The Battle Over Corporate Jets is for Jerks

[PleaseBlitz]

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

I agree, but nobody knows if the GOP is fighting for this or not. All i've heard is the President including it in a list of grievances (because it makes a really good sound bite) and lobbyists, who are paid to make that point, whether they believe in it or not. Has anyone that actually sits at the bargaining table actually said that they are going to defend this one? :whoknows:

[Bang]

I don't know who's fault it is,, I don't want to point fingers at right or left.. to me this one is a no brainer.

frankly, any one of them who would let a corporate jet lobbyist even into his office is a moron.

the fact that I'm reading the argument that without corporate jets then these poor titans of industry would never get anything done and the country would sink is a joke.

What, without the tax break they wouldn't want the jet?

the jet is a symbol, not a necessity. And without the break, these primping fops would still buy the jets, still trick them out and fly all over the place in them.

~Bang

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I agree, but nobody knows if the GOP is fighting for this or not. All i've heard is the President including it in a list of grievances (because it makes a really good sound bite) and lobbyists, who are paid to make that point, whether they believe in it or not. Has anyone that actually sits at the bargaining table actually said that they are going to defend this one? :whoknows:

Actually, the GOP has said they are against it because its a "tax increase." Hence, the ridiculousness of it and the OP. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/29/gop-attacks-obamas-call-for-ending-tax-breaks-for-corporate-jets/

[PleaseBlitz]

Actually, the GOP has said they are against it because its a "tax increase." Hence, the ridiculousness of it and the OP. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/29/gop-attacks-obamas-call-for-ending-tax-breaks-for-corporate-jets/

:doh:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

:doh:

Is that at me or at the people opposing the closing of the loophole?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Martin Bashir just reported:

Eric Cantor on Obama wanting to close tax benefits on private jets said-"Well, that would only save $2 billion."

Yet at the same time, Republicans on defunding Planned Parenthood clinics saving only about $363 million saying-"You gotta start somewhere!"

[Bang]

Martin Bashir just reported:

Eric Cantor on Obama wanting to close tax benefits on private jets said-"Well, that would only save $2 billion."

Yet at the same time, Republicans on defunding Planned Parenthood clinics saving only about $363 million saying-"You gotta start somewhere!"

:doh:

We're ****ed.

We're just ****ed.

~Blah

[Fergasun]

Actually, the GOP has said they are against it because its a "tax increase." Hence, the ridiculousness of it and the OP. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/29/gop-attacks-obamas-call-for-ending-tax-breaks-for-corporate-jets/

Eff the GOP and their "tax increase" rhetoric. I'm a Federal Employee and the GOP wants me to pay a larger portion of my health care. How is that also not a "tax increase". Yet they are going to lobby on how "tax increases are bad". They are going to implement something I'd call the Federal Employee Tax!

It's okay to take money from middle class to close the deficit; but we still have to protect the rich folks who use corporate jets from taxes? The logic is un-freakin'-believable! I doubt many Federal Workers are able to digest the 5 to 6% pay cut over the next year... yet again, that's what the GOP was proposing and it wasn't a "tax increase"... I have no idea why not either.

---------- Post added July-1st-2011 at 09:53 PM ----------

It's the principle Bang.

I'm of the opinion that both parties need to go for "win-win-win (the American people)". I think the debate may have shifted enough that the GOP can close these loopholes... it's almost like the Democrats are saying, "look, if you agree to close these loopholes; we'll bend on some of our spending cut issues." That's how these negotiations go. However as long as the GOP doesn't agree; they think they can force the issue. The 14th Amendment issue is just another molotov ****tail in this whole thing... now Democrats have a hostage. I do not like the way this has been ratcheted up... because if the Democrats ignore the debt limit, the GOP will not pass a FY2012budget.

[Prosperity]

Martin Bashir just reported:

Eric Cantor on Obama wanting to close tax benefits on private jets said-"Well, that would only save $2 billion."

Yet at the same time, Republicans on defunding Planned Parenthood clinics saving only about $363 million saying-"You gotta start somewhere!"

sometimes I think we're living in the twilight zone

[twa]

sometimes I think we're living in the twilight zone

Eh,just a alt reality created by our Byzantine tax structure and the manipulation of the populace by it.

it keeps the sheep happy arguing

[HailGreen28]

Do they NEED the corporate jet tax break? Really?

[hkHog]

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

Well that's certainly what Obama used to think. The tax break that he is now attacking was part of the stimulus plan he enacted. What a hypocrite, this guy has no shame.

---------- Post added July-3rd-2011 at 12:01 PM ----------

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.

I could not agree more, can we not have a level playing field and a true free market? Why must we always try to manipulate and pervert market forces? It always does far more harm than good.

[Bang]

Well that's certainly what Obama used to think. The tax break that he is now attacking was part of the stimulus plan he enacted. What a hypocrite, this guy has no shame.

Soo.. that makes taking away this ridiculous loophole bad because...

?

~Bang

[December90]

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

By the logic of the argument against "tax breaks for corporate jets" pencils are already "subsidized"

the tax break is that a business is allowed to amortize the cost of the corporate jet over 5 years instead of the 7 years that is required for airlines.

Do people really think that we should not allow "deductions" for legitimate business expenses? should we tax companies Revenues or Profits?

I do not have now and in no way foresee ever having a "corporate jet" but I have absolutely zero problem with a business that has one (or more) expensing 1/5 of the cost of the jet each year over the span of five different tax years.

Can someone point out where the Government is "giving money" to a company so that they can buy a jet?

So much of what you hear from the Left boils down to class envy from those incapable of achieving anything on their own. Leftists believe that you cannot create anything without first taking it from someone else; they think that everything is a "zero sum" game.

[Larry]

Martin Bashir just reported:

Eric Cantor on Obama wanting to close tax benefits on private jets said-"Well, that would only save $2 billion."

Yet at the same time, Republicans on defunding Planned Parenthood clinics saving only about $363 million saying-"You gotta start somewhere!"

Yeah, I was wondering how many of the people who are saying that this is a liberal plot to lure us into arguing about things that are too small to matter, thought that cutting off subsidies for NPR was a great place to start.

---------- Post added July-3rd-2011 at 07:30 PM ----------

So much of what you hear from the Left boils down to class envy from those incapable of achieving anything on their own.

So much of what you hear from the Right is open class contempt for anybody who isn't a CEO.

Many of whom have never accomplished anything on their own.

[Bang]

By the logic of the argument against "tax breaks for corporate jets" pencils are already "subsidized"

the tax break is that a business is allowed to amortize the cost of the corporate jet over 5 years instead of the 7 years that is required for airlines.

Do people really think that we should not allow "deductions" for legitimate business expenses? should we tax companies Revenues or Profits?

I do not have now and in no way foresee ever having a "corporate jet" but I have absolutely zero problem with a business that has one (or more) expensing 1/5 of the cost of the jet each year over the span of five different tax years.

Can someone point out where the Government is "giving money" to a company so that they can buy a jet?

So much of what you hear from the Left boils down to class envy from those incapable of achieving anything on their own. Leftists believe that you cannot create anything without first taking it from someone else; they think that everything is a "zero sum" game.

To you it always boils down to jealousy.

Hard to take that seriously.

~Bang

[Fergasun]

Its unfair to say that this was "Obama's stimulus" that created the tax breaks. I'm fairly certain Obama wasn't on the jurisdiction for any Senate committee that produces tax law.

This is from the Heritage foundation blog:

A significant decline in consumption of private jets would undoubtedly have adverse effects on at least some of those local economies. Given the sizable bump in consumption that the initial tax break yielded, its repeal would likely have that economic domino effect.

This is from a February 2009 AP article:

The aviation industry, which is cutting jobs as it suffers from declining shipments and canceled orders, hopes the tax break in the economic-stimulus bill just signed by President Barack Obama will persuade more companies to buy planes and snap a slump in general aviation that began last year. “This is exactly the type of financial incentive that should be included in a stimulus bill,” said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., in an interview. His state lost at least 6,900 jobs at Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft, both based in Wichita. The incentive — known as accelerated depreciation — lets companies take a larger deduction in the early years of the life of an asset such as a plane.

So let's see. No tax break doom and gloom for the private jet industry. Tax break; hey the industry's not too bad! Yet this is not a subsidy?

This is from Wikipedia:

For tax purposes, accelerated depreciation provides a way of deferring corporate income taxes by reducing taxable income in current years, in exchange for increased taxable income in future years. This is a valuable tax incentive that encourages businesses to purchase new assets.

So it looks like the companies can purchase an asset to create a greater tax loss against profit. How is incentive-izing a company to take some action (purchase a large asset) by giving them tax breaks not a subsidy again? If "a penny saved is a penny earned" than "a tax not paid, is a penny earned"

[zoony]

Many of whom have never accomplished anything on their own.

Many? I'd say most.

..

[isle-hawg]

If we must have an income tax (I prefer a consumer tax instead) - why not eliminate ALL deductions (1040 form) and make everybody use the 1040A or better EZ form that many of us cannot use if we wanted to.

One of the sacred cows I never understood is penalizing people for saving money while rewarding those who borrowed. How is that working out for us now???

[oisn1]

If we must have an income tax (I prefer a consumer tax instead) - why not eliminate ALL deductions (1040 form) and make everybody use the 1040A or better EZ form that many of us cannot use if we wanted to.

One of the sacred cows I never understood is penalizing people for saving money while rewarding those who borrowed. How is that working out for us now???

A consumer tax is extremely regressive due to the fact that poor (and even middle class) people tend to spend most of their money buying things to survive. A poor family that makes 50K is spending most (if not all of their) earnings on food, shelter, clothes, etc. A rich person making a very large amount of money will be able to spend their money on stocks and other non-consumable items that are not taxed. Thus, the wealth disparity grows and makes the tax extremely unfair as the lower class is taxed to survive and the upper classes stow money away.

[Corcaigh]

the tax break is that a business is allowed to amortize the cost of the corporate jet over 5 years instead of the 7 years that is required for airlines.

The corporate jet sector is getting different rules to play by, resulting in lower tax liability than businesses that make different types of capital investments.

Why should they get more favorable treatment?