3 ms·

Worth noting: the version of the Big Beautiful Bill passed by the House ends this particular change, starting in tax year 2025. We'll have to see if this provis

by wdaher 1y ago

Worth noting: the version of the Big Beautiful Bill passed by the House ends this particular change, starting in tax year 2025. We'll have to see if this provision makes it through the Senate, and in what form.

NewJazz 1y ago
That's crazy. We're 3 years into a 5 year depreciation cycle, and now they "change their minds". Sure convenient when you know you are in power to supercharge growth and leave a time bomb for the next admin.
xbar 1y ago
The destructive power of the Section 174 change cannot be overstated. It has been reported on a lot, but its harms are generally poorly articulated. I do not like many things in BBB, but I am glad to know there is at least something in there that I can be glad for.
- naijaboiler 1y ago
  Why sent tech companies and tech workers kick up a fuss when this bill passed in 2017. I remember being mad about it
  - sanderjd 1y ago
    Yeah I think we did kick up a fuss? The better question is why the tech industry seemed to forget that the first Trump administration was terrible...
- _dark_matter_ 1y ago
  Lol only for it to kick back in in 2029 during the next administration. Your employment has now become a bargaining chip in the GOP's handbook.
  - bequanna 1y ago
    I don't follow. Why is the GOP to blame here? If the other party allows these cuts to expire, why wouldn't you blame that party?
    - _dark_matter_ 1y ago
      These were... Introduced, and passed, by the Republican party? Seems kinda obvious that we should blame them. Let me know who you blame for cancer: the tumor or the doc who "let it happen"
walterbell 1y ago
> ends this particular change Temporarily, for 5 years.
- badloginagain 1y ago
  If remember correctly, this was put in by Trump first round, set to activate when Biden was in office. Now Trump second round fixes it, but expires in next (presumably) Democrat administration.
  - heymijo 1y ago
    That is correct. Some historical context is much appreciated in this thread. > tl;dr on Section 174, Research & Experimentation costs went from being fully deductible in the year incurred to being deductible over a 5 year period. Larger tax bills and a tightening on what roles/activities are deductible as R&E are likely what OP is pointing at with his comment. To the best of my non-inside baseball research, Section 174 changes were simply one part of a package of revenue generating measures to offset the large tax cuts from the broader tax act they were a part of. The changes came from The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 that was introduced to the House of Representatives by Congressman Kevin Brady (R) Texas. The bill passed both houses of Congress along party lines. Then President Trump signed the bill into law. Section 174 changes did not take effect until 2021. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=heymijo&next=43320989 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=heymijo&next=4332098...

by wdaher 1y ago

NewJazz 1y ago

That's crazy. We're 3 years into a 5 year depreciation cycle, and now they "change their minds". Sure convenient when you know you are in power to supercharge growth and leave a time bomb for the next admin.

xbar 1y ago

The destructive power of the Section 174 change cannot be overstated. It has been reported on a lot, but its harms are generally poorly articulated. I do not like many things in BBB, but I am glad to know there is at least something in there that I can be glad for.

naijaboiler 1y ago
Why sent tech companies and tech workers kick up a fuss when this bill passed in 2017. I remember being mad about it
- sanderjd 1y ago
  Yeah I think we did kick up a fuss? The better question is why the tech industry seemed to forget that the first Trump administration was terrible...
_dark_matter_ 1y ago
Lol only for it to kick back in in 2029 during the next administration. Your employment has now become a bargaining chip in the GOP's handbook.
- bequanna 1y ago
  I don't follow. Why is the GOP to blame here? If the other party allows these cuts to expire, why wouldn't you blame that party?
  - _dark_matter_ 1y ago
    These were... Introduced, and passed, by the Republican party? Seems kinda obvious that we should blame them. Let me know who you blame for cancer: the tumor or the doc who "let it happen"

walterbell 1y ago

> ends this particular change Temporarily, for 5 years.

badloginagain 1y ago
If remember correctly, this was put in by Trump first round, set to activate when Biden was in office. Now Trump second round fixes it, but expires in next (presumably) Democrat administration.
- heymijo 1y ago
  That is correct. Some historical context is much appreciated in this thread. > tl;dr on Section 174, Research & Experimentation costs went from being fully deductible in the year incurred to being deductible over a 5 year period. Larger tax bills and a tightening on what roles/activities are deductible as R&E are likely what OP is pointing at with his comment. To the best of my non-inside baseball research, Section 174 changes were simply one part of a package of revenue generating measures to offset the large tax cuts from the broader tax act they were a part of. The changes came from The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 that was introduced to the House of Representatives by Congressman Kevin Brady (R) Texas. The bill passed both houses of Congress along party lines. Then President Trump signed the bill into law. Section 174 changes did not take effect until 2021. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=heymijo&next=43320989 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=heymijo&next=4332098...