And who decides when it has “stopped working.” It is standardized to 39 years because it is impossible to prove for every single item individually and people would then be incentivized to not take care of their possessions so they can finally deduct it. This is all besides my original point which is that accelerated depreciation is a big factor in determining whether projects occur, the opposite of the article. You yourself are calling it a subsidy and a loan, and so even if your reasoning is wrong, would agree with me that it is something that helps make a project feasible. So all this arguing is just you trying to argue. Get your CPA and talk to me again.
Initially the company, though audits and penalties help keep them honest.
> accelerated depreciation is a big factor in determining whether projects occur
And clearly that’s a problem. Just as government farm subsidies waste money growing excess food accelerated depreciation causes significant economic waste.
> CPA
Ahh, there’s your problem a CPA has nothing to do with economic issues. This is an economic and thus a policy issue but you’re trying to argue based on the existing law rather than the underlying reality. I don’t expect you to get a in depth education on the topic, but if you’re interested I can recommended some good books to get you started.
But to summarize a huge body of work, the broken window fallacy demonstrates that economic activity isn’t inherently beneficial. Maximum efficiency isn’t equivalent to maximum GDP etc. As such policies that increase economic activity can be and generally are detrimental.
