Taxifornia!

[rettofly]

Here's the latest little tax gimmick. Perhaps you've heard of fractional jet ownership. Businessmen purchase either a fraction of a business jet or a specified number of hours per year on a business jet. Now the politicians in California have decided that every time one of these jets takes off or lands at a California airport they are going to have to pay a tax. These taxes range up to over $2000 for a larger business jet. A landing in a Gulfstream 200 will cost you $335. Now if you're a businessman based in California .. and if you are a fractional business aircraft owner .. might this be the proverbial straw? Here would be just one more way you could cut business costs ... move out of California and set up somewhere else.
Got to love the Golden State!

 

[jonjuan]

Been collecting this since 2007. Guess how many other states are now looking at this source of revenue?

 

[glasspilot]

Is it for the jet or the operation? If I own the thing and fly it part 91 do I still pay or is this just a tax on fractionals?

 

[cldsfr79]

Here's the latest little tax gimmick. Perhaps you've heard of fractional jet ownership. Businessmen purchase either a fraction of a business jet or a specified number of hours per year on a business jet. Now the politicians in California have decided that every time one of these jets takes off or lands at a California airport they are going to have to pay a tax. These taxes range up to over $2000 for a larger business jet. A landing in a Gulfstream 200 will cost you $335. Now if you're a businessman based in California .. and if you are a fractional business aircraft owner .. might this be the proverbial straw? Here would be just one more way you could cut business costs ... move out of California and set up somewhere else.
Got to love the Golden State!

This is such a BS tax. What exactly is California taxing? I think if some fractionals and heavy financial hitters want to get together and sue CA, this law might go away. Isn't there some constitutional law about double tax? If you didn't buy the plane in CA, you shouldn't be taxed; if you already own a plane in CA you're already paying property tax on it. You can't just have a "visitors tax".....oh wait maybe you can with this president.

 

[rettofly]

Been collecting this since 2007. Guess how many other states are now looking at this source of revenue?

How have they been collecting this gouge? I've never seen anything on an FBO receipt that I would associate with this.

 

[jonjuan]

You can probably find others. California bassically discovered that fractional purchases were not subject to sales tax (aircraft are delivered in CT or Oregon) and fractional owners didn't pay any tax. CA simply decided to apply a use tax as a function of the purchase price for every take off/landing of each aircraft into CA. The second document below actually shows that the tax isn't on the passengers flying the aircraft, but rather on the "fractional manager." This is being watched very closely by other states as many are near bankrupt and are looking for any way to increase revenues.
Every wonder why the Dodgers, et al keep their planes in Vegas?

http://www.nbaa.org/admin/taxes/state/preamble_v2_6.pdf

http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/afwg/Finalreport.pdf

http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub79a.pdf

 

[rettofly]

You can probably find others. California bassically discovered that fractional purchases were not subject to sales tax (aircraft are delivered in CT or Oregon) and fractional owners didn't pay any tax. CA simply decided to apply a use tax as a function of the purchase price for every take off/landing of each aircraft into CA. The second document below actually shows that the tax isn't on the passengers flying the aircraft, but rather on the "fractional manager." This is being watched very closely by other states as many are near bankrupt and are looking for any way to increase revenues.
Every wonder why the Dodgers, et al keep their planes in Vegas?

http://www.nbaa.org/admin/taxes/state/preamble_v2_6.pdf

http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/afwg/Finalreport.pdf

http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub79a.pdf

Sneaky Bastards!

 

[johnsonrod]

After last night's election results in California, if I were a business owner (and fractional share owner), I would keep the beach house and move my business out of California... That place is a disaster. Governor Moonbeam and Barbara Boxer - how are they going to improve the economics of that state????? They had to get union support to win. I would look at moving my business to more tax and regulation friendly Utah, Nevada (even though Reid was reelected) or very business-friendly Texas.

Taxifornia will become more business unfriendly to pay off huge union pension obligations (at the expense of education, infrastructure, etc.). Good luck to everyone living there...

 

[gunfyter]

Jerry Brown not so bad. He proposed a Flat Tax when he ran for president.

If only we had listened to Jerry back then....

With a flat tax the middle class would never vote for all the wasteful spending because they know it all would be reflected in lower take home pay. The problem with taxing only the rich and businesses is -- they can move out of the state.

 

[glasspilot]

Gunfyter, I know you are in love with the idea of a "fair tax". Somebody you respect must have told you it was a good idea and my bet is that somebody was on Fox.

Regardless, here is the problem with your beloved fair tax.

Governments tax the things that they A. Want to make Revenue off of; like earnings, real-estate transactions, capitol gains and the like, and, B. Want to discourage; like alcohol, gambling, and cigarettes.

You go and make a FAIR TAX like you keep going on and on about then all you are going to do is discourage CONSUMPTION!!!! Here's a news flash...our entire economy is fricken BASED on consumption. Go ahead and discourage that. Here's what happens;

Poor people would consume less and as a result, rich people selling to the masses would fail as a result, and

Rich people would consume overseas and as a result rich people now selling to the rich in America then fail as a result (oh...that's us by the way).


I know a lot of people you really like tell you a fair tax is the way to go. I know you love those great people on Fox. But just use your own noggin and you can see the problem with a fair tax.

This country has always had a progressive tax. You have never been in the top brackets and the top brackets are doing JUST FINE without your looking out for them.

The super rich owe a debt to the pot. This great country has made and defended the rules in which they can become super rich. If we set the rules up so the super rich can remain super rich no matter what and they can pass their super wealth down to their heirs then we set up a system where the divide gets bigger and bigger between rich and poor.

I don't know about you, but the great thing about our country is that it is merit based. ANYBODY can go from nothing to great wealth if they work hard and are smart and a pinch of luck never hurts.

 

[gunfyter]

You have things a bit wrong about me. I have been for a consumption tax before the invention of Fox News... or the Fair Tax. These people have gotten their ideas from me ... not the other way around.

Or to paraphrase recent Microsoft Windows 7 commercials....

Abolishing the Income tax -- That was my idea!

 

[wacoflyr]

I consider myself a moderate, and I have big problems with hardcore liberals. But what gets me about the right side of the political spectrum is that they can't admit that they have won.

In the sixties, the top tax bracket was something like 80%. Don't quote me, I have no reference, but I'm close. During the Reagan years it dropped to something like 50%. That was a huge victory for the rich! During the Clinton administration, it came down just a little, and after the Bush tax cuts it is now down below 40%.

During my lifetime, the tax on the richest 10% of americans has been cut in half. What do you want? Should we cut the other half for you?

And then, with the same breath that they beg for more tax cuts, the rightwing hypocrites say they want to balance the budget! I agree that the national economy is not a zero sum game, but it is not far from it. Get a clue! If the budget won't balance, then you gotta pay for it! Just cutting programs will not work!

This is really not complicated, but I'll try to simplify it further; Less taxes means fewer dollars for the federal government. Fewer dollars means a bigger deficit.

Oh, by the way, that deficit? The vast majority of it was created during the administrations of Reagan, the first Bush, and the second Bush, plus the recovery programs that he initiated. There were a few years in there where we had a surplus. Those were Clinton years.


Am I off topic? Oops, Sorry!

 

[rettofly]

Hey Glass:

There's not much sentiment on FoxNews for the Fair Tax.

The Fair Tax eliminates the embedded taxes (really a VAT) on anything you buy and adds a retail sales tax that brings the price back to what it was with the embedded taxes built in. It also gives every household a "prebate" in the form of a check for the amount of the Fair Tax on the necessities (basically the amount of the "poverty level" income). If you buy nothing, you still get the prebate.

What could be more progressive than that? It's a fairly assesses consumption tax. Spend less.. pay less. Spend more.. pay more.

 

[rettofly]

I consider myself a moderate, and I have big problems with hardcore liberals. But what gets me about the right side of the political spectrum is that they can't admit that they have won.

In the sixties, the top tax bracket was something like 80%. Don't quote me, I have no reference, but I'm close. During the Reagan years it dropped to something like 50%. That was a huge victory for the rich! During the Clinton administration, it came down just a little, and after the Bush tax cuts it is now down below 40%.

During my lifetime, the tax on the richest 10% of americans has been cut in half. What do you want? Should we cut the other half for you?

And then, with the same breath that they beg for more tax cuts, the rightwing hypocrites say they want to balance the budget! I agree that the national economy is not a zero sum game, but it is not far from it. Get a clue! If the budget won't balance, then you gotta pay for it! Just cutting programs will not work!

This is really not complicated, but I'll try to simplify it further; Less taxes means fewer dollars for the federal government. Fewer dollars means a bigger deficit.

Oh, by the way, that deficit? The vast majority of it was created during the administrations of Reagan, the first Bush, and the second Bush, plus the recovery programs that he initiated. There were a few years in there where we had a surplus. Those were Clinton years.


Am I off topic? Oops, Sorry!

Whatever the statutory tax brackets might be, the effective tax rate never goes much above 12%. Lowering the tax rates resulted in more tax revenue under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush.

When the top 10% of earners are paying 90% or more of the taxes, it's not reasonable to accuse them of not paying their fair share. The economy would not be a nearly zero sum game if investors / entrepreneurs didn't spend most of their effort in avoiding punishment for success. If the tax climate were more business-friendly, $2 Trillion that's now parked would flow into growing business.

I'm not rich, I'm right wing but not a hypocrite, and I'm not into wealth envy.

 

[glasspilot]

When the top 10% of earners are paying 90% or more of the taxes, it's not reasonable to accuse them of not paying their fair share.

Here's the problem. When 2% make 90% of the wealth then yes, it is reasonable to expect them to pay 90% of the taxes. When they pay 39% tax instead of 34% on their $400,000 plus earnings (minus deductions) then I'm not too concerned. Call me when it tops 60%, maybe I'll care more.

Oh, and my health care is NOT a for profit enterprise. Neither should be political campaigns.

 

[glasspilot]

And Hey, I'm not down on the rich. I'd love to be rich and pay 39%. Also, so are Clinton, Gates, Jobbs, Buffett, and many many more. When you do well in this country you owe a debt to the country that enabled it.

If you want to cut money then perhaps we don't need a Department of Defence that has a bigger budget then the next FIVE largest militaries COMBINED. Maybe we could get by spending more than the next 3 or 4. Would that be okay?

Ya know what? Never mind. Just go watch more Fox.

 

[gunfyter]

Government is 25% of the US GDP. But the Chinese government portion of their GDP is less than 10%

We can cut spending to limit the government share of GDP to match the Chinese at 10%. Surely we can adjust our spending to not exceed a communist governments respective percentage of GDP....

The COTUS authorizes 4 federal departments .... Treasury, State, War and Navy.... Presently we spend 40% of the federal budget on these. 40% of the 25% GDP is 10% GDP.

We can reduce government to 10% GDP by simply following the Constitution!

We can then balance the budget by eliminating the Income tax and imposing a 10% consumption tax or a Jerry Brown style 10% Flat Tax. Lets make it 15% and pay off the debt....

 

[wacoflyr]

Soooo, by your figures, no more social security? Aunt Caroline is gonna go hungry? No more medicare? Aunt Caroline is gonna go without her medicine and lose five, ten years off her life? Is that what you are saying? Yes or no?

 

[glasspilot]

We can reduce government to 10% GDP by simply following the Constitution!

Say, there's a super idea!

Sorry Black folk! Back to slavery...hope you understand. Times are tough.

And women...sorry, no more voting for you. Gots to get back to basics.

NASA, need I say more? You're out.

Mdeicare? Sorry grandma. Hope you saved up. Good luck.

Social security? Thanks for the cash. Hope you put something away.

Air Force? Too bad planes weren't invented in 1776.

FAA? See above. See ya.

Good news! All drugs are legal!!! Nothing in the constitution about that! Party time!

I'm sure I missed a bunch, but it's obvious going back to a strict constitutional law would be just great. Really great.

...if you're stupid

 

[glasspilot]

Ah Waco, ya got me by one minute!