Pro-Growth Provisions in the Jobs for America Act
September 18, 2014
Today the U.S. House of Representatives debated H.R. 4, the Jobs for America Act. Among addressing multiple issues, the bill would make permanent Section 179 small business expensing, 50 percent expensing, and repeal the medical device tax. Each of these provisions would move the tax code in the right direction.
For a business, profits are revenue minus costs. However, this is not how the tax code defines profits. When it comes to investment in capital (the tools that people use), the tax code requires businesses to write off these costs over years or decades. Due to inflation and the time value of money, businesses end up not being able to recover the full cost of these investments. This overstates business profits and understates business costs.
Section 179 helps correct for this by moving pass-through businesses closer to full expensing. The provision allows businesses to expense up to $500,000 in capital investments rather than depreciating them over time. This helps makes the tax code more neutral by limiting biases against capital investment.
50 Percent Expensing
Commonly called bonus depreciation, 50 percent expensing allows all businesses to deduct 50 percent of their investments in equipment and software in the year they are purchased before depreciating the remaining costs. The provision moves cost recovery towards full expensing, which helps mitigate the tax code’s bias against capital investment.
If made permanent, we find that bonus depreciation would grow the economy by over 1 percent, boost wages by about 1 percent, and create over 200,000 jobs. Additionally, it would boost federal revenue by about $23 billion a year in the long run due to increased economic activity.
The Medical Device Tax
The medical device tax is a 2.3 percent excise tax on the sale of qualifying medical devices. According to our previous research, the medical device tax has the ability to “create distortions in the medical device industry, likely leading to higher health care prices for consumer, lower employment, and less innovation. Additionally, the tax is complex and creates additional compliance costs for firms.”
In addition, recent reports show that the complex medical device tax is bringing in 25 percent less revenue than projected and creating compliance issues for taxpayers.
Was this page helpful to you?
The Tax Foundation works hard to provide insightful tax policy analysis. Our work depends on support from members of the public like you. Would you consider contributing to our work?Contribute to the Tax Foundation
Let us know how we can better serve you!
We work hard to make our analysis as useful as possible. Would you consider telling us more about how we can do better?Give Us Feedback