4 ms·

Here's the cosponsors of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1/cosponsors https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill

Here's the cosponsors of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1/cosponsors https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1/co... I think the purpose of the change was to "increase revenue": > Requiring that certain research or experimental expenditures be amortized over a five-year period or longer, starting in 2023, would increase revenues by $109 billion over the period from 2023 to 2027. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/115th-congress/house-report/409 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/115th-congress...

mjevans 1y ago
They want to call it anything other than a tax. It's a specific tax, on a particular class of better educated workers in specific jobs.
- kasey_junk 1y ago
  That typically don’t vote for that party and are unsympathetic.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    Unsympathetic because?
    - largbae 1y ago
      Generally R&D software developers aren't considered to be poor or disadvantaged.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        What if they lose their job?
        randomNumber7 1y ago
        Then they are still arrogant brats.
rcpt 1y ago
Also, that administration was pissed off at tech.
jdminhbg 1y ago
> I think the purpose of the change was to "increase revenue" Yes, but in a specific way: they were trying to offset the tax cuts they wanted so they could pass it via the reconciliation process and avoid the Senate filibuster. They didn't actually care about this revenue and the assumption from most people was that the specific carve-out would disappear in some future bill.
- saghm 1y ago
  And now with their attempts to keep the tax cuts around, they've just decided to ignore the rule entirely and pretend that extending a temporary tax cut counts as not costing anything. Of course, there's nothing that would stop them from getting rid of the filibuster entirely either, but that honestly just makes it weirder to pretend that this somehow fulfills the requirements rather than just is taking advantage of the rules being only self-enforced.

mjevans 1y ago

They want to call it anything other than a tax. It's a specific tax, on a particular class of better educated workers in specific jobs.

kasey_junk 1y ago
That typically don’t vote for that party and are unsympathetic.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  Unsympathetic because?
  - largbae 1y ago
    Generally R&D software developers aren't considered to be poor or disadvantaged.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      What if they lose their job?
      - randomNumber7 1y ago
        Then they are still arrogant brats.

rcpt 1y ago

Also, that administration was pissed off at tech.

jdminhbg 1y ago

> I think the purpose of the change was to "increase revenue" Yes, but in a specific way: they were trying to offset the tax cuts they wanted so they could pass it via the reconciliation process and avoid the Senate filibuster. They didn't actually care about this revenue and the assumption from most people was that the specific carve-out would disappear in some future bill.

saghm 1y ago
And now with their attempts to keep the tax cuts around, they've just decided to ignore the rule entirely and pretend that extending a temporary tax cut counts as not costing anything. Of course, there's nothing that would stop them from getting rid of the filibuster entirely either, but that honestly just makes it weirder to pretend that this somehow fulfills the requirements rather than just is taking advantage of the rules being only self-enforced.