Actual state
The presented argument does not confirm anything in this case, since the lack of depreciation deductions during the year or even a number of years at the enterprise does not directly reflect at the cost of production. If your office needs to be repaired, it should be entrusted with such work to professionals here: Repair of offices in St. Petersburg. In our opinion, the implementation of the proposal in. Yu. Budaveya is very problematic precisely due to the possibility of unmotivated profit growth. At the same time, the volumes (and, accordingly, costs) of ineffective overhaul of machines and equipment may not be reduced, but short -sighted business executives will be able to receive obvious savings by reducing the volume of repair of buildings and structures, which for several years may not have the appropriate negative impact on The level of existing production. The results of such a policy ultimately always lead to an unjustified increase in the cost of overhaul of buildings and structures, which in advance determines its unacceptability. On the other hand, the assignment of the costs of capital repairs to the cost of production will inevitably make significant confusion to profit and profitability planning due to the fact that age-related indicators of fixed assets and the actual state of their material elements in similar enterprises can vary in large limits, which difficult to objective accounting. In addition to this, it must be indicated that the. Yu. Budavei simplification of the entire depreciation system loses its attractiveness in the light of significant complication of planning the cost of industrial products, since along with positive trends in non-reliable improvement of technology and the organization of production, it is necessary to take into account the inevitable negative impact associated with the wear of fixed assets and an increase in the mass of funds required for their overhaul.