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

The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 991 posts

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#281

Post by Retric »

anp wrote: post #269
Retric wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> empirically, removing the exemption discourages R&D. Not clearing a road means fewer people use it, but you not going out with a shovel to clear a public roads isn’t you discouraging their use nor is you canceling your plans to clear said roads. Having zero subsidies is the default situation.

The default situation is whatever was yesterday. I’d be astonished to learn that even a single significant civilization functioned without subsidies or patronage of priorities held by a society’s leaders.

> The default situation is whatever was yesterday.

If Amazon delivered you a TV yesterday that doesn’t suddenly become the default where you can expect another one today and every day after that.

The US government does a new budget every year, making every year a new ballgame.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#282

Post by dragonwriter »

cibyr wrote: post #280
slipnslider wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repealing SB174 has bipartisan support. The house already passed its repeal but it died in Senate because a separate took (that also repealed it) took its place but that separate bill stalled out. 174 is so small it can't go through both chambers on its own so it needs to get attached a larger bill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. It's unfortunate because it appears both sides want this repealed to allow immediate amortization of domestic…

It's so depressing to hear that congress can't even do small things that everyone agrees upon.

If everyone agreed on it, Congress would have no problem doing it (Congress itself, after all, is a subset of "everyone".)

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#283

Post by anp »

Retric wrote: post #281
anp wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The default situation is whatever was yesterday. I’d be astonished to learn that even a single significant civilization functioned without subsidies or patronage of priorities held by a society’s leaders.

> The default situation is whatever was yesterday. If Amazon delivered you a TV yesterday that doesn’t suddenly become the default where you can expect another one today and every day after that. The US government does a new budget every year, making every year a new ballgame.

No but if a TV was in my house yesterday I’d bet that it’ll be there today.

And my point about there being no natural state of subsidies is more important.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#284

Post by formerly_proven »

slipnslider wrote: post #257
Reason077 wrote: post #186

The OBBBA (“Big Beautiful Bill”) suspends amortization requirements for domestic R&D expenditure, and explicitly allows domestic software development as an R&D expenditure eligible for immediate expensing. The new rules would apply from 2025 to Dec 31, 2029: https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/house-comm...

Repealing SB174 has bipartisan support. The house already passed its repeal but it died in Senate because a separate took (that also repealed it) took its place but that separate bill stalled out. 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. It's unfortunate because it appears both sides want this repealed to allow immediate amortization of domestic…

> 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?

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#285

Post by ksec »

cake_robot wrote: post #241
luckylion wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chef doesn't create a meal once that you can sell for the next 10 years though. You pay him for time X, he makes a meal, you sell that meal. That's fundamentally different from regular software development outside of agencies where there is no direct relationship. Software development is closer to an investment than an expense. Amortization sucks in general, yes, because the money is gone and it doesn't affect yo…

When someone pays for labor to build an apartment building they profit off for decades, do they amortize that labor?

I think there is an argument that both could be valid. I wonder why we cant let the company decide to pick one over another and not be so fixated on one tax code to rule them all.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#286

Post by Retric »

anp wrote: post #283
Retric wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The default situation is whatever was yesterday. If Amazon delivered you a TV yesterday that doesn’t suddenly become the default where you can expect another one today and every day after that. The US government does a new budget every year, making every year a new ballgame.

No but if a TV was in my house yesterday I’d bet that it’ll be there today. And my point about there being no natural state of subsidies is more important.

Those subsidies lasted a long time, but just as with a TV they didn’t last forever.

So if your argument is some subsidy will probably happen next year sure, but individual subsidies change over time. No specific subsidy is the default.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#287

Post by madaxe_again »

anp wrote: post #276
madaxe_again wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“We are heavily subsidised by taxpayers” is not great optics.

To head off the likely questions, I downvoted this comment because it is a gross misrepresentation of section 174 and the changes made to it.

What have I grossly misrepresented? Or are you arguing that a tax rebate is not a subsidy? I haven’t even mentioned the changes made.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#288

Post by Supermancho »

cibyr wrote: post #280
slipnslider wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repealing SB174 has bipartisan support. The house already passed its repeal but it died in Senate because a separate took (that also repealed it) took its place but that separate bill stalled out. 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. It's unfortunate because it appears both sides want this repealed to allow immediate amortization of domestic…

It's so depressing to hear that congress can't even do small things that everyone agrees upon.

If they could be required to craft single issue bills, this wouldn't be as big an issue. Instead we get the clusters of good and bad that inevitably die or sometimes worse, pass.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#289

Post by anp »

madaxe_again wrote: post #287
anp wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To head off the likely questions, I downvoted this comment because it is a gross misrepresentation of section 174 and the changes made to it.

What have I grossly misrepresented? Or are you arguing that a tax rebate is not a subsidy? I haven’t even mentioned the changes made.

To start, rules for deductions aren’t tax rebates. Rebates also aren’t necessarily subsidies unless they’re targeted.

Deciding whether labor is a capital or operating expense and deciding how to depreciate it if capital is also not a subsidy.

Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

#290

Post by Supermancho »

jopsen wrote: post #279
sampton wrote: post #133

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 :)

> Selling you code, lol -- code is more of a liability really :)

It's important to consider that lawmakers (who are not well informed or downright stupid) might think code has intrinsic value because of media married with a lack of real-world experience.

Post reply on HN