Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't expect His Majesty to understand this concept. Just like he didn't understand that castigating American's for going to Vegas to vacation during a recession was bad for the tourist industry there. Vegas was in an uproar over this idiot.
The whole nation should be in an uproar over this idiot.
Change since when? The beginning of the recession or yesterday?
These Princes of Prosperity had better realize the the public views corporate jets as frivolous toys adding to their cost for goods and services. They are viewed as an extravagance.
Ever consider we might have far better commercial aviation if the corporate Princes had to travel on the same aircraft as the rest of us self loading cargo. There would be changes.
This is utterly stupid, ill-informed tripe. Nothing less.
Change since when? The beginning of the recession or yesterday?
These Princes of Prosperity had better realize the the public views corporate jets as frivolous toys adding to their cost for goods and services. They are viewed as an extravagance.
Ever consider we might have far better commercial aviation if the corporate Princes had to travel on the same aircraft as the rest of us self loading cargo. There would be changes.
This could be one of the silliest posts I have ever read! Well done.
If they are viewed that way it is only because the Obama media has demonized them so much. Airplanes are a legitimate business expense. Many times they allow companies to fly their people at a time or to a place where commercial air travel doesn’t go. This can result in savings that exceed to cost of operating the jet.
Commercial aviation would be much better if there was less government involvement. The experimental aircraft industry has come up with advances that certified aircraft manufacturers don’t add to their planes because of government costs and the threat of lawsuits of something goes wrong. There are some highly modified experimental airplanes out there that get 66 mpg while flying at 200 mph using the same engine as a Cessna 172 (15 mpg at 120 mph). Government demonization of an industry is not helpful but it is one of the cards in Obama’s class warfare deck and it’s the only game he knows how to play.
I agree with this 100%.
well since russia is now selling SU-27's to civilians and they are FAA approved now a mig 25 would be a blast to own
Where did anyone say anything about writing off on personal taxes? Make crap up much?
As for pt #4, if that is the case..why don't the jet manufacturers just ****?
so you didnt make the post i quoted below then? it was someone else with your user name?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dman72
They are basing their business on the fact that corporations and wealthy people will be able to write off their jets on their taxes.
as i indicated, when a business buys any durable item for business use, they are allowed to depreciate the item as per the tax code.
but again even your golden boy obama wanted the accelerated depreciation schedule to increase business jet sales, and again now he wants to take that away. remember the effect that clintons luxury tax on yachts that cost over $100,000 had? it KILLED the yacht industry in this country, and all that tax revenue WENT AWAY. where did it go? new zealand. in fact they have been thanking us since 1993 for the increase in yacht sales we have given them.
as for the business jets, a corporation doesnt buy just one or two jets, they tend to buy 10 or 12 of them. and it isnt the CEOs that fly around on them, most of the time it is the engineering teams, middle managers, etc. that need privacy to do their work, and they need to be able to move from one location to another without having to constantly deal with the vagaries of commercial airlines.
the people who buy a business jet for personal use, are going to buy them regardless of the depreciation schedule, because they cant depreciate the jet on their taxes. but corporations take a long hard look at everything, including taxes and depreciation among other things, before they go through the process of buying a business jet. if it is economically viable for them to buy the jets, and they have a need for them, then they will buy the jets. if the economics are not there, then they wont buy the jets.
if they dont buy the jets, then the industry suffers, and that means people out of work, and not just the people that build the jets, but also the people that supply the materials to build the jets, from those that make the sheet metal, to the upholstery people, to those that make the avionics, to the tire manufacturers, etc. its like tossing a small rock into a pond, mess with part of the industry, and you create ripples through out that industry, and others as well.
Well, yeah. Who wouldn't want a SU-27? It's one of my favorite planes. However the price tag is a little beyond most people's reach. Not so with an experimental aircraft, many of which can be had for $35k to $55k. That's the price range of a good car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
but again even your golden boy obama wanted the accelerated depreciation schedule to increase business jet sales, and again now he wants to take that away.
It's good to remind people of that. It shows Obama's hypocrisy and also his contempt for the public's memory, as well as his assuredness that the media will support his narrative.
Don't expect His Majesty to understand this concept. Just like he didn't understand that castigating American's for going to Vegas to vacation during a recession was bad for the tourist industry there. Vegas was in an uproar over this idiot.
The whole nation should be in an uproar over this idiot.
Oh yeah..ROFL..I remember that one. Yeah Vegas did get quite upset because tourism is a big money maker for them.
Am I missing something? Corporate jet demand is down because of Obama and the threat of new corporate and wealthy taxes? Not according to GulfStream, their demand is higher than ever before with a 18-24 month waiting list!
Warren Buffett asked, "What is the difference between a corporate jet and a corporate locomotive?" The answer, of course, is that one can be used to inflame the ignorant and excite the Dem base. (And the ignorant are inflamed--just read their posts.)
Obama's offensive could have been reworded like this: "All taxpayers are entitled to deduct reasonable business expenses--except this new class of villains I just created for political purposes."
It is pathetic that at this late date, the President of the United States chooses to prance and posture about an issue that wouldn't begin to make a dent in the deficit anyway. The Gang of Six bipartisan, centrist plan was not about corporate jet owners. The Simpson Bowles commission report was not about corporate jet owners. Too bad Obama couldn't find a way to get to the middle ground. Even Harry Reid was saying good things about the Gang of Six until he paid a visit to Obama and got his marching orders.
When Obama says "corporate jet owners" he is announcing that he has taken the low road. He is not leading, he is not negotiating, he only postures for political gain. And the country suffers.
This should be on a Billboard in every town.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
