Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

End of corporate tax breaks for jets?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I have a question. Where do corperations get the money to pay taxes?

Corporations don't pay taxes. They price their products and services to achieve a profit. Taxes due on any profit are paid from revenue. It's the customer who pays the taxes.

Any reference to taxes being funded by screwing employees is simply the ranting of a disgruntled employee.

The "massive tax loophole on corporate jets" is simply an accellerated (5 year) depreciation schedule (vs the standard 7 year schedule). This accellerated depreciation schedule is actually quite common, and available to buyers of capital goods in a number of industries. The demonization of corporate jets is nothing but rhetoric developed in focus groups.
 
I can't believe that Obama wants to increase taxes on our passengers when there is so much more waste in the government.

I am sad to say that in my own family I have leaches that are drinking from the teat of our bloated government. My grandmother just had her hip replaced at taxpayers expense by medicare at the same time as she was collecting Socialist security !
Just because we are the greatest nation in the world and have the best Medical system why should we spend it on old people and their hips. What's wrong with a wheel chair? It would have been cheaper.

And let's not forget my brother the leach who gets food, housing and transportation paid for by our tax dollars just to camp out and go for an occasional walk. He even has the nerve to ask for tax dollars to pay for his body armor while strolling the valleys of Afghanistan.
It is sad that they want my passengers to pay more for their flights from TEB to ASE so they can then milk this country and all it's job creators just for medical care and body armor.

The sooner the tax cuts come in for the job creators the sooner my grandmother will start her own therapy walking the mall every morning and maybe my brother will start to buy some of his own bullets.

God Bless America and it's job creators !
 
Last edited:
Health Care is not a proper function of the Federal government. Federal tax revenues should not be used for it.

I agree 100% there are a bunch of people who served their time in the military and now want the federal government to cover their family under Tricare.

If you were in the military and were injured you have the right to health care paid by the government, but your family doesn't! Let them get jobs and stop leeching from the taxpayers.

God Bless America and the job creators.
 
The difference is ... if you were a Federal Employee ... your medical benefits, including those for your family, are part of your conditions of employment. These funds are owed to the people who worked for them as part of their retirement ... and we all OWE this and should pay this debt. So these funds should absolutely be paid as they were Earned.

This is not an example of federal involvement in Health Care... but an example of the Federal Government being an employer.
 
The difference is ... if you were a Federal Employee ... your medical benefits, including those for your family, are part of your conditions of employment.

There are lots of employers who don't offer health care to their employees but these employees have to have their tax dollars spent on government employees health care. Conditions of employment change in tough times.


These funds are owed to the people who worked for them as part of their retirement ... and we all OWE this and should pay this debt. So these funds should absolutely be paid as they were Earned.


We also promised people that they can retire at 65 and go on Socialist security and receive Medicare. After all the people paid into them and Earned them.

So the only other choice is to raise revenue from Job creators. Hence our passengers pay more so granny can get her hip replaced since it was promised to her.




This is not an example of federal involvement in Health Care... but an example of the Federal Government being an employer.

Like I said, not all employers offer heath care benefits.
 
Like I said, not all employers offer heath care benefits.
Thats why they need unions.

Now concerning what people were promised. They should never have been promised. Government violated the Constitution and usurped "those powers not specifically delegated to the United States" that were "reserved to the States and to the People." To fix this problem, we cannot simply cut people off. But over time eliminate the programs and put people on notice now that in the future they will not exist as we return to Constitutional orthodoxy. Something like the Ryan plan. Move people from DEPENDENCE (slavery) on government, to Independence (Freedom).

Redistribution of Wealth (stealing) ... is not a power delegated to the United States. We should not be raising taxes (taking money away from people who it belongs to) to give to people who the money does not belong to. The money does not belong to someone just because they need a hip replacement or have cancer ... etc.. The money belongs to people who would ride on those jets to Aspen.
 
Last edited:
Thats why they need unions.

Now concerning what people were promised. They should never have been promised. Government violated the Constitution and usurped "those powers not specifically delegated to the United States" that were "reserved to the States and to the People." To fix this problem, we cannot simply cut people off. But over time eliminate the programs and put people on notice now that in the future they will not exist as we return to Constitutional orthodoxy. Something like the Ryan plan. Move people from DEPENDENCE (slavery) on government, to Independence (Freedom).

Redistribution of Wealth (stealing) ... is not a power delegated to the United States. We should not be raising taxes (taking money away from people who it belongs to) to give to people who the money does not belong to. The money does not belong to someone just because they need a hip replacement or have cancer ... etc.. The money belongs to people who would ride on those jets to Aspen.

+1

Yup. At least someone gets it.



Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
 
Hey,that was part of the deal

If I would camp in Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, I would recieve a retirement check and health care.

If you wanna take that away from the military, then you better get ready for a draft. Because I would not have volunteered to make such sacrifices.

I have no problem with a draft that would put senators, congressmen, business men, stock brokers, and CEO's into the front lines. (I know that is not realistic because of their ages, but their children aren't) Maybe it's what this country needs.

As I understand it, the fall of most societies in the past has been do to the reliance on mercenaries (Volunteers, people who did it for money, health insurance, Eh?)

Do wanna know why we can't have a draft? A 2 star general once told me (in Kabul), we can't! How are we gonna draft woman? (Don't ping on me, I have served in the military with alot of very high quality woman. In fact, I'm married to one of them)

Lastly, I think jetwash is being sarcastic, but with the written word it's hard to tell?

Take care, Semore
 
Thats why they need unions.

Now concerning what people were promised. They should never have been promised. Government violated the Constitution and usurped "those powers not specifically delegated to the United States" that were "reserved to the States and to the People." To fix this problem, we cannot simply cut people off. But over time eliminate the programs and put people on notice now that in the future they will not exist as we return to Constitutional orthodoxy. Something like the Ryan plan. Move people from DEPENDENCE (slavery) on government, to Independence (Freedom).

Redistribution of Wealth (stealing) ... is not a power delegated to the United States. We should not be raising taxes (taking money away from people who it belongs to) to give to people who the money does not belong to. The money does not belong to someone just because they need a hip replacement or have cancer ... etc.. The money belongs to people who would ride on those jets to Aspen.

So would Swift:

It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads and cabbin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in stroling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants who, as they grow up, either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country, to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.

I think it is agreed by all parties, that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom, a very great additional grievance; and therefore whoever could find out a fair, cheap and easy method of making these children sound and useful members of the common-wealth, would deserve so well of the publick, as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.

I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food at a year old, in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes, as they have since gone through, by the oppression of landlords, the impossibility of paying rent without money or trade, the want of common sustenance, with neither house nor cloaths to cover them from the inclemencies of the weather, and the most inevitable prospect of intailing the like, or greater miseries, upon their breed for ever.
 
I have a "modest proposal". I propose we respect the Separation of Church and State. Charity is a function of the Church, NOT the State.

We don't need the government to step in to prevent the rich from eating your children.... I am pretty sure that you go directly to hell for that. Fast lane ... No wait in Purgatory.
 
Thats why they need unions.

Now concerning what people were promised. They should never have been promised. Government violated the Constitution and usurped "those powers not specifically delegated to the United States" that were "reserved to the States and to the People." To fix this problem, we cannot simply cut people off. But over time eliminate the programs and put people on notice now that in the future they will not exist as we return to Constitutional orthodoxy. Something like the Ryan plan. Move people from DEPENDENCE (slavery) on government, to Independence (Freedom).

.

I could not agree with you more.

We should be following the Constitution to the letter since that is what the founding fathers wanted!!!!

If it is in the Constitution it MUST be correct and must be followed!!!

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

So Obama should have to only pay 3/5 of his tax bill since he is considered only 3/5 of a free person?


The constitution can't be wrong, or could it?
 
If you wanna take that away from the military, then you better get ready for a draft. Because I would not have volunteered to make such sacrifices.

I have no problem with a draft that would put senators, congressmen, business men, stock brokers, and CEO's into the front lines. (I know that is not realistic because of their ages, but their children aren't) Maybe it's what this country needs.

That is exactly what the US needs Shared Sacrifice by rich and poor alike!!!!
The draft has my vote !!!!
 
Obama is not considered 3/5 of a free person. No one was ever considered 3/5ths of a free person. Direct Taxes are not Income taxes ... 16th Amendment removed any apportionment requirements for federal taxes.

Yes the Constitution is always right. The Constitution did not create slavery. It was an anti-slavery document that penalized slavery by not giving states full credit for persons not deemed free citizens by the individual states.
 
I am pretty sure that you go directly to hell for that. Fast lane ... No wait in Purgatory.

Well you would be wrong.

There is no going directly to hell or fast lane or wait. All those things require God and religion and other made up things to be true, of which there are none.

Boy FI is great. Politics AND religion all on a fractional thread! Kaizen.
 
I do not eat humans of any age. My post did not suggest otherwise. Do you have some sort of disability I should be aware of?
 
I could not agree with you more.

We should be following the Constitution to the letter since that is what the founding fathers wanted!!!!

If it is in the Constitution it MUST be correct and must be followed!!!

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

So Obama should have to only pay 3/5 of his tax bill since he is considered only 3/5 of a free person?


The constitution can't be wrong, or could it?

I'm sure you knew that little nugget was added to prevent states condoning slavery to become too powerful through having more representatives.
 
I do not eat humans of any age. My post did not suggest otherwise. Do you have some sort of disability I should be aware of?
Yes the disability of being able to follow the continuity in a conversation.

Me: You go to hell for eating children.

You: You are wrong because there is no hell.

Me: I guess you don't have to worry about going to hell for eating children. You can eat all you want.

Of course, what Swift means by "Eating children", is not caring about the poor. And what Praetorian is saying is that Unless I am willing to steal money fro rich people (who fly jets to Aspen), I don't care about the poor.

Now, have I brought you up to speed?
 
I have a "modest proposal". I propose we respect the Separation of Church and State. Charity is a function of the Church, NOT the State.

We don't need the government to step in to prevent the rich from eating your children.... I am pretty sure that you go directly to hell for that. Fast lane ... No wait in Purgatory.

Main Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: \ˈsa-ˌtī(-ə)r\
Function: noun
Date: 1501
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

See also:

Concrete Thinking
Thought derived from the senses, which reflects experience rather than abstract reasoning.
 
Well then Glass ... I guess you have nothing to worry about if you eat the children of the poor as Jonathan Swift suggests. Bon appetit!

But thankfully, we have Obama to keep us all on a diet that is child-free.

Gun, you do realize that went way over his head, don't you?
 
Main Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: \ˈsa-ˌtī(-ə)r\
Function: noun
Date: 1501
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

See also:

Concrete Thinking
Thought derived from the senses, which reflects experience rather than abstract reasoning.
The folly is the Folly of False Philanthropy.... It is not charity to give other peoples monies ... or force other people to give monies. Charity is giving your own money, voluntarily.

The Seductive Lure of Socialism
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral selfimprovement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.
 
Last edited:
Gun, you do realize that went way over his head, don't you?
How about this.

If you were a Billionaire and you wanted to do the most good for humanity with or money when you die ... who would you leave it to? The poor? The US government?

Warren Buffett is leaving his money to the richest man in the world -- Bill Gates! Avoiding even the tax that would go to the US government.

Think about that.

To do good ... one should avoid taxes and give your money to the richest man in the world. Likewise, more good will be done, more jobs created, more children educated and fed, more families lifted out of poverty ... when money stays in the hands of the Rich (who fly to Aspen on private jets) than if the money is transferred to the government.

Buffett seems to understand this ... else why give his money to Gates instead of the tax man?
 
Last edited:
I agree Gun. What I find most discusting is guys like Buffet complain about the fact that they don't pay nearly enough taxes, yet take advantage of every tax loophole there is.

These people feel so benevolent with other people's money, yet hoard their own. Why not send an extra check or two to the IRS for federal debt reduction? Just like our confounder in chief who says he can afford to pay more, yet in truth he never will. Put your money where your mouth is.

Why do most of us need to bleed while they demonstrate such hypocrisy? Because they have no intention of doing what's really necessary, but rather appeal to the lemmings known as their base. Those who will vote for those who believe in wealth redistribution rather than limiting government spending to that which it is allowed under that pesky little document called the constitution. It's about control, not leadership.
 
Last edited:
Nomination time

It is time to make it official: Gunfyter for President. Other than union stuff, he is right on everything, best I can tell. I want to be VP, is that so wrong, Guns?
 
I agree Gun. What I find most discusting is guys like Buffet complain about the fact that they don't pay nearly enough taxes, yet take advantage of every tax loophole there is.

To be clear, Buffett is not leaving his wealth to Bill Gates directly, but rather to the nonprofit, philanthropic Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Not really any different than somebody leaving a large donation to a school or church...
 
To be clear, Buffett is not leaving his wealth to Bill Gates directly, but rather to the nonprofit, philanthropic Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Not really any different than somebody leaving a large donation to a school or church...

I'm refering to Buffet's complaint about the Bush tax cuts and his tax bill being less than his secretary's. Where he wills his money to I could care less. When he complains about taxes being too low yet refuses to pay what he feels is a "fare share" really irks me.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom