development, Section 174 might hit you. (IANAL or accountant. Talk to one of them.)
Change your employees job titles and/or tax classifications if you have to. Whatever it takes to say "these are salaries, not R&D".
If you're big enough they'll notice, but for a 10-person company the risk of a bad audit beats certain bankruptcy.
I’m confused why this is so impactful. If you have software devs, even if you don’t classify as R&D, you can deduct their full salaries, right?
How would you classify software _developers_ if not under Research & _Development_?