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...

> 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.

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.

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.

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

Unsympathetic because?

Generally R&D software developers aren't considered to be poor or disadvantaged.

What if they lose their job?

Then they are still arrogant brats.

Also, that administration was pissed off at tech.

Idk but it was under trump. And the meta issue was balancing the budget after all his tax cuts so he needed to find more tax revenues. Which this accomplishes pretty handily

I think partially dismissing the question due to the bill happening "under trump" doesn't help the conversation here. If the bill was sponsored by particular reps/senators, then it's worth identifying those, so their voters can factor this bill in to their decision to vote for/against in the future, etc.