White House opposes extending business depreciation tax break

Comments (17)
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

So the GOP wants to add another $287 billion to the federal deficit just so businesses can continue to pay low taxes, keep more revenue, and not pay their employees more. Hooray for corporate lobbying!

Jul 10, 2014 2:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

‘The Republican measure includes no accompanying proposal to offset its costs, which would enlarge the federal deficit.’

So much for the empty GOP posturing on ‘Cut the deficit’. I knew it was a sham.

Jul 10, 2014 3:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@Sunny

I do find it interesting that they are so insistent that the $3.7 Billion Obama asked for to help with the immigration situation gets offset by taking funds from other federal programs, but they’re apparently not interested in applying the same criteria to their proposal to spend over 75 times as much money.

Jul 10, 2014 3:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:
@Sunny
‘I do find it interesting that they are so insistent that the $3.7 Billion Obama asked for to help with the immigration situation gets offset by taking funds from other federal programs, but they’re apparently not interested in applying the same criteria to their proposal to spend over 75 times as much money.’

Yep. Then the GOP means, ‘Offsets if President Obama or the Democrats want it, but none when it’s for us. Evidently. What a bunch of cowards. This former ‘I’ is voting anti-R forever.

Jul 10, 2014 4:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeRealistic wrote:

What happens, to you two accounting illiterate posters so far, is that the depreciation is taken up front which means they get less later on. So, while they get a lower tax bill up front, they get a bigger one later on. The purpose of this type of law is to encourage inetment into new equipment, which means higher productivity, better quality, and better competitive edge. If a company buys new equipment, they get to write off the depreciation quickly, if they hold it for many years, they do not get to claim depreciation in those later years after they write the machine down 100%. It serves as an incentive to keep a modern and competitive facility. But ignorance is bliss, so go ahead and stay blissful in your partisan rhetoric which makes you look silly.

Jul 10, 2014 4:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

Republicons are trying to run the old, ‘Heads we win, tails you lose’ scam that they always do.

Jul 10, 2014 4:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Speakerbliss wrote:

The Tax cuts and bad business policies of the Bush years is what got us into this economic mess in the first place. Why do Republics push to cut taxes on one hand and increase spending an the deficit on the other.

Cutting taxes does not grow business or increases job creation. Another Republican myth.

Jul 10, 2014 4:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeRealistic wrote:

So you just get diarrhea of the mouth and feel the need to spew your silliness here Speaker?
1)It was the 2006 DNC sweep of congress that plunged us into this mess.
2)And yes, it has been shown repeatedly that tax cuts do indeed grow business and create more jobs than higher taxes, but as a good partisan hack you tend to spew unfounded nonsense with the expectation that people will accept it as truth. Sad.

Jul 10, 2014 4:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@BeRealistic

I believe you’re neglecting inflation. If you deduct 50% of the cost now, you have “saved money” versus deducting the same dollar amount over several years, as the dollar 10 years down the road is worth less than the dollar now, assuming positive inflation.

But thanks for calling me accounting illiterate and not even factoring inflation into your analysis.

Jul 10, 2014 4:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

Speakerbliss wrote: ‘Cutting taxes does not grow business or increases job creation. Another Republican myth’

Yep. Another myth just like ‘fiscal conservative’.

Jul 10, 2014 5:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

BeRealistic wrote: ‘it has been shown repeatedly that tax cuts do indeed grow business and create more jobs than higher taxes’

Any non-Partisan proof of that at all? I’m betting not. It didn’t happen. and, btw; it cracks me up that the cons always blame the last two years of the bush/GOP ‘lost decade’ on the Democrats when the Republicons had TOTAL CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES AND THE PRESIDENCY prior to that. It’s like a black hole in time for ‘conservatives’ – you never admit your failure.

Jul 10, 2014 5:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@BeRealistic

You’re also neglecting that if the government invested the larger initial tax revenue from spreading the depreciation as opposed to the 50% up front deduction, they would again make more money.

There’s also evidence that refutes the claim that lower corporate taxes create jobs:
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/files/budget/corp-tax-rate-debate.pdf

Jul 10, 2014 5:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Timbuk3 wrote:

@BeRealistic
If the total cost were exactly the same to take the depreciation now or later, then why does everyone in Washington agree that it will COST $287 Billion for the taxpayers to fund this?

This is $287B that we would be adding to the deficit, borrowing, to subsidize businesses during a record profit and stock market period and with relatively low unemployment.

Please show me again how the middle class has benefited from business tax cuts, I can’t seem to find a solid reference for this. Rush or Fox News or Heritage Foundation fakery does not count, something unbiased please.

here is one I found that contradicts your assertion.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2011/06/20/corporate-tax-cuts-dont-stimulate-job-growth

If you can show me data that says 97% of scientists and economists believe it’s true, can I still say that their is significant doubt about this theory?

Jul 10, 2014 5:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@Timbuk3

BeRealistic didn’t account for inflation or the fact that the government could invest the higher initial tax revenue. I suspect that’s where the $287 billion estimate comes from.

Jul 10, 2014 5:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

‘It was the 2006 DNC sweep of congress that plunged us into this mess.’

Funny not one reputable economist I have seen agrees with this statement. Perhaps you could provide me a link to any economic study that came to this conclusion?

Jul 10, 2014 5:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

Speakerbliss wrote: ‘Cutting taxes does not grow business or increases job creation. Another Republican myth’

Exactly so. Remember the old GOP, ‘tax cuts for Job Creators’ scam during the bush/GOP decade? yeah, the Job Creators gave us the worst unemployment in 60 years. That Republicon meme has been thoroughly debunked by reality.

Jul 10, 2014 5:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

That’s what addiction does.

Jul 10, 2014 6:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.