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.

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.