Obama’s $200 Billion Tax Cut Problem: What Will Companies Buy?

Cell phone tower builders could get a stimulus benefit

If you think a plan called, “Cash for Cell Phone Towers,” or “Cash for Internal Combustion Engines,” sounds kind of clunky, that may be the problem.

On Wednesday, President Obama in a speech in Cleveland, Ohio, officially announces a bonanza of a business tax cut that could boost business spending by $200 billion in the next 16 months. It is the latest of a string of proposals the President has rolled in the past few days that he says will rescue the nation’s so far tepid, and potentially failing, economic recovery. The plans are a mixture of tax cuts and infrastructure spending. Together this second smaller stimulus package would ring in at, depending on the estimate, anywhere from $180 billion to $350 billion. But no matter how you price it, the proposed business tax cut that Obama announces today has the potential to offer the biggest boost to the economy. That’s a problem. Here’s why:

The $200 billion plan is to allow businesses to write off the full value of most business investments made from now until the end of 2011. Companies can always use the cost of those purchases to lower their taxes, but they normally have to do so over a number of years, anywhere from 5 to 39, depending on what they buy. Obama is betting that companies will spend money now in order to get the immediate tax cut.

In theory, the tax cut could be a relatively cheap way to stimulate the economy. Afterall, companies will be saving taxes now, but they will be reducing the tax write-offs they can take in the future. Eventually, hopefully, those companies, if they are around, will end up paying those taxes eventually. So the plan will do little to worsen the nation’s deficit problem.  Corporations have a record amount of cash sitting on their balance sheets that is not being spent because either Obama is not business friendly, or of the weak economy, depending on what you believe. So if what is really more of a tax deferment than a tax break is able to get them to spend that money now rather than wait, it could really help the economy. But the question as to how stimulative this proposal will be comes down to how many companies will really bite, and how much extra will they spend?

A few years ago University of Michigan professors Matthew Shapiro and Christopher House studied a similar plan, and came away with this conclusion:

While the policy noticeably increased investment in types of capital that benefited substantially from bonus depreciation, the aggregate effects of the policy were modest. The analysis suggests that the policy may have increased output by roughly 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent and increased employment by roughly 100,000 to 200,000 jobs.

So how can the policy both noticeably increase investment and produce modest economic results at the same time? What the professors found is that types of purchases that would benefit the most from the acceleration of the tax benefit were the ones companies were least likely to make.

Companies get the greatest benefit from the plan from items that normally take the longest to write off. The cost of an office building, for example, has to be written off over 39 years. That’s because office buildings tend to be around and valuable for a long time. Cars and computers, for example, lose their value quickly. So companies get to take the tax write-off on those items in five years. Office towers and other buildings, though, are likely to be exempt from Obama’s proposal. In the past, tax deferment policies have only applied to items that are fully expensed in 20 years. So the sweet spot of this tax plan are items on which companies normally have to be expensed for tax reasons over 15 to 20 years.

What will companies be buying with their tax credits? Cell phone towers. The tax benefit of buying cell phone towers normally has to be spread over 15 years. Other items in that tax expense category are electrical or utility towers, engines and turbines that don’t end up in cars or airplanes and farm structures.

The problem companies don’t normally spend a lot of money on that stuff. For much of the past 20 years, Shapiro and House found that nearly 30% of all business investment goes toward buying cars, computers and other office equipment, which is the type of purchase that benefit little from Obama’s proposed tax cut. Building costs eat up another 40% of the total, again outside of this plan. Farm, rail and electrical power structures typically make up just over 2% of business investment. Telephone and utility poles combine for another 1.6%. Yes, those sectors because of the tax cut could grow to soak up a larger portion of business investment dollars this year. But even if the demand for both of those types of items double, that will only boost business investment by 3.6%.

But the point is that Obama’s tax deferment stimulates industries that are typically pretty small, rather than giving a boost to the parts of the economy like the technology sector, which employs a lot of people and many think is our nation’s future engine of growth. Even if the cell phone tower business grows rapidly in the next year, most of us are unlikely to notice the benefit to the economy.

Obama has faced critics of his past stimulus efforts. Cash for Clunkers and the Home Buyer Tax Credit did a great job of boosting demand. But critics of the two plans say they only pulled demand forward, causing a large drop off in sales when the two plans ended and no lasting boost to the economy. But at least those programs were targeted to produce demand in two sectors, automobiles and housing, that make a significant contribution to our economy and were in need of a boost. Some people have already negatively compared Obama’s proposed $200 billion business investment tax cut to cash for clunkers. In fact, this plan is worse.

Related Topics: Barack Obama, Economy & Policy, stimulus, taxes, Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Don Emmert / Getty Images

    Apple Now Worth More Than Microsoft, Google Combined

    How high can Apple soar? The tech juggernaut is closing in on $500 per share, a dramatic psychological threshold that underscores the company’s stunning performance over the last decade. How massive has Apple become? It’s now worth more by market capitalization than Google and Microsoft combined. The company’s latest stock price surge is being fueled by rumors that a new version of the iPad — the iPad 3 — will appear next month.

    Chipotle Is AppleSlate

    Photo-Illustration by Alexander Ho for TIME; Getty Images

    After Motorola Deal Approval, Can Google Hardware Be Far Behind?

    Now that federal regulators appear poised to approve Google’s $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola Mobility, speculation is mounting about what the Internet giant will do with its newly acquired assets. And what assets they are. Once the deal is formally approved — an announcement could come next week, according to multiple reports — Google will be in possession of some 17,000 patents related to mobile phone technology. And it will be well-situated to enter the hardware business, which could mean that consumers will soon see Google-branded phones and home entertainment devices.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Stephan said, “So the plan will do little to worsen the nation’s deficit problem. Corporations have a record amount of cash sitting on their balance sheets that is not being spent . . . “

    The nation’s deficit “problem” is: The deficit is too small. The economy remains starved for money, and the federal government has not created enough money to feed the economy. Unreasoned deficit fear has prevented a recovery.

    Cash does not “sit” on balance sheets. Money either is spent, invested or saved. All of these involve moving money. Spending moves money to vendors. Investing moves money to sellers of investments. Saving moves money to banks.

    Then, these recipients immediately spend, invest or save. In short, money moves every day, no matter what it’s first use may be. The notion that money ever “sits” is a harmful myth.

    The government should stop wringing its hands about where to spend money, and simply spend it. Wherever they spend it, the money will flow through the economy, benefiting everyone who touches it.

    Even funding the “bridge to nowhere” would have stimulated the economy.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • bryanfred

    The fact that the tax breaks will not target the sectors where the most money is spent is an interesting factoid, but misses the real reason this proposal – like the ones before it – will not help. Recent history has repeatedly told us that short-term incentives do not affect decisions that have long-term effects.

    The easiest example is the stimulus rebates to consumers. You see a one or two-month uptick in spending, then it settles back to where it was before. Business do not hire, expand capacity or build inventory to address a two-month phenomenon. So we are left with no economic benefit and $500 billion of added government debt.

    Businesses are not investing because:

    1. The health care bill (which we had to pass in order to discover what’s in it) is by the CBO’s admission going to push up the cost of insurance, thus making it more expensive to hire or retain workers. Compounding the problem is that we don’t know by how much and potentially won’t for several years.

    2. The risk of an energy policy that makes power and fuel more expensive. This hits the manufacturing sector particularly hard, which is ironic given the constant wailing over the decline of U.S. basic industry.

    3. Approximately half of small businesses are pass-through legal entities where earnings are taxed as personal income to the owners. We are told tax rates on the top brackets are going to go up. So in addition to the uncertainty introduced by 1. and 2., it is going to be less profitable to own a business. So why invest if the returns are going to be diminished?

    A $200 billion tax incentive will do nothing to erase these issues.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    I agree with much of what you say, although I have a bit of problem with ” . . . short-term incentives do not affect decisions that have long-term effects. The easiest example is the stimulus rebates to consumers.”

    The main problems with the original stimulus were it was far too small, by a factor of about 10 and much went to paying off debt (which destroyed money).
    .
    The net money it added to the economy did not disappear. What was spent became business income, which in turn became someone else’s salary, which in turn, became someone else’s profits, which became someone else’s savings, which became someone else’s loan, and on and on and on.
    .
    Any money added to an economy helps that economy, in proportion to the amount of money added. Had the government sent out $1.5 trillion, rather than $150 billion, I suspect the recession would have ended. Instead, they have trickled out the “water” to stop the fire, and this timidity has cost us dearly.
    .
    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • bryanfred

    Rodger -

    That’s exactly my point. People did not view the money they received from gov’t as permanent income and therefore did not change their habits. It was a one-time bonus, and at that point the best use was personal deleveraging.

    We need to stop referring to short-term government programs as “stimulus.” A more appropriate perspective is that they are “support” meant to replace private sector spending until the economy begins to expand. The deficit this year, and for as far as the eye can see, is north of $1 trillion. Are you contending this is not enough government spending? Government by its nature does not create income – it takes it from the private sector, and everyone knows taxes will have to go up or spending down to repay the deficits.

    We have seen stimulus programs, rebates, credits, etc. piled one on top of another with no growth to show for it. Cash for clunkers pulled future car sales into earlier periods and made it harder for automakers to produce to demand. The homebuyer tax credit did the same thing. Government intervention is simply too blunt an instrument to efficiently direct capital.

  • gotopick

    :============= http://www.gotopick.com
    boots: $80-130
    G HD C H I CHD: $40-60
    NFL NHL MLB NBA Jerseys: $30
    jordan air max oakland raiders $34–39;
    E d H ardy AF JUICY POLO Bikini $25;
    Hand bags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
    Tshirts (Polo ,e d hardy,lacoste) $16
    Jean(True Religion,e d hardy,coogi) $30
    Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,g u c c i,Armaini) $16
    New era cap $15
    Bikini (E d hardy,polo) $25
    P a y p a l accept,delivery door to door free shipping

    ============= http://www.gotopick.com
    ╰—┘ 。 ┅★`_、

    │\__╭╭╭╭╭__/│   
    │ │            
    │           │ 
    │  ●       ● │ 
    │≡    o    ≡│
    │           │ 
    ╰——┬O◤▽◥O┬——╯
       |  o  |
       |╭---╮| ┌┬┬┬┐ 

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    bryanfred,

    You said, ” Government by its nature does not create income – it takes it from the private sector, and everyone knows taxes will have to go up or spending down to repay the deficits.”
    .
    Sadly, you are correct. “Everyone” knows this, and even more sadly, it is 100% wrong. In a monetarily sovereign nation as the U.S. is, taxes do not pay for federal spending. If taxes were reduced to zero, this would not affect by even one penny, the government’s ability to spend.
    .
    I urge you to read about “monetary sovereignty.” It will help you understand the economy. The federal government does not take its spending from the private sector. Your grandchildren will not “pay for” federal debt.
    .
    The situation is different for you, me, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago and the EU nations, none of which are monetarily sovereign.
    .
    When the government deficits spends, it indeed does create income for the economy, and when it taxes it reduces income. In answer to your question, I believe $1 trillion would have been enough early in 2008, at the start of the recession. Today, more is needed.
    .
    My suggestion: End FICA taxes.
    .
    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • lokhupbafa

    Nothing… companies invest when they have enough customers. With a shrinking middle class – there are fewer customers. Raising people out of poverty — gets more money into the economy.

    Gave money to the banks (Tarp) and they sat on it, tax breaks to companies, they don’t hire or purchase anything, if there are no customers. Until you help ordinary folks the situation is not going to change. The question is how are you going to help stop the shrinking of the middle class? Work programs like the last depression? Education grants? What ….. the tax cuts, the TARP … none of that other stuff helps.

    Look if tax cuts worked, why didn’t they work for the last 30 years under Reagen, and Bush I & II? They didn’t work – doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. It didn’t work, it won’t work

  • czx1950

    Wonderful. Share a website with you , ( http://www.nfljersey-online.com/ ) Believe you will love it. huge select of jerseys, wholesale price.

    ===== http://www.nfljersey-online.com/ ====

    NFL JERSEYS $27
    NBA JERSEYS $30
    MLB JERSEYS $30
    NHL JERSEYS $35.98

    IF you order more than 10 pieces jersey, the shipping fees is free.
    accept paypal, IPS, western union, credit card.
    shipping method is EMS, We will offer a tracking number to you when send the goods to you.
    delivery time is 5–8days, and door to door.

    ===== http://www.nfljersey-online.com/ ====

blog comments powered by Disqus