The Battle Over Corporate Jets is for Jerks

[Fergasun]

So here we have this awesome public debate on whether tax breaks for corporate jets are a good or bad idea.

On the one hand; corporate jets represent the type of blue-collar-middle-class and even white-collar-upper-middle-class luxury most American taxpayers will never experience. Thus, subsidizing them is a bad idea, furthermore it's particularly galling to subsidize corporate jets since there's a perfectly decent transportation system in America and technological industry is so advanced that one has to wonder specifically a corporate jet is required for?

On the other hand; corporate jets give jobs to pilots, and manufacturers and mechanics, etc. And we aren't going to close our deficit by simply taxing corporate jets.

I spent a couple minutes listening to people defend the corporate jet tax break; and found it unpersuasive. Subsidizing any business is going to create jobs. The point is that whether these are the right type of exportable jobs.... jobs that will build up America. The argument that "we aren't going to close the deficit with corporate jet taxes" is no way persuasive. One should ask the correct rebuttal: a) So you think that we can't even take little steps to closing the deficit. If it is such a miniscule number; what's the big fear here? Oh, and the fact that Obama was for the tax subsidy before he was against it is some kind've problem here too. The arguments in this paragraph stink like some lobbyist manufactured PR that's being channeled through GOP channels... ding-ding-ding-ding-ding...

But don't worry, I'm sure the big richards who our running our country will spend a few more days arguing over this silly little talking point. Something's wrong in the country when you have such a hard time trying to close even the most egregious of tax loopholes.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Is someone really arguing that subsidizing corporate jets helps create jobs?

[Fergasun]

TSF,

Oh yeah!

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/06/obama-targets-corporate-jets-hedge-funds-big-oil/1

Lobbyists for corporate jet owners decried Obama's effort to take away their tax break. "General aviation aircraft are used by businesses of all sizes to generate opportunities and create growth, often in communities that aren't easily accessible through other means," said Craig Fuller, CEO of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. "The use of GA aircraft creates and sustains thousands of American jobs, and GA manufacturing is one of the few sectors that produces much needed U.S. exports -- a fact the president himself acknowledged in the same news conference where he derided the use of those aircraft," Fuller said.

Ed Bolen, CEO of the National Business Aviation Association, noted the general aviation industry employs 1.2 million people and generates $150 billion in revenue annually.

Let's use budget calculations.

The tax breaks are $6.4B / year ($64B savings over 10 years)

This business generates $150B / year (per CEO of the National Business Aviation Association).

---------- Post added July-1st-2011 at 06:03 AM ----------

Awww.... MET. I suppose the moderator is now adding the d-word to the filter.

Until yesterday I thought there was nothing really improper with using that word and didn't realize it was one of the "this should be edited out" type of words.

Drats!

---------- Post added July-1st-2011 at 06:04 AM ----------

... and I guess once MET is done I can't mod it back to re-claim a more-proper topic! double drats!

[Bang]

Come on Ferg.. you know as well as I do that you simply can't make deals flying commercial.

These big CEOs just won't slum with someone who has to fly in First Class.

For one thing, most of the deals that drive all of American business are made at 30,000 feet when the corporate jets of all involved parties meet up and fly in circles while the negotiations happen. Commercial flights simply are not allowed to join in.

If you don't have a corporate jet, you'll never be able to compete for contracts.

Everyone knows that.

I totally agree with you. If they cant close THIS hole.. what is the point? Corporate jet lobbyists?

Throw them right the F out of Washington. Next we'll have lobbyists telling us that CEOs simply can't piss on porcelain, that they need pure platinum urinals that come with gigantic tax breaks or their company will fail

~Barf

[PleaseBlitz]

The corporate jet loophole is meaningless, it's just political class warfare. Just eliminate it and move on. It's going to save taxpayers all of $3 billion over 10 years. Not $6.4B per year. GET TO THE ****ING REAL ISSUES!

The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-missing-facts-in-president-obamas-news-conference/2011/06/29/AGpQMPrH_blog.html

http://www.partnershipforsuccess.org/docs/ivk/iikmeeting_slides200702weinstein.pdf

[CommandB11]

The argument of corporate jets is pointless. "It would save the country money" is just a dumb argument. PLEASE read the essay "I Pencil" (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html) and then think, if all that goes into making a pencil, think of the millions of parts to a corporate jet. from the service men everyday, to every component that is in the plane. All the air traffic controllers, the refuelers, mechanics, etc etc etc. If so much goes into making a pencil and just a simple pencil supplies that many jobs worldwide, then what does a corporate jet do to better and help the economy and the job market worldwide. Please consider the facts and the backgrounds to these jobs and our economy before spitting out arguments with no basis to them. Just taking the time to step back and think would go a long way to bettering this country. Lets remember that it is these "Fat Cats" that own the businesses we all work at and they are the reason for the lives we can lead. Without them, our economy is nonexistant. Without these people spending their big bucks, the economy fails and the world economy crashes. These few "Fat Cats" are what keep the world economy from slipping back to the time of bartering and conquest. Lets remember that when we try to increase taxes for the rich. We need the rich to spend money in order for our economy to grow and the lower class to flourish. Obama compares himself to Reagan, but Reagan understood where the economy depended most heavily. Reagan cut taxes for the rich and because of that, the rich felt that they could spend more and pay their employees more. The country and world flourished as a result.

[PleaseBlitz]

Then we should subsidize pencils. Im tired of paying 29 goddamn cents.

[Bang]

The argument of corporate jets is pointless. "It would save the country money" is just a dumb argument. PLEASE read the essay "I Pencil" (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html) and then think, if all that goes into making a pencil, think of the millions of parts to a corporate jet. from the service men everyday, to every component that is in the plane. All the air traffic controllers, the refuelers, mechanics, etc etc etc. If so much goes into making a pencil and just a simple pencil supplies that many jobs worldwide, then what does a corporate jet do to better and help the economy and the job market worldwide. Please consider the facts and the backgrounds to these jobs and our economy before spitting out arguments with no basis to them. Just taking the time to step back and think would go a long way to bettering this country. Lets remember that it is these "Fat Cats" that own the businesses we all work at and they are the reason for the lives we can lead. Without them, our economy is nonexistant. Without these people spending their big bucks, the economy fails and the world economy crashes. These few "Fat Cats" are what keep the world economy from slipping back to the time of bartering and conquest. Lets remember that when we try to increase taxes for the rich. We need the rich to spend money in order for our economy to grow and the lower class to flourish. Obama compares himself to Reagan, but Reagan understood where the economy depended most heavily. Reagan cut taxes for the rich and because of that, the rich felt that they could spend more and pay their employees more. The country and world flourished as a result.

Hot dang!

A full on circle jerk!

tired of hearing how my entire life depends on these captains of thievery.. er, industry.

It doesn't.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

Why complicate the tax code with any tax breaks like this?

You could just as easily use the argument to fund railways, or limos, or something else than corporate jets.

If the business can't justify the ownership of corporate jets with an improvement in productivity, then they shouldn't have one.

I used to know a guy who was a mergers and acquisitions superstar. He bought and managed companies. He spent his life on the road. One company he bought owned a corporate jet and he scoffed at the extravagance. But once he started using it he realized how much time he saved getting to very local airports and avoiding common airport and airline delays. But he wasn't looking for a subsidy. He realized it was a worthwhile investment for the company to improve executive productivity.

[oisn1]

The argument of corporate jets is pointless. "It would save the country money" is just a dumb argument. PLEASE read the essay "I Pencil" (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html) and then think, if all that goes into making a pencil, think of the millions of parts to a corporate jet. from the service men everyday, to every component that is in the plane. All the air traffic controllers, the refuelers, mechanics, etc etc etc. If so much goes into making a pencil and just a simple pencil supplies that many jobs worldwide, then what does a corporate jet do to better and help the economy and the job market worldwide. Please consider the facts and the backgrounds to these jobs and our economy before spitting out arguments with no basis to them. Just taking the time to step back and think would go a long way to bettering this country. Lets remember that it is these "Fat Cats" that own the businesses we all work at and they are the reason for the lives we can lead. Without them, our economy is nonexistant. Without these people spending their big bucks, the economy fails and the world economy crashes. These few "Fat Cats" are what keep the world economy from slipping back to the time of bartering and conquest. Lets remember that when we try to increase taxes for the rich. We need the rich to spend money in order for our economy to grow and the lower class to flourish. Obama compares himself to Reagan, but Reagan understood where the economy depended most heavily. Reagan cut taxes for the rich and because of that, the rich felt that they could spend more and pay their employees more. The country and world flourished as a result.

Hahaha, you must be like 5 years old or something. Or else, you would look at our debt and job creation over the past 20 to 30 years of "Reaganomics" and see that trickle down economics is patently false. Where are the jobs? The rich own more of the nation's wealth than they have since the 1920s and yet there are no more jobs and employee wages have stagnated.

[Bang]

Hahaha, you must be like 5 years old or something. Or else, you would look at our debt and job creation over the past 20 to 30 years of "Reaganomics" and see that trickle down economics is patently false. Where are the jobs? The rich own more of the nation's wealth than they have since the 1920s and yet there are no more jobs and employee wages have stagnated.

but,, but,, without them we'd all starve!

Without them, no one would .. have.. a

a.. job...

Reality be damned! Full bull**** ahead!

~Dang

[CommandB11]

actually i am much older than 5. Reagan has been out of office for many years and his philosophies and ideals have not been upheld through those years. many other hands have had an influence on our economy and unemployment rate since his departure from office. noone can pronounce his ideals a failure without first proving it so by letting his ideals work for many more years without the influence of others to meddle in it. the rich in our country own more wealth now than in the 1920s for a big reason. more and more tax increases are thrown at the rich and so they do not spend their money. as a result their bank accounts grow while they do not spend and the economy suffers as a result. jobs are not created when the rich feel that they must save extra money to pay the taxes rather than using that money to increase the size of their businesses. increased businesses increase jobs and the rich pay their employees more when they feel that they dont have to horde so much because of the taxes that they must pay that you and I do not have to deal with.

---------- Post added July-1st-2011 at 11:02 AM ----------

but,, but,, without them we'd all starve!

Without them, no one would .. have.. a

a.. job...

Reality be damned! Full bull**** ahead!

~Dang

go ahead. we'll come behind and pick up the pieces at some point

[PleaseBlitz]

If the business can't justify the ownership of corporate jets with an improvement in productivity, then they shouldn't have one.

There it is. Who is shopping for a G-6 and is like "Hmmmm, I can afford the plane, but I can't really afford the taxes..........."

[Tulane Skins Fan]

There it is. Who is shopping for a G-6 and is like "Hmmmm, I can afford the plane, but I can't really afford the taxes..........."

Les Grossman?

[Riggo-toni]

I'm more outraged about the ethanol subsidy than this one. Yeah, we should get rid of this one, but it's inconsequential either way; nothing more than posturing between class warriors and anti-tax crusaders.

Not raising rates while closing loopholes is a much better way to collect more revenue, which is at its lowest rate as a % of gdp since the 40s. As long as we can cut trillions in spending, we can raise a few hundred billion by closing loopholes.

[Bang]

actually i am much older than 5. Reagan has been out of office for many years and his philosophies and ideals have not been upheld through those years. many other hands have had an influence on our economy and unemployment rate since his departure from office. noone can pronounce his ideals a failure without first proving it so by letting his ideals work for many more years without the influence of others to meddle in it. the rich in our country own more wealth now than in the 1920s for a big reason. more and more tax increases are thrown at the rich and so they do not spend their money. as a result their bank accounts grow while they do not spend and the economy suffers as a result. jobs are not created when the rich feel that they must save extra money to pay the taxes rather than using that money to increase the size of their businesses. increased businesses increase jobs and the rich pay their employees more when they feel that they dont have to horde so much because of the taxes that they must pay that you and I do not have to deal with.

---------- Post added July-1st-2011 at 11:02 AM ----------

go ahead. we'll come behind and pick up the pieces at some point

I am sure that point will be when all that is left is your precious rich folks and the rest of us are delegated to serf status.

thanks anyway, but I'd much rather you take this failure policy and jump in the lake with it.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

more and more tax increases are thrown at the rich and so they do not spend their money.

It this thread about tax increases or subsidizing certain products because they have a good lobbying group?

[CommandB11]

I am sure that point will be when all that is left is your precious rich folks and the rest of us are delegated to serf status.

thanks anyway, but I'd much rather you take this failure policy and jump in the lake with it.

~Bang

thats fine. i will do that. see you on the other side of the ocean. you will come over eventually...

---------- Post added July-1st-2011 at 01:00 PM ----------

It this thread about tax increases or subsidizing certain products because they have a good lobbying group?

its about the "fat cats" and subsidizing their luxuries

[Corcaigh]

its about the "fat cats" and subsidizing their luxuries

Forget the characterization of "fat cats". Why should we subsidize corporate jets and not, say, gas turbines or meat processing equipment? Why does the corporate jet sector deserve a subsidy more than any other sector?

[deejaydana]

Our President has a tin ear if he thinks, at this particular time, that this is a major point of interest:

To wit :

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/07/01/obamas_carefully_burnished_economic_ignorance_99111.html

[Corcaigh]

Our President has a tin ear if he thinks, at this particular time, that this is a major point of interest:

To wit :

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/07/01/obamas_carefully_burnished_economic_ignorance_99111.html

The problem is all the stupid tax breaks established by lobbyists and complicating the tax code. Way, way, way too much of government is administering bull**** welfare programs for coporations.

[PleaseBlitz]

The real problem is that they are even wasting their time talking about something that will effect almost NO change to anything and it gives politicians something to talk about that SOUNDS good to their respective bases, while avoiding REAL big ticket items that require actual solutions.

[deejaydana]

The real problem is that they are even wasting their time talking about something that will effect almost NO change to anything and it gives politicians something to talk about that SOUNDS good to their respective bases, while avoiding REAL big ticket items that require actual solutions.

EXACTLY! the math on this relative to the overall budget, if anybody bothered to think this thru, is literally a drop in the ocean (or at least a large lake). Nothing like trying to fire up and appease the nitwits in the crowd.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Our President has a tin ear if he thinks, at this particular time, that this is a major point of interest:

To wit :

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/07/01/obamas_carefully_burnished_economic_ignorance_99111.html

First, "tin ear?" That has got to be a new talking point, right? I'm gonna be hearing that repeated 1000 times in the next two weeks? Maybe not.

Also, the tax issue is absolutely a winner for Obama. How can you possibly say its not?

Raising taxes has to be part of the deficit plan. Even the Ryan plan does not leave a balanced budget because its not possible to do it just on the "big spending" items. Taxes are too low to support the country. What I'm saying will raise my own taxes, but if you want to "get real," taxes have to go up.

[Bang]

EXACTLY! the math on this relative to the overall budget, if anybody bothered to think this thru, is literally a drop in the ocean (or at least a large lake). Nothing like trying to fire up and appease the nitwits in the crowd.

The point is that this one should be a slam dunk loophole to close. It should have taken about 30 seconds of debate.

It doesn't matter if it doesn't save a trillion dollars. it's a loophole .. among many.. that should not be.

Close a hundred of these inconsequential loopholes and you've got something.

Ignore them and...

Get it done and get on to the others so they can make progress. Every penny counts, eh? Should we just forget all the added up chump change?

The OP's point is exactly right. If they can't agree on something this easy, we're just ****ed, because they won't ever agree on any of the tough ones.

~Bang