821–830 of 991 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do pay taxes. They each pay personal income tax on their $100k.
Still plenty left to pay their business taxes.
If you give the company more money to use to cover its tax bill, then that further increases the company’s taxable income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still plenty left to pay their business taxes.
The company doesn’t have any money to pay those taxes with. If you give the company more money to use to cover its tax bill, then that further increases the company’s taxable income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This bill is goated for upper middle class and tech and defense sector And I’m tired of pretending like we aren’t going to be beneficiaries Every Congress increases the debt, we can acknowledge that the cuts they picked are going to wreck the lower class especially with the medicaid, we can acknowledge that it won’t meet its goals of cuts but are you guys just scared to acknowledge its going to super charge things th…
You don't want to live in a society where an increasingly large percentage of the population have nothing to lose. Regardless of whether it benefits our industry or socioeconomic status, it'd be incredibly shortsighted to just do all of that at the expense of the lower classes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eventually, as long as you survive that long. As has been said repeatedly in this thread, this change is purely a boon for existing big tech companies that now have even less to worry about from startups. It takes a startup 5 years before they'll be playing on an even field with big tech. > if you’re operating a profitable company You keep saying this across this thread, and keep ignoring that Section 174 has now red…
> As has been said repeatedly in this thread, this change is purely a boon for existing big tech companies that now have even less to worry about from startups. It takes a startup 5 years before they'll be playing on an even field with big tech. The article also blames it for 2022 mass layups at existing big tech companies with cash reserves. That seems like a big stretch compared to the "oops we over-hired in 2021"…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eventually, as long as you survive that long. As has been said repeatedly in this thread, this change is purely a boon for existing big tech companies that now have even less to worry about from startups. It takes a startup 5 years before they'll be playing on an even field with big tech. > if you’re operating a profitable company You keep saying this across this thread, and keep ignoring that Section 174 has now red…
> You keep saying this across this thread, and keep ignoring that Section 174 has now redefined "profitable" for tax purposes to include companies who: Because generating an asset IE software isn’t a pure loss that’s why you’re doing it in the first place. Companies with a cash flow problem are different than companies which an actual loss. > i.e., a startup that earns $1mil and spent $8mil in software dev expenses i…
Tell me you're not an experienced software engineer without telling me you're not an experienced software engineer.
Code is a liability, not an asset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You keep saying this across this thread, and keep ignoring that Section 174 has now redefined "profitable" for tax purposes to include companies who: Because generating an asset IE software isn’t a pure loss that’s why you’re doing it in the first place. Companies with a cash flow problem are different than companies which an actual loss. > i.e., a startup that earns $1mil and spent $8mil in software dev expenses i…
> Because generating an asset IE software isn’t a pure loss that’s why you’re doing it in the first place. Tell me you're not an experienced software engineer without telling me you're not an experienced software engineer. Code is a liability, not an asset.
So you have no idea what that phrase means. If you don’t think code is an asset don’t write it.
O wait obviously that’s not what code is a liability means. Code is a liability in the same way roads or buildings are a liability, they incur an ongoing cost, but removing the US highway system would be just as idiotic as a startup deleting their source repository from a misunderstood idea.
More importantly valueless code stops being a liability because you can abandon it. Calling it a liability implies it has value.
There are some misunderstandings in the comments that seem to stem from not having read the section, so I thought it was worth referencing the actual text [0]. It's quite short and easy to read. The most important bits: * Subsection (a) requires amortizing "Specified research or experimental expenditures" over 5 years (paragraph (2)) instead of deducting them (paragraph (1)) * Paragraph (c)(3) is a Special Rule that…
E.g. If a whiskey maker pays to build a distillation system, it can’t deduct that cost immediately. Because that’s a capital asset that generates recurring revenue. Software is properly treated the same way.
There are some misunderstandings in the comments that seem to stem from not having read the section, so I thought it was worth referencing the actual text [0]. It's quite short and easy to read. The most important bits: * Subsection (a) requires amortizing "Specified research or experimental expenditures" over 5 years (paragraph (2)) instead of deducting them (paragraph (1)) * Paragraph (c)(3) is a Special Rule that…
It's pretty bad. It had a huge impact on my personally, I'm a small R&D shop and basically I have had to end all risky long-term research projects. In addition to the research costs, I'd also have to pay taxes on the research costs mostly up-front. Significantly, if the project doesn't work out, I'm still out of pocket for the tax money. It's a penalty for taking a risk, and it kneecaps American innovators in a globa…
That’s how it works for every business! If Jim Bean builds a distillation facility it has to amortize the investment in that over time. If the distillation facility doesn’t pan out, then it doesn’t get a refund for the taxes paid.
* Hiring a company to do software development is completely deductible or is still considered R&D? And there isn't any difference in regard to where the company is located?
* That company who performs the software development however, they have to pay the taxes since they are doing the development... so they are just going to raise their rates then correct? Or since they are providing a service to the company and it is work for hire does it not count?
* All other R&D expenses are still deductions including hardware development? Where is the line drawn? If you are doing the software side for a hardware product, that would be hardware correct?
* For founders, you would just take a dispersement instead of taking a salary if you are developing software? Or is that irrelevant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can do both, by eliminating corporate taxes.
At that point, do we need to fundamentally rethink political donations by companies (outright ban them) and SuperPACs? No representation without taxation.