5 ms·

> We'll correct the ills of the 2017 administration in time How? We have - at times - had democrats in charge since 2017 and they did nothing to resolve this e

> We'll correct the ills of the 2017 administration in time How? We have - at times - had democrats in charge since 2017 and they did nothing to resolve this either. We appear to be waiting for flying pigs.

throwanem 1y ago
So because this is something we can do now and we want to do something now, we do this?
- vkou 1y ago
  Supporting this is making a deal with the devil because he offered you two bottles of whiskey. Its penny-wise and pound-foolish.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwanem 1y ago
    I hadn't seen they were asking for a retroactive carveout! For eight years. A decade's worth of massive, post facto tax clawback? I don't know who thought this was a good idea, but they really must not love YC or Hacker News, to put those names on the public face of this...
    - Thorrez 1y ago
      While the law with the tax change was passed in 2017, that specific change didn't go into effect until 2022. So it's 3 years of retroactive carveouts (2022, 2023, 2024).
- rbultje 1y ago
  The opposite of what you're saying is "perfection is the enemy of progress", so let's move past them. I'm asking for more than "this is not the way". What is the way? How will we do this? This is critical, and we've failed to do anything since early 2022. Democrats are clearly not at all interested. My (Dem) congressman responded directly to my enquiry with "fixing section174 just wouldn't be good optics". I agree republicans can't be taken very seriously either if OB3 is the highest of highs. But we all want this fixed. So: how?
  - throwanem 1y ago
    Not in a way that makes us even easier to hate, for a start. You really want a big noisy political carveout in what is already being called the largest upward wealth transfer in history? You want to find out what it's like to be in a line of work that has the reputation for having to steal from the American people to survive? We have enough of that reputation already. If you want a better answer, tell me who our friends are in Congress this decade, and how much it matters. From what I see, the answers are "few" and "little." The Americans who don't blame us for giving Trump the country blame us for not giving him enough of a platform. The appearance of demanding favor on our part at such a moment seems unwise, but that moment does sufficiently explain why we find ourselves facing the aforementioned paucity of well-wishers.
    - kortilla 1y ago
      >Not in a way that makes us even easier to hate, for a start. You really want a big noisy political carveout in what is already being called the largest upward wealth transfer in history? You want to find out what it's like to be in a line of work that has the reputation for having to steal from the American people to survive? We have enough of that reputation already. This is bullshit. The carveout already exists and it's designed to attack software engineering specifically.
      - throwanem 1y ago
        This is politics. Perceptions matter. Changing the status quo is more difficult because it is the status quo, and that also matters. If you want to sell this change, the way to do it is to hammer on the fact that it was Trump's own TCJA that created the current situation, or that it was the machinations of a hostile Congress that so perverted the original intent of the TCJA, depending on audience. But even that is not likely to work, not in a post-"Twitter Files," post-Careless People world. I don't know what kind of bubble you live in but if I were working this year I wouldn't be super comfortable talking about it, the same way if I had previously made the mistake of buying a Tesla I would by now have unloaded the damned eyesore even at a loss. No one is upset to see us suffer. If you think that should change, fine. Complaining at me about it won't achieve that. I did not ask how you think things should be. I'm telling you how things are.
conception 1y ago
Except in 2024 when the house passed a bill that included repealing it.
- rbultje 1y ago
  It didn't become law (no 60 votes in senate), after Schumer sat on it for 6 (!) months. And there were earlier attempts to fix this, for example at the end of 2022 using budget/reconciliation - like what the Reps are doing here; but that was blocked by progressives because of "bad optics".
Atreiden 1y ago
The Democratic party needs internal reform, that much seems clear to me. But since then we've had just a single term of Biden, and his administrations focus was on COVID, Ukraine, and getting CHIPS+infra bills passed. It takes time to undo damage codified into legislation. We're still dealing with the aftermath of Reagan. But we have to stop the bleeding and take Congress back, or the size of the hill we have to scale increases drastically.

throwanem 1y ago

So because this is something we can do now and we want to do something now, we do this?

vkou 1y ago
Supporting this is making a deal with the devil because he offered you two bottles of whiskey. Its penny-wise and pound-foolish.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- throwanem 1y ago
  I hadn't seen they were asking for a retroactive carveout! For eight years. A decade's worth of massive, post facto tax clawback? I don't know who thought this was a good idea, but they really must not love YC or Hacker News, to put those names on the public face of this...
  - Thorrez 1y ago
    While the law with the tax change was passed in 2017, that specific change didn't go into effect until 2022. So it's 3 years of retroactive carveouts (2022, 2023, 2024).
rbultje 1y ago
The opposite of what you're saying is "perfection is the enemy of progress", so let's move past them. I'm asking for more than "this is not the way". What is the way? How will we do this? This is critical, and we've failed to do anything since early 2022. Democrats are clearly not at all interested. My (Dem) congressman responded directly to my enquiry with "fixing section174 just wouldn't be good optics". I agree republicans can't be taken very seriously either if OB3 is the highest of highs. But we all want this fixed. So: how?
- throwanem 1y ago
  Not in a way that makes us even easier to hate, for a start. You really want a big noisy political carveout in what is already being called the largest upward wealth transfer in history? You want to find out what it's like to be in a line of work that has the reputation for having to steal from the American people to survive? We have enough of that reputation already. If you want a better answer, tell me who our friends are in Congress this decade, and how much it matters. From what I see, the answers are "few" and "little." The Americans who don't blame us for giving Trump the country blame us for not giving him enough of a platform. The appearance of demanding favor on our part at such a moment seems unwise, but that moment does sufficiently explain why we find ourselves facing the aforementioned paucity of well-wishers.
  - kortilla 1y ago
    >Not in a way that makes us even easier to hate, for a start. You really want a big noisy political carveout in what is already being called the largest upward wealth transfer in history? You want to find out what it's like to be in a line of work that has the reputation for having to steal from the American people to survive? We have enough of that reputation already. This is bullshit. The carveout already exists and it's designed to attack software engineering specifically.
    - throwanem 1y ago
      This is politics. Perceptions matter. Changing the status quo is more difficult because it is the status quo, and that also matters. If you want to sell this change, the way to do it is to hammer on the fact that it was Trump's own TCJA that created the current situation, or that it was the machinations of a hostile Congress that so perverted the original intent of the TCJA, depending on audience. But even that is not likely to work, not in a post-"Twitter Files," post-Careless People world. I don't know what kind of bubble you live in but if I were working this year I wouldn't be super comfortable talking about it, the same way if I had previously made the mistake of buying a Tesla I would by now have unloaded the damned eyesore even at a loss. No one is upset to see us suffer. If you think that should change, fine. Complaining at me about it won't achieve that. I did not ask how you think things should be. I'm telling you how things are.

conception 1y ago

Except in 2024 when the house passed a bill that included repealing it.

rbultje 1y ago
It didn't become law (no 60 votes in senate), after Schumer sat on it for 6 (!) months. And there were earlier attempts to fix this, for example at the end of 2022 using budget/reconciliation - like what the Reps are doing here; but that was blocked by progressives because of "bad optics".

Atreiden 1y ago

The Democratic party needs internal reform, that much seems clear to me. But since then we've had just a single term of Biden, and his administrations focus was on COVID, Ukraine, and getting CHIPS+infra bills passed. It takes time to undo damage codified into legislation. We're still dealing with the aftermath of Reagan. But we have to stop the bleeding and take Congress back, or the size of the hill we have to scale increases drastically.