[nwiswell]

My argument is

1) that something that takes in 500m in its useful lifetime should not be subject to a lower tax rate than something that takes in only 100k in its useful lifetime (in fact it should be subject to a higher tax rate, in line with income tax policy);

2) something that takes in 500m should not automatically be entitled to a longer useful lifetime than something that takes in 100k.

Unfortunately both things are true for this proposal. #1 can be ameliorated by offering an income tax credit, but #2 is fundamental.

[nine_k]

I honestly don't understand why #2 is bad. Can you please explain the logic and values behind your reasoning? No irony here, just a desire to learn.

[nwiswell]

Because it drives inequality. We're proposing a policy that explicitly benefits large owners of capital over small ones.

Inequality is a natural outcome of capitalism, and critically it will get worse without limit unless there is significant policy intervention (ref. Capital in the Twenty-First Century). Existing progressive income taxes are not sufficient, even in Europe where they are far more aggressive. So from a policy perspective, this is exactly the opposite of what is desired.