Tech Industry Warns US Investment Pledges Hinge on Research Tax Break (bloomberg.com) 60
An anonymous reader shares a report: Major tech companies lobbying to salvage a tax deduction for research and development are warning they may pull back from high-profile pledges of new US investments if Congress doesn't fully reinstate the break.
Big tech companies have pledged more than $1.6 trillion in investments in the US since Donald Trump took office, promising to build factories and data centers in alignment with Trump's push to build in America. But industry representatives are signaling those promises will be imperiled if Congress doesn't fully reinstate the R&D tax deduction, which was pared back to help offset the massive cost of President Donald Trump's 2017 bill. At the time, it was estimated that limiting the provision would temporarily raise about $120 billion from 2018 to 2027.
"A lot of those announcements are predicated on an expectation the administration and Congress will partner together on reinstating those R&D provisions," said Jason Oxman, president of the Information Technology Industry Council, a trade group that includes among its members Amazon, Apple, Anthropic, Alphabet, and IBM. Lobbyists representing tech companies that announced US investments have made similar claims to congressional aides and lawmakers, according to people familiar with the conversations.
Big tech companies have pledged more than $1.6 trillion in investments in the US since Donald Trump took office, promising to build factories and data centers in alignment with Trump's push to build in America. But industry representatives are signaling those promises will be imperiled if Congress doesn't fully reinstate the R&D tax deduction, which was pared back to help offset the massive cost of President Donald Trump's 2017 bill. At the time, it was estimated that limiting the provision would temporarily raise about $120 billion from 2018 to 2027.
"A lot of those announcements are predicated on an expectation the administration and Congress will partner together on reinstating those R&D provisions," said Jason Oxman, president of the Information Technology Industry Council, a trade group that includes among its members Amazon, Apple, Anthropic, Alphabet, and IBM. Lobbyists representing tech companies that announced US investments have made similar claims to congressional aides and lawmakers, according to people familiar with the conversations.
In case your not aware.. (Score:1)
The tax cuts and Jobs Act that Trump originally passed completely destroyed the tech industry by getting rid of the research exceptions under the tax code, Dramatically raising taxes on innovation. He has completely refused to fix this because he did this to punish people on Twitter that were dunking on him.
Heel, sit, stay. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now is when the billionaires flex.
They don't care when you come after health care for poors.
They don't care when you deport migrants without due process.
They don't care when you jail people for protesting while not US citizens.
They don't care when you target political opposition with the Department of Justice.
They care when you come for their tax breaks. Fuck around and they yank their promises of building stuff here.
Re: (Score:2)
The people cheered when Trump canceled the tax breaks under the pretext of "government efficiency". And the same people will cheer again when he reinstates them in order to create jobs.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They're not "migrants". They're illegal aliens. Pretty up the language all you like, it doesn't change what they are
Green card holders and holders of other valid visas are "illegal aliens"?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Green card holders and holders of other valid visas are "illegal aliens"?
You're conflating illegal aliens with visitors that had their visas revoked for one offense or another. When you're a guest in someone's country, it's best not to be a complete ass. You get your visa revoked when you do that. This is not new or uncommon, and the State Department makes it clear that it can revoke visas for a full range of reasons: [cnn.com]
visas are issued by the State Department and can be revoked for a number of reasons, including violating laws and providing false information on an application. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual makes clear a visa holder does not have to be formally charged with any crime before a visa can be terminated.
As you full well know, there is no right to be in someone else's country.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're fine with government censoring of speech for people here legally? Because that's what's happening.
I thought conservatives were all about individual liberties? Or has that been thrown on the bonfire of hypocrisy with "law and order" and "fiscal responsibility"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your understanding of both what is actually going on and what the law actually is seems to be completely broken. Taking someone with a legal visa and just revoking it on a whim is not actually legal. The discretionary powers granted to immigration officials are limited and subject to court review. Whatever the " the State Department makes ... clear" they're only one branch of government and not all powerful, and, recently often very very wrong about how the law actually works in their public statements. The
Re: (Score:3)
>> the aliens subject to expedited removal
But that's only a subset of immigrants as was clearly explained in the rest of the article.
Re: (Score:3)
Removal but not imprisonment in a foreign country, and the only ones who can be removed are those "who are deemed inadmissable upon arrival". A valid visa or green card is proof that the migrant was admissable unless it can be proven that they obtained it through fraud, but that requires due process.
Re:Heel, sit, stay. (Score:5, Insightful)
And section 235 of statutory law does not supercede the 5th amendment, which grants due process of law to "all persons" previous to a forfeit of "life, liberty, or property."
Where was the due process for the people sent to a Salvadorian gulag? Where was it proven in an immigration court that these people were here illegally to begin with, as we know that some people were sent there without hearing, and against standing court orders NOT TO DEPORT? Seems that is the deprivation of liberty. Read the god damn Constitution.
I don't give two fucks what label you apply to these persons, as long as we're following the Constitution. And this President is not. But somehow you're ok with the rampant violation of constitutional rights because these fascist pricks have successfully "othered" them in your easily bent mind.
Open your fucking eyes, or just admit to cheering on violations of constitutional rights and go all-in on the fascism already.
Re:Heel, sit, stay. (Score:5, Informative)
Funny how all of a sudden conservatives are all confused about the 5th amendment.
https://constitution.congress.... [congress.gov]
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Notice it says "person" and not "citizen". The language is exceptionally clear here.
Re: Heel, sit, stay. (Score:1)
I guess you missed the part where it said "capital or infamous crime".
A guy breaks into your house, you don't have to ask a judge if you have permission to throw him out on his ass. Exactly the same situation with illegals - they're not even technically being punished, just returned.
If we wanted to kill them, then yes, we should ask a judge first.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong.
SCOTUS has ruled that any person within the jurisdiction of the United States is afforded due process rights. See: Shaughnessy v US:
The Court held that a noncitizen’s Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process differs according to his or her circumstances. Lawful resident noncitizens possess a constitutional right to procedural due process that is not easily removed. In limited circumstances, if a lawful resident noncitizen is temporarily absent from the United States, the right to due process may still exist. Any noncitizen within the United States also has a constitutional right to traditional standards of fairness, regardless of whether they entered the country lawfully or unlawfully.
That's been legal precedent longer than you've likely been alive - it was set in 1953.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong.
SCOTUS has ruled that any person within the jurisdiction of the United States is afforded due process rights. See: Shaughnessy v US:
Lawful resident noncitizens possess a constitutional right to procedural due process that is not easily removed.
Lawful. Resident. Noncitizens.
Re: Heel, sit, stay. (Score:2)
Because the photoshopped labels say m s one three?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Judge Charlotte Sweeney (Biden appointee) on May 6 preliminary injunction:
“Respondents’ arguments are threadbare costumes for their core contention: ‘As for whether the Act’s preconditions are satisfied, that is the President’s call alone; the federal courts do not have a role to play.’ This sentence staggers. It is wrong as a matter of law and attempts to read an entire provision out of the Constitution.”
“According to Respondents, the President determined TdA
Re:Heel, sit, stay. (Score:5, Informative)
Of all the problems that affect my daily life, people in the country illegally are near the bottom.
How is the economy? How about more affordable healthcare? How about crumbling infrastructure? I was threatened with a taco truck on every corner and it never happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Australia it's basically impossible to find authentic Mexican street food.
Can you send a few our way?
Be careful what you wish for, but a taco truck on every corner sounds bloody awesome!
Re: (Score:2)
Of all the problems that affect my daily life, people in the country illegally are near the bottom.
And yet they are the focus of public debate while the things that do effect our lives are ignored by both parties. Trump has won because he has set the terms of debate. And the Democrats will lose as long as they spend time "resisting" Trump's various provocations instead of developing and supporting an attractive alternative that delivers on the things that do effect people's lives.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, no. That's just objectively false.
The whole damn reason the courts are going crazy is that they're just randomly picking anyone and deporting them. It's not limited to illegal aliens.
This administration reserves the right to deport YOU and they have also asserted the right to ignore whatever attempt you might make to show them your RealID. They claim they don't need to wait for that. The people don't get due process.
If they reverse their position on
Re: (Score:2)
They're not "migrants". They're illegal aliens. Pretty up the language all you like, it doesn't change what they are.
Right. They are ambitious people trying to make a better life for themselves and their family. They are productive workers. They are a lot of things that are neither alien nor illegal. What they lack is a proper work visa. So, like Elon Musk when he started out, they have found someone who will bend or break the law by employing them.
Not the tax payers responsibility (Score:1)
Re: Not the tax payers responsibility (Score:3)
Re:Not the tax payers responsibility (Score:5, Informative)
Spoken like a true gormless worm. "Not our responsibility to do things that benefit everyone"
That dog don't fly anymore. DOGE and the admin have sent exactly zero (that is none) cases to the DOJ of fraud or embezzlement or criminal misuse of funds.
All you have is subjective "waste" (it doesn't align with my politics so it's wasteful)
Where our $2T in cuts that were promised? Where's our balanced budget? Where our no new wars? Where is our 51st state?
Re: (Score:2)
All you have is subjective "waste" (it doesn't align with my politics so it's wasteful)
I don't think it is politics. If it doesn't serve/profit them personally its waste. Picking up the garbage and cleaning bathrooms in national parks is not really a political issue, but you only care if the trash cans or toilets are overflowing if you visit a national park.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not enough information to infer anything.
Why are we subsidizing Jane, and "Bob" isn't subsidizing squat, the public is, all of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine for a moment that government is 100% efficient, so it is that efficient at taking money from Bob to subsidize Jane. The problem is not lack of efficiency, fraud or abuse, the problem is the very concept that Bov should be feeding Jane and that government will enforce that.
Why doesn't "Bob" go build his own country and functioning economy?
With blackjack, and hookers if he so desires.
Re: (Score:2)
The government that comes after this will be a larger welfare state, not a smaller one.
Doesn't sound like (that) much (Score:2)
From TFS:
[...] industry representatives are signaling [promises of 1.6 trillion R&D investment] will be imperiled if Congress doesn't fully reinstate the R&D tax deduction, which was pared back to help offset the massive cost of President Donald Trump's 2017 bill. At the time, it was estimated that limiting the provision would temporarily raise about $120 billion from 2018 to 2027.
[...] the Information Technology Industry Council [is] a trade group that includes among its members Amazon, Apple, Anthropic, Alphabet, and IBM.
So ... $120 billion in taxes, spread out over about a decade, and over 5 (or more?) mega-corporations, is going to threaten a $1.6 trillion R&D program?
Methinks they doth protest too much.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It's expensive to do development in the US. This used to be paid for because the US was where people wanted to work, so by doing your development here you got to pick the most talented. This has stopped being true.
To be fair, this isn't entirely Trump's fault. The relative advantage of the US has been going down as other countries recovered from WWII. So we really needed to concentrate on the high return items...like high tech. As long as we kept ahead in R&D, we still had a slight adv
It's an arms race with interesting side effects (Score:2)
Established businesses pay taxes
Governments offer tax breaks to attract new business
Established businesses come up with strategies to relocate or reinvent in order to get tax breaks
The end game is that no businesses pay tax
Seems unsustainable
Re: (Score:2)
Bankruptcy laws and numbered companies make this way to easy as well.
I know where they could get $45 million from (Score:2)
Trumps wannabe dictator birthday parade. https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There's your cost right there. They are going to include the submarines in the parade.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think digging a canal down Pennsylvania Avenue so that a Los Angeles class attack submarine can get in on the tinpot dictator military parade action, followed by filling it back in and repaving it might be expensive and disrupting; but Dear Leader wants it, so...
use the company's offshore money (Score:2)
instead of giving the traditional tax breaks, they should let them bring back the offshore money these companies have been holding onto. Make them invested directly in the business as opposed to re-distribution to shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be an interesting negotiating position, but there don't seem to be any formal negotiations.
Currently what they seem to be saying is "We made the promise you wanted, and then you changed the terms of the deal. So we're reconsidering."