Section 179 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Section 179 - Essay Example This is if the purchased equipment is depreciable over a certain period. It is an incentive sometimes used for some of the small enterprises to expand their businesses (Daily 45). This is with the purchasing of new equipment in the business. Limitations of Section 179 There is a higher tax bill that is acquired if the equipment purchased under section 179 is converted into personal use. If equipment is purchased under the method of section 179, it is highly likely that, during its depreciable life, it can be converted to personal use (Daily 48). However, it may prove costly to do so to the party that intends to do this conversion. Section 179 also dictates that a taxpayer’s deduction in a year cannot exceed or surpass their income from that active financial year. This means that they are not capable of, or cannot use more than what they may earn in their active conduct of business (Daily 51). All this is within the duration of a year. Moreover, under section 179, if one buys an asset, it is impossible for them to claim a deduction of more than what one paid for initially. This implies that purchasing an item using cash, the deduction on that item or asset is based only on the exact amount paid for the asset. In conclusion, section 179 is only suitable for the growth of businesses (Daily 58). It is not suitable, or advisable for purchasing equipment for personal use. Businesses can save a lot of money while using this method and can manage to grow and expand.

The death penalty is not a deterrent Research Paper - 1

The death penalty is not a deterrent - Research Paper Example Pillsbury argued that it is the violence of our crimes that is the problem and not the number of crimes. And in dealing with the American homicide problem, we need to approach it squarely with all the help we can muster from social scientists, lawyers, police officers, community leader and activists, even novelists and movie makers. Each of these people provides a different perspective on what makes people commit crime, and each provides a different solution in dealing with the criminal who committed the crime. (Pillsbury 3) A police officer who apprehended the criminal may want conviction and incarceration. The psychiatrist may ask for psychiatric treatment, while a social reformer may ask that the offender be given family support which he/she lacked when the crime was committed. Each professional or actor in the justice system may want a different approach. But this will hold only for as long as each respects the other. The criminal, after a psychiatric treatment, may find himself a promoter of social reform, but not capital punishment. This paper will provide an answer to the question whether the criminal deserves punishment and not the death penalty. Is capital punishment a deterrent to a convict’s commission of another crime? Or is it a deterrent for others to commit a crime? Literature Review Proponents of the death penalty provide four fundamental rationales in imposing it: ‘deterrence, instrumental perspective, retribution, and incapacitation’ (Lambert and Clarke, qtd. in Elechi, Lambert and Ventura 110). Proponents argue that people can be stopped from committing crimes by imposing severe sanctions and executing criminals deters others who planned to commit crimes from doing so. Proponents also advocate that the death penalty is an ‘effective deterrent than life imprisonment’ (Elechi et al 110). Retribution is vengeance (Mitchell 480). Statistics about homicide rates in conjunction with execution rates Since 1999 the mu rder rate has remained unchanged despite the decline of death sentences, executions, and the size of death row. (â€Å"Death Penalty Information Center† para. 1) In the so-called execution capital of the nation, Texas, executions go up the same thing with homicide. For example in Bexar, San Antonio, with a population of about 1.4 million, the murder rate is 14.91, executions registered at 18 and executions per 1,000 murders are 4.3; in El Paso, a population of .7 million, the murder rate is 6.60, execution 1; in Tarrant (Ft. Worth), population of 1.5, murder rate is 12.78, executions 22, and executions per 1,000 are 6.5; in Dallas, a population of 2.2 million, the murder rate is 19.33, executions 26, and executions per 1000 murders are 3.1. The hiatus in executions during 1972 to 1976 was brought about by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Furman v. Georgia, which states that capital punishment in America was cruel and unusual punishment. (â€Å"Mortal Justice: The Demogra phy of the Death Penalty† 40) Statistics about homicide rates in conjunction with life imprisonment States, which do not have the death penalty and only have life imprisonment, have reported lower murder rates. In 2010, the murder rate in death penalty states was 5.00, while the murder rate in non-death penalty states was 4.01 or a difference of 25%. In other words, death penalty or life imprisonment has no deterrence on violent crimes like murder. The murder rate is calculated by dividing the total