Hacker News Reader

Comment by PaulDavisThe1st | Hacker News Reader

> I'm genuinely struggling to understand why the labor of software engineers would be treated differently from other kinds of work

Trump wanted a large tax cut. To make the numbers look better (notably the CBO reporting), Congress looked for ways to increase revenues. For whatever reason, they settled on software development, and devised Sec 174 to generate tax on 80% of s/w developer salaries in the first year it went into effect.

Why s/w development? I have seen no indication of the reasons for this; I suspect it was perceived as a "rich field" and thus suitable for this sort of treatment. Also, somewhat more fairly, s/w developers do tend to produce semi-durable assets that in some ways are like capital goods.

View on HN

Machinists also produce semi-durable assets. Should we depreciate the output of their labor, too? Like others in the thread, I view this as an assault on blue states or maybe to soften my vindictive tone, as an assault on those who are not his core constituents.

If the machinist is doing r&d, it's essentially the same. Suppose you pay a machinist to build parts for a new machine. This cost would be capitalized. But if you pay them to repair a machine, it's expensed.

IF the machinists are doing R&D, they get the same treatment as software engineers.

Nope.

For machinists, it is up to the employer whether to treat their work as R&D or a regular expense.

After Sec 174, for s/w developers, there is no choice.

I think this also favours large, established tech companies that are less sensitive to the costs being smeared across a few years than would most capital-hungry startups.

I wonder if some influential ones pushed for the change figuring it would carve their moat a little deeper.

likely, imo.

>Trump wanted a large tax cut. To make the numbers look better (notably the CBO reporting), Congress looked for ways to increase revenues.

so is congress the slave of trump? not clear what is going on here. are the legislature and executive branches not independent?

> are the legislature and executive branches not independent?

I am not sure how this can be a serious question right now, in 2025.

However, in 2017 the capitulation of power and authority by Congress was less obvious. What was still true was that the Republicans who controlled Congress and the President all wanted a large tax cut for higher income Americans, and were thus aligned on the goal. Since the President doesn't actually write legislation, this alignment was all that was needed to push the bill through.

>I am not sure how this can be a serious question right now, in 2025.

it was a serious question.

I did know that the republicans are in the majority in both the lower and upper houses, after the recent US election.

but was not sure if that was the only factor involved.

I am not from the US. just an interested observer.

hence my question.

the two branches are theoretically independent. what is happening right now is that, depending in your POV:

1) the Republican majority in both the house and senate are entirely on board with all of the Trump administration's actions, and thus have no reason to pass legislation or act in any way separately from the executive branch.

2) the Republican majority in both the house and senate are craven and terrified of the MAGA base that Trump commands, and in many cases in the house, are very much connected to it, so much so that they will do nothing to stand up to the executive branch even when it has crossed lines that have not been crossed before in many different areas.

Take your pick.

wow. shit.

thanks for the reply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com