[curtis3389]

Here's the cosponsors of the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1/co...

I think the purpose of the change was to "increase revenue":

> Requiring that certain research or experimental expenditures be amortized over a five-year period or longer, starting in 2023, would increase revenues by $109 billion over the period from 2023 to 2027.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/115th-congress...

[jdminhbg]

> I think the purpose of the change was to "increase revenue"

Yes, but in a specific way: they were trying to offset the tax cuts they wanted so they could pass it via the reconciliation process and avoid the Senate filibuster. They didn't actually care about this revenue and the assumption from most people was that the specific carve-out would disappear in some future bill.

[saghm]

And now with their attempts to keep the tax cuts around, they've just decided to ignore the rule entirely and pretend that extending a temporary tax cut counts as not costing anything. Of course, there's nothing that would stop them from getting rid of the filibuster entirely either, but that honestly just makes it weirder to pretend that this somehow fulfills the requirements rather than just is taking advantage of the rules being only self-enforced.

[mjevans]

They want to call it anything other than a tax.

It's a specific tax, on a particular class of better educated workers in specific jobs.

[kasey_junk]

That typically don’t vote for that party and are unsympathetic.

[rcpt]

Also, that administration was pissed off at tech.