[Glenn]

Is it terrible to let people keep more of their own money?

Did you read and understand the article? It's a subsidy. Not a tax rollback.

[AppyPappy]

It sounds to me like people who buy a Hummer get to keep more of their own money? Is that a problem?

[CurlyDave]

Did you read and understand the article? It's a subsidy. Not a tax rollback.

Glenn:

This is not a subsidy. Somehow I don't think you have read & understood the article. Not surprising, since I have yet to see a newspaper get this right.

This is accelerated depreciation of a business asset. Newspapers love to pick up on the Hummer part, but it applies equally well to trucks and a whole lot of non-vehicle business assets.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the fact is that the economy has really started to pick up in the 2nd half of 2003. I personally think that it is partly business cycle, and partly those "evil" Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Any way you slice it, those UAW workers who make the SUVs and trucks which get the accelerated depreciation should thank President Bush for their jobs.

Why do I think their union leaders will be ungrateful?

[Atlas Sneezed]

It's a subsidy.

---

How is treating a business purchase of a truck the same as any other business purchase a "subsidy"?

Would you abondon the practice of taxing business prifits, and instead start taxing revenues of businesses that have no profits?

The only distortion in the tax code is that smaller business vehicle purchases can not be fully deducted or depreciated.

[gitmo]

Did you read and understand the article? It's a subsidy. Not a tax rollback.

How in the world does this constitute a subsidy? The articles (including post 12) indicate this is a reduction in the tax burden. I think anything that stimulates commerce in the US is good.