3 ms·
Are you asserting that software and other labor-heavy startups should raise additional private capital so that they can pay taxes before they’ve established the
by jt2190 1y ago
Are you asserting that software and other labor-heavy startups should raise additional private capital so that they can pay taxes before they’ve established themselves in the marketplace? I’m not sure what you mean to say exactly.
- Retric 1y agoI’m saying investers should pay the full cost of R&D without assistance from taxpayers. When the non R&D portion of the business is profitable they should start paying taxes. Assuming a company isn’t miss classifying operations as R&D it shouldn’t be a major issue.
- jt2190 1y agoThanks for clarifying. This will of course discourage “riskier” startups and dampen innovation and give more power to profitable incumbents who will have less incentive to innovate. (Perhaps the result of this looks like Europe?)
- Retric 1y agoRisky startups with multiple years of R&D before revenue would be the least impacted. You’re only paying taxes if the business is profitable ignoring investments like R&D spending.
- jt2190 1y agoYou seem extremely confused. Section 174 specifically made those R&D costs “ignorable” from a tax standpoint. When it ended R&D costs could no longer be used to offset income.
- Retric 1y agoWhat specifically do you disagree with? That R&D is an investment? I mean outside of the tax code that’s what it means to do R&D. As to my other point, the highest risk category of startup has zero customers for years they also have zero revenue, zero profit, and zero taxes to pay here. On the 5th year they can deduct R&D from each of those years making the net effect on them minimal vs a startup with profits on year 0.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]