It's interesting that no one sees this as it is: Killing the golden goose so that the IRS can get some meat.
This change, theoretically, doesn't "add" to your tax bill. You'll be paying the same amount of taxes. However, as in the example outlined in the first comment, you'll continually have a credit with the IRS due to the amortization. The questions are:
1. Is this credit recoverable?
2. Why is the IRS doing this anyway? Just for a quick cash/tax boost?
Because that's what failed states look like. The USSR is looking good in proportions...
The IRS isn't doing this. Congress did it, because it's an accounting trick that lets them say something costs less than it actually does, because all of Congress' budgeting is on decade-long horizons, and they factor in theoretical wage/revenue/profit growth, so them front-loading the same tax receipts allows them to very easily lie about the actual cost of programs. They can pull 80% of the tax receipts from made up figures a decade from now into their government revenue calculations.
The public eye, as in the general public, has little idea of what's going on in the startup world and let alone specific issues like this one.
> that write off salaries as tax expense look like tax avaiders
This doesn't increase the tax burden. After 5 years, most companies will be back to paying what they are paying now. This gives you a cash boost for this year and next few ones. After that, you just killed bootstrapped companies.
This change, theoretically, doesn't "add" to your tax bill. You'll be paying the same amount of taxes. However, as in the example outlined in the first comment, you'll continually have a credit with the IRS due to the amortization. The questions are:
1. Is this credit recoverable?
2. Why is the IRS doing this anyway? Just for a quick cash/tax boost?
Because that's what failed states look like. The USSR is looking good in proportions...