Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:19:30.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Further Look at the Effect of Federal Tax Laws on Optimal Machinery Replacement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Larry W. VanTassell  and
Clair J. Nixon
Larry W. VanTassell
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Tennessee
Clair J. Nixon
Affiliation:
Department of Accounting, Texas A&M University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Self-employment taxes, “effective” marginal tax rates, and discounting schemes which allow for alternative purchase and disposal dates of machinery are incorporated into the traditional optimal replacement interval model. Empirical results indicate that these alterations decrease the optimal replacement intervals by up to three years from those obtained with traditional modeling assumptions. Inclusion of self-employment taxes decreases both the penalty attached to early replacement and the net present value (cost) of tractor ownership.

Keywords

replacementincome taxesself-employment taxes
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , December 1989 , pp. 77 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Agricultural Engineers Yearbook. St. Joseph, Mo., 1987.Google Scholar
Bates, J.M. Rayner, A.J., and Custance, P.R.. “Inflation and Farm Replacement in the U.S.: A Simulation Model.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 61(1979):331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boskin, M. Kotlikoff, L., Puffert, D., and Shoren, J.. “Social Security: A Financial Appraisal Across and Within Generations.” National Tax J., 40(1987):19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, O.R. “Optimal Replacement Under Risk.” J. Farm Econ., 47(1965):324–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, A.H. “Effects of Tax Depreciation Policy and Investment Incentives on Optimal Equipment Replacement Decisions.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 56(1974):776–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, A.H. “Criteria for Determining the Optimum Replacement Pattern.” J. Farm Econ., 48(1966):107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faris, J. “Analytical Techniques Used in Determining the Optimum Replacement Pattern.” J. Farm Econ., 48(1966):755–766.Google Scholar
Government Printing Office. “The Social Security Amendments Act of 1983.” Washington D.C. 1983.Google Scholar
Jeremias, R.A. and Durst, R.L.. “Social Security Taxation.” ERS-AGES 840723,1984.Google Scholar
Kay, R.D. and Rister, E.. “Effects of Tax Depreciation Policy and Investment Incentives on Optimal Equipment Replacement Decisions: Comment.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 58(1976):355–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, R. and Musgrave, P.. Public Finance in Theory and Practice. 4th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.Google Scholar
National Farm and Power Equipment Dealers Association. Official Guide: Tractors and Farm Equipment. St. Louis, Mo., fall, 1987.Google Scholar
Perrin, R.K. “Asset Replacement Principles.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 54(1972):60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, D.W. and Bradford, G.L.. “On Optimal Replacement of Farm Tractors.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 65(1983):326–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector: Farm Sector Review. ERS-ECIFS, 6-3,1986.Google Scholar
Weersink, A. and Stauber, S.. “Optimal Replacement Interval and Depreciation Method for a Grain Combine.” West. J. Agr. Econ., 13(1988): 18–28.Google Scholar
Winder, J.W.L. and Trant, G.L. “Comments on ‘Determining the Optimum Replacement Pattern’;.” J. Farm Econ., 43(1961):939–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar