←back to thread

OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

(www.kbkg.com)
334 points tareqak | 3 comments | 05 Jul 25 00:24 UTC | HN request time: 1.247s | source
Show context
tomrod ◴[05 Jul 25 01:12 UTC] No.44469345[source]▶
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): >>44469474 #>>44469476 #>>44469714 #>>44471311 #
xp84 ◴[05 Jul 25 01:41 UTC] No.44469474[source]▶
It’s an overstuffed bill because nobody will compromise on anything so the only way to pass a bill that has anything even remotely controversial to either party is one reconciliation bill a year.
replies(3): >>44469494 #>>44469916 #>>44469965 #
dragonwriter ◴[05 Jul 25 01:48 UTC] No.44469494[source]▶
> It’s an overstuffed bill because nobody will compromise on anything so the only way to pass a bill that has anything even remotely controversial to either party is one reconciliation bill a year.

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.

replies(2): >>44469550 #>>44469712 #
cheriot ◴[05 Jul 25 02:03 UTC] No.44469550[source]▶
In the last 10 years, have there been more than a handful of bills that got 60 votes in the senate?

I wouldn't like what the current congress would do without the filibuster, but at this point a paralyzed system might be worse.

replies(4): >>44469613 #>>44469632 #>>44469664 #>>44470156 #
1. a_wild_dandan ◴[05 Jul 25 02:27 UTC] No.44469664[source]▶
What does that matter? We're talking trifectas here, not supermajorities. The filibuster is a cute remnant of "decorum." It's a vestigial rule which will disappear when too inconvenient. (Fun question with not-so-fun answers: why isn't the filibuster gone already?)
replies(1): >>44470020 #
2. ethbr1 ◴[05 Jul 25 04:12 UTC] No.44470020[source]▶
> (Fun question with not-so-fun answers: why isn't the filibuster gone already?)

Because both parties are scared eventually the other party will be back in the majority.

replies(1): >>44471671 #
3. actionfromafar ◴[05 Jul 25 10:28 UTC] No.44471671[source]▶
So it seems like a good canary? If it’s removed, the ruling party is no longer afraid it will be ever removed from power.