891–900 of 991 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He missed effectively every promise from 2016. Why did these people vote for him 2 more times, especially after an attempted coup? Maybe these "complaints" are just an attempt to dodge personal responsibility for having supported a catastrophe.
Hey, you knew a guy (Physics BA) who almost aced the LSAT cold. Do you remember what his score was and how old he was when he took it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He would do nothing because his supporters believe misinformation and worship him. Interesting, that hasn't been my experience. I live in a very red part of the country and most people I know are Trump supporters, including some family members have been very MAGA since 2016. I've been hearing more and more complaints over missed promises: no Epstein files, raising budgets, RFK is starting to water down his promises…
> I've been hearing more and more complaints over missed promises: no Epstein files, raising budgets, RFK is starting to water down his promises, no end to the Ukraine or Gaza wars, etc. I based my argument on the poll averages as shown below, most are high 40s similar to the past few months. I would think if people were upset about missed promises it would be reflected in these. It's been ~5 months. You might say pe…
> I believe you but maybe float a question to your neighbors - "If prices don't come down would you vote Democrat in 2027?"
The fact that you're assuming people should align with one party or the other is the problem.
Who gives a shit what letter is next to a candidates name? What matters is what the candidate stands for, what matters to them, and whether you believe they'll stuck to their guns when the political machine that is DC fights back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think it really changes the narrative. 2020 was also a congressional election year, even had Trump won (as he appeared to want desperately) he could not have been assured of a Republican congress. My argument is simple: Occam’s Razor The Republicans in congress put the provision in solely as a gimmick to get past the CBO. Frankly I don’t think legislators in either party are competent enough to have foreseen…
I think you’re wrong that legislators are incompetent. They’re human, and they’ve spent much of their lives learning how to get votes, but they’re not incompetent. A lot of them aren’t malicious, but there seems to be a small group of people outside of the legislative branch who are hell bent on taking control at all costs. And if you want to keep the votes rolling in you have to work with those people or get primari…
The top of the article blames Trump for some reason, when every time this is brought up, everyone sites Biden Admin for messing this up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... or you never have the startup, and just have 2 people unemployed and no produce nothing of use to anyone. Which is what's happening.
If you can't afford your taxes your business model was flawed to begin with. In the above example there is more than enough money for it to still be worth doing.
It makes it substantially more cashflow intensive to build a new software business, which entrenches incumbents and reduces competition. It favors companies who have the cash to wait for the full 5-year depreciation cycle, i.e. the opposite of most bootstrapped startups.
Quick example:
$10,000 revenue
$8,000 paid to software developer
$1,000 paid to AWS
leaves $1000 in profit.
You received $10,000 into your business account, but spent 8000+1000 = $9000. Your business account has a balance of $1000 at the end of the year.
Section 174 means you can only deduct 1/10th of the $8000 in the first year, $800. Your total deductible business expenses for the year will be 800+1000 = $1800.
Your taxable profit for the year is 10000-1800 = $8,200. If your effective tax rate is 25% (generously low), you owe $2,050 in taxes.
You pay your $2,050 tax payment and your business account is overdrafted by $1,050. You need to add $1,050 from your personal funds to the business to cover the shortfall.
Your business was cash flow negative for the year. This makes it extremely difficult to bootstrap a software company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the implications of this. As I understand accounting, this means that reported profits would be higher, and therefore incur more corporate income tax liability. Cash flow isn't effected besides tax. A startup isn't likely to be making a profit yet, under either accounting rule. Is there a benefit to reporting a larger loss? My first thought is that this effects Google and suchlike, not startups. But... assum…
I'm not an accountant, but as I understand it, you don't pay taxes on profits, but on revenue. So previously, some 20% of all revenue would be owned as corporate income tax, and startups would deduct it all as they're spending much more on R&D than they owe in corporate income tax. But with this tax change, the deduction would be much lower (80% lower IIUC).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Pay less salary so you can pay your taxes? This isn't as complicated as y'all seem to want to make it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company does not pay payroll taxes. Individuals pay those taxes.
It doesn't actually matter that much who actually writes the check to the government (although in the US, both parties pay taxes). Either way, the total cost of employment is higher for the employer than the after-tax income of the employee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A startup isn't likely to be making a profit yet, under either accounting rule. Is there a benefit to reporting a larger loss? As an example, A two person software startup; both drawing a salary, each making $100,000 per year. Each doing things related to software development. Startup brings in 200,000K in revenue. Under pre Section 174 changes, the profit is zero. Both salaries are expensible in the year they were…
> Post Section 174, the profit is now $160,000 each year. Now they pay taxes on $160,000, even though they literally have no money left over because revenues equaled expenditures. They have the $200k they pulled from their startup, far more than what most people earn. If you make enough to pay yourself $100k then you make enough to pay taxes.
This is insane, how does it make sense? Employee salary expenses are no different from other expenses to run your business. Imagine they did this for raw material instead, a restaurant could only expense 20% of the food that they sell. If they purchased $100 worth of food, but could only sell $50 worth of it, they have to pay tax on that even when making a net loss overall. It just does not make any sense. There woul…
It makes sense when you consider that there is no minimum tax rate on businesses. Given the choice, Amazon would rather spend 100% of its profits on itself than allow any of its profits to be paid out in taxes. Section 174 was implemented without a minimum tax on corporate profits before voluntary deductions such as research. Therefore, it’s exploitable and all companies ought to hire and fire staff to ensure their p…
"on itself"???
You mean it would rather spend its profits on hiring more developers than sit on it? That sounds great, doesn't it?