The NYTimes reports Obama will propose 100% expensing for new equipment purchases for the next 15 months. This really should have been in the original stimulus bill—why wasn't it?
One item puzzles me. The initial "cost" of the proposal is listed as $100 billion for the extra tax deductions. However, the ten-year cost is only $30 billion, because the purchases would have been fully depreciated anyway. Why isn't the ten-year cost then zero? Because of the time value of money? But at today's interest rates, the time value of money really isn't that large, is it?
And wouldn't the additional economic activity swamp the "cost" with new tax revenue?
No comments:
Post a Comment