Removing tax policy barriers can help businesses and individuals invest, work, create jobs, and lift the economy during a post-pandemic recovery without requiring lawmakers to create new spending programs. One of the most cost-efficient options available to lawmakers is to make permanent and expand the full expensing of capital investment.
While tax rates matter to businesses, so too does the measure of income to which those tax rates apply. Depreciation understates investment costs, overstates business profits, and reduces the after-tax return on the investment—resulting in less capital formation, productivity growth, and economic output. In other words, depreciation requires businesses to pay tax on income that doesn’t exist.
Removing the tax code’s bias against long-term investment by implementing a neutral cost recovery system (NCRS) for structures and full expensing for other assets is estimated to increase economic growth and job creation. Using the Tax Foundation General Equilibrium Model, we estimate that permanent full expensing and neutral cost recovery for structures will add more than 1 million full-time equivalent jobs to the long-run economy and boost the long-run capital stock by 13 percent, or $4.8 trillion.
Policymakers actively marginalized the manufacturing sector by saddling them with cost recovery rules that prevent them from deducting the full cost of investment in physical plant and equipment. Going forward, policymakers should avoid haphazard fixes, targeted measures, and protectionism.
We estimate that moving to permanent full expensing and neutral cost recovery for structures would add more than 1 million full-time equivalent jobs to the long-run economy and boost the long-run capital stock by $4.8 trillion.
Cost recovery is the way the tax code permits firms to recover (or deduct) the cost of making investments. Cost recovery plays an important role in defining a business’ taxable income and can impact investment decisions.
Studies have shown that accelerated depreciation helps increase wage growth. A recent report found that states that implemented accelerated depreciation in their tax codes led to a 2.5 percent increase in compensation per employee in manufacturing, relative to states that did not.
While tax rates matter to businesses, so too does the measure of income to which those tax rates apply. The corporate income tax is a tax on profits, normally defined as revenue minus costs. However, under the current tax code, businesses are unable to deduct the full cost of certain expenses—their capital investments—meaning the tax code is not neutral and actually increases the cost of investment.
Permanent full expensing for all types of investment is an effective policy change lawmakers can use to encourage additional investment and economic growth.
At a moment when countries are trying to make production more environmentally friendly and shore up supply chain weaknesses, capital investment is critical. Rather than adopt temporary policies that phase out and expire, policymakers should focus their efforts on long-term reforms to support investment.
Spain should follow the examples of Italy and the UK and enact tax reforms that have the potential to stimulate economic activity by supporting private investment while increasing its international tax competitiveness.
To recover from the pandemic and put the global economy on a trajectory for growth, policymakers need to aim for more generous and permanent capital allowances. This will spur real investment and can also contribute to more environmentally friendly production across the globe.
The overall U.S. tax and transfer system is overwhelmingly progressive, and understanding the extent—and source—of that progressivity is essential for lawmakers considering the trade-offs associated with each tax policy decision.
A recently enacted bill in Mississippi made the Magnolia State only the second state in the country to make full expensing permanent. The bill joins reductions to the individual income tax and capital stock tax rates, already in progress, as model, pro-growth reforms for the region.
The UK’s adoption of full expensing is a welcome step that may generate short-run economic benefits. However, for the reform to have a meaningful effect on the UK’s international competitiveness and long-run economic performance, it must be made permanent—which the British government has said it hopes to do.
As Chile looks to the future, policymakers might want to follow the UK’s example. Policymakers should focus on growth-oriented tax policies that encourage private and foreign direct investment, savings, and entrepreneurial activity, increasing Chile’s international tax competitiveness.
The proposed reforms would be welcome changes to the Commonwealth’s tax code, but the economic principles behind the reforms also have important implications for the Bay State’s income tax system writ large.
Reforming the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and providing neutral cost recovery for residential structures would tackle the problem of housing affordability in a complementary fashion.
Instead of such a complex and inefficient system, policymakers should move to full expensing as part of the effort to build.