End of corporate tax breaks for jets?

[glasspilot]

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?

Okay, I deserved that. I went overboard with the disability comment.

Americans are famous for their total distrust of government. Why? WE are the government. Why would one dis-trust themselves?

One answer is the very corporations you speak of. Corporations have largely taken over government with their billions of dollars of lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Government and charities have a shared role when it come to social problems such as poverty and health care. Each have different objectives and each have a different approach. Why did Buffet give his money to the richest man? He didn't, he gave it to the richest mans charity...the money left after he gave to the government. I wonder who got more?

Pervis, none of this is going over my head. I just disagree with much of what's being said and am not sure why any of it is in a fractional section of an aviation web site.

 

[BoilerUP]

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.

When interviewed on CNBC a couple weeks ago at the Sun Valley conference, the topic of Obama going after bizjet "tax breaks" came up.

Buffett very clearly pointed out that personal use of bizjets is NOT deductible from an individual's taxes. He gave the example of having a personal 1/8 share that costs him $1M/year. He has no depreciation tax advantages from owning that share.

Berkshire Hathaway has a quarter share, and they can take full advantage of depreciation on that share.

Buffett also purchased a 1/8 share for his children, split 3 ways so they each get 33 hours. He not only pays $1M/year for it, but pays the government $240k in "gift taxes" (his words).

He consumes a fractional share, he pays taxes on it.

Works a LOT better than a progressive income tax, dontcha think?

 

[Pervis]

I agree Boiler. A consumption/fare tax would be better yet. I don't agree with raising taxes on anyone. My beef is with the liberal crowd who say one thing and do another, while the real issue is too much spending and waste.

I saw the interview with Buffet, and I found it most telling that he refused to admonish the annointed one directly when put on the spot. His disagreement through his comments is telling enough though.

 

[gunfyter]

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...

True dat. But I did notice he didn't leave his money to Obama (via the death tax). If government is such an effective conduit to help the poor... why not?

 

[dustrpilot]

CHARLIE REESE'S FINAL COLUMN A GREAT READ!!!!!

Charley Reese's Final column!​

A very interesting column.. COMPLETELY NEUTRAL
Be sure to Read the Poem at the end.

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel...
He has been a journalist for 49 years.
He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House now? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it... is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax


STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom, if agreed, stayed home to raise the kids.

 

[gunfyter]

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?

[
G4... Like Ronald Reagan? I stole this quote from a guy on the Union board.

"Where Free Unions and Collective Bargaining are Forbidden, Freedom is Lost!" Ronald Reagan, Labor Day 1980

In America, the middle class is the key to political power. The Republican party does grave damage to itself by alienating workers. Nothing is more conservative than working for a living.

And, why do Unions support socialism like Obama Care? If everyone gets HealthCare from the government... why would we need a union to negotiate for us? The less socialism, the greater need for unions. The more unions, the lower need for government socialist programs.

 

[hammer2]

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?

they're eating kids?

 

[G4dude]

[
G4... Like Ronald Reagan? I stole this quote from a guy on the Union board.



In America, the middle class is the key to political power. The Republican party does grave damage to itself by alienating workers. Nothing is more conservative than working for a living.

And, why do Unions support socialism like Obama Care? If everyone gets HealthCare from the government... why would we need a union to negotiate for us? The less socialism, the greater need for unions. The more unions, the lower need for government socialist programs.

Good questions, O Future Leader. The only workers alienated by Repubs are union workers, which are a tiny fraction of all workers, especially in the private marketplace. As for government healthcare eliminating the perceived need for union representation, there are plenty of other issues for unions to concern itself with, pay and working conditions and lobbyists in DC and scope clauses and safety and outsourcing and...
If you are correct about Socialist countries needing less unions, the truth is the opposite, except in totalitarian Socialist states. Greece, Italy, France etc. have a history of very strong unions.
If Reagan was in favor of unions, then I guess I have to respectfully disagree with my hero on this issue. Cheers!

 

[gunfyter]

I have a question.

If Republicans are not alienating workers (besides the unions) ... and since unions are such a small portion of the workers ... Why does the Democrat Party even exist? They should be extinct.

My strategy ... we get the unions on our side and crush the democratic party. I think this is an achievable goal since we both know the job-killing policies of that party are not good for anybody who works for a living.... They are only good for people who want to be dependent on government for every aspect of their lives.

Taxing private jets is a job killing policy. How is that good for union or non-union pilots / mechanics / fbo workers / etc.?

 

[G4dude]

I have a question.

If Republicans are not alienating workers (besides the unions) ... and since unions are such a small portion of the workers ... Why does the Democrat Party even exist? They should be extinct.

My strategy ... we get the unions on our side and crush the democratic party. I think this is an achievable goal since we both know the job-killing policies of that party are not good for anybody who works for a living.... They are only good for people who want to be dependent on government for every aspect of their lives.

Taxing private jets is a job killing policy. How is that good for union or non-union pilots / mechanics / fbo workers / etc.?

What a great idea! Good luck getting Union leaders' noses out of the Democratic Party's posterior. Cheers!

 

[atpcliff]

I don't think they should tax airplanes.

They should only tax bikes, scooters, motorcycles and cars. The people who buy these can afford the taxes, and the people who buy jets cannot.

cliff
GRB

 

[Pervis]

I don't think they should tax airplanes.

They should only tax bikes, scooters, motorcycles and cars. The people who buy these can afford the taxes, and the people who buy jets cannot.

cliff
GRB

Why don't you Google Warren Buffet's interview from Sun Valley a few weeks ago-CNBC I believe. He explains the myth of private jets avoiding taxes quite well, and he supports Obama. And BTW, I do pay taxes on bikes, cars, motor cycles, and any other toy I may purchase in the future.

 

[atpcliff]

While I do think that taxing private jets is a good idea, to me, it's not a big problem.

Here is where I have the big problem:
Corporate jets, when used solely for private purposes, but expensed as a business expense, and the recipient pays no tax on this income.

For example, 3X, inc. owns a G550. They allow the CFO (or whoever) to take his family to Aspen in it for a week long ski vacation. 3x inc. has it on the books as a business trip, and they pay for everything. It is TOTAL crap! It is a vacation, and the CFO should have the TOTAL cost of the G550 part of the trip added to his W2, and he should be paying taxes on the cost of the trip. However, this would cost the CFO a bunch of money, so 3X, inc., illegally expenses it as a business expense, and the company pays the bill.

We, the people of the US, lose legal tax revenue, and the CFO gets an illegal benefit. I don't see much difference between this and robbing a bank. But, of course, I am wrong, because this type of thing happens every day, and no one does anything about it.

cliff
GRB

 

[NJAowner]

Most "well governed" public companies do include the values of those "vacations" in the CEO's compensation. You may check out the copnesation section of the Proxy Statement of most larger companies. The includabkle amount varies -- due to a myriad of FAA and IRS regulations, if the company charges to CEO too much the company may need a 135 certificate. Thew costs are usually less than the costs of charter -- the theory being that whether flying or not, the company still owns the jet and pays certain costs. The executive usually pays all or a portion of the variable costs of the flight.

 

[BoilerUP]

Cliff, if the scenario you describe gets found in an audit of "3X"'s books, the IRS is going to *hammer* the corporation and the guy getting the benefit.

This, much like your beef about "illegal charters" under 91.501, is much ado about nothing.

 

[gunfyter]

We should also get rid of other tax loopholes ... like the Home Mortgage deduction and tax credits for having children, etc.. We lose tax revenue because of things like that. Why should people Rich enough to own their own home get a tax break, that those who live in apartments do not? And EITC ... Why should you get a tax credit for working?

All money should go to the government first, to be distributed fairly....

 

[gret]

Cliff, if the scenario you describe gets found in an audit of "3X"'s books, the IRS is going to *hammer* the corporation and the guy getting the benefit.

This, much like your beef about "illegal charters" under 91.501, is much ado about nothing.

You're right in a certain respect, but the problem is much bigger than most people think about "illegal charters".

Normally, a company includes the income in the executive's W-2 as it is close to nothing.

See the example here from April 2010 in BJT-

Understanding the tax advantage requires understanding the tax. Consider Mr. Big, the president of Big Co., who frequently uses the corporate Hawker 800XP to travel to company facilities and business meetings. He also uses the aircraft to fly to his vacation home in the Caribbean. Part of Mr. Big's deal with Big Co. is that those personal flights are free.

This creates a tax problem for Mr. Big. The IRS generally treats an executive's free travel on company aircraft for nonbusiness purposes as a taxable fringe benefit. So unless Mr. Big wants to pay fair value for his flights to the Caribbean, he has to include that value on his personal income tax return. But since he isn't being charged, how does he calculate the amount? The IRS gives him two choices: impute as income the cost to charter a Hawker 800XP for the trip or use the IRS's special valuation rule, called the Standard Industry Fare Level (SIFL), which provides a valuation based on first-class airfare.

To calculate the income under SIFL, you multiply the number of statute miles flown by the applicable SIFL rate, currently $0.2484 per mile. For a 500-mile flight, for example, the total would be $124.20. You then multiply that total by a factor that depends on the aircraft's maximum certified takeoff weight. In the case of Big Co.'s Hawker 800XP, the takeoff weight results in the highest multiplier: 400 percent. So Mr. Big's taxable income is $124.40 times 4, or about $498.

​

$498 income from using the corporate jet personally for, lets say, a one hour flight. Same flight on a charter would be >$3.5K if someone would let you fly one way. BTW, the amount included as income is the same if you are on G550.

Does this sound right or make anybody, other than the executive, feel good? It cost the executive less than $174 to do the trip. The $174 is the tax he paid on the income inclusion.

 

[gunfyter]

$498 income from using the corporate jet personally for, lets say, a one hour flight. Same flight on a charter would be >$3.5K if someone would let you fly one way. BTW, the amount included as income is the same if you are on G550.

Does this sound right or make anybody, other than the executive, feel good? It cost the executive less than $174 to do the trip. The $174 is the tax he paid on the income inclusion

Sounds good to me... enough trips like that and we are creating pilot jobs. Better than sending tax money to the government. Better would be ... if we don't even have to report the trip to the IRS. What business is it of theirs what trips a PRIVATE jet makes?

We have to stop taxing income and all this ridiculous reporting of income and benefits and private jet trips to the government. If a company gives trips to executives ... so what? The more the merrier and by the way ... spend that tax savings on pilot raises!

 

[gret]

Interesting approach...give away the trips, but then don't write off the aircraft. Can't have it both ways.

At the end, we (the working class) end up paying for it thru higher taxes because the corporation isn't paying anything and neither is the executive.

 

[gunfyter]

The proper corporate tax rate is ZERO ... ... no tax on any income so no need to write off aircraft or any other expense.

The cost of corporate taxes and corporate tax accounting is simply passed on to the public .... So you want to pay for it in higher tax or higher prices?