If correct, this is a good thing on a generally bad, overstuffed bill. Immediate expensing never should have been changed in the first place, and it was always weird seeing people twist themselves in knots defending it.
replies(4):
By having a bunch of random provision in BBB that generate revenue it lowers it's impact on the defect and then you can repeal them later on after passing BBB.
No, and lots of controversial bills have passed other than as reconciliation bills, and especially so during trifectas where they "controversial" within the minority party but broadly supported by the majority; reconciliation is necessary to pass something that strains unity in the majority party and is uniformly opposed by (not "controversial to") the minority party, perhaps.
I wouldn't like what the current congress would do without the filibuster, but at this point a paralyzed system might be worse.
All of these except the first two were bipartisan and got 60 Senate votes (or more)
The recent (-ly undone) change went against decades of how things were, was crippling for medium size cashflow-positive startups, effectively increased taxes, etc. But it was really just a straightforward application of the general principles that apply to most everything else.
It does seem like things are trending toward less public laws passing over the last decade, as well as record low time in session and other congressional activity.
The point is that building a piece of software that is going to be in use for several+ years is creating an asset. It just goes against our intuition since this industry is so driven by fast fashion, and the bookkeeping of specific components, their depreciation schedules, early end of life, (etc) seems like needless complexity.
You can expense such time as opex, but it has to be justified, and that's often difficult to do. Did you fix a bug by refactoring some code to avoid the problem? Is that capex or opex? Can you convince the IRS of such?
The old (and now new) rules eliminated this accounting game and uncertainty.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/870...
A lot of what happens in Congress is obvious to do and everyone agrees. While the media certainly focuses on the handful of things the two parties are at odds over, most of the lawmaking done by Congress is not controversial between parties, and is simply passed, so we don't hear about it.
For example if you pay someone to fix a leaky roof and they replace a section of a given size, can you call it a repair/maintenance expense or should you be depreciating it as an improvement to the building? Can you convince the IRS of such? The only reason this has more straightforward answers is that accountants have been answering this question longer.
In particular it gives people permission to vote for a candidate they like but don't expect to be able to win.
I haven't seen the original comment, but the wiki article is moronic. None of the listed example seems even bad to me, claiming that they are the devil is ridiculous. Maybe even a false flag.
The only one that actually has anything to do with "terminating cliche" is "Let's agree to disagree.". But that's just the common phrase you say after you've decided to opt out of an argument. It is not (and can't be) the cause of it, it is the consequence of it.* And it is by no means any bad, or should one avoid it.
* : something something people being able to easily leave an argument makes them do it more. But it would need a lot of stretch to argue that the possibility to go away from arguments is a net negative for humanity
edit: can we agree that the random shit you linked is 100% unrelated to the argument at hand, therefore/and definitely should not be used?
edit2: yeah, it assumes the truthness of some ridiculously nonsensical concepts, and uses them in a meta meta way, that is 2-3 steps away from the topic at hand. Much-much more annoying than anything listed. "This is the hill you want to die on, huh? Naah.. How about.." *points downwards* "..there is this hill there 14000 miles away (actually there is only ocean), how about we move this fight there?" Yeah no thx.
The error was in reconciling them by getting rid of it for software R&D instead of allowing other business expenses to be deducted when they're paid for as well.
For large stable incumbents that have the same expenses every year, the difference doesn't matter except in the first years after you make the change, because it doesn't matter if you deduct all of this year's expense this year or 5% of each of the last 20 years' expenses this year, they add up to the same deduction every year.
Where it matters is for new challengers, because they don't have arbitrarily many years worth of legacy expenses to deduct, so their deduction in their first year will be less than their incumbent competitor's.
It also creates a disincentive (or competitive disadvantage) to increase long-term investments. If some existing company had been making a $5M investment every year but is now facing new foreign competition and needs to increase it to $10M in order to stay competitive, they're in the same position as the upstart. Moreover, then they may not be able to do it, because they were going to have to run lean and divert the $5M profit they usually make to increasing their capital investments, but then the government is expecting tax on most of that $5M which means they can't spend it this year it even though it's ultimately a deduction.
Notice what this does specifically in the case of real estate: If rents start going up the normal incentive is to build new housing, but now you have to put out all the money to build a new building in year 0 and not get to deduct it for decades. Is that the incentive we want? Probably not.
This is indicative of ignorance. There is a reason why we have these rules.