all 87 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 143 points 11 months ago (1 child)

Finally! Do you have an idea how expensive those things are and how much my wage slaves must work for that?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 209 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Deduct. And the USA is taking the world in completely the opposite direction from where it needs to go.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think that word means what you think it means.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 104 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

    The law, in its majestic equality, allows rich and poor alike to deduct private jet expenses from their taxes.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    To be fair, you don't have to be rich to buy a Cessna 150. $35,000 can get you a nice old one

    Issue is with taking advantage of the tax benefits

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    The cost of the plane is trivial compared to upkeep, hangar rental, fuel, and myriad other expenses.

    Sure, you can buy a plane for cheap, if you plan to keep it at your house somehow and never intend to use it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    That's true for many planes, but not a Cessna 150. Hangars are generally very cheap, if you can get one. Depends on the area, but couple hundred dollars per month. Fuel mileage is comparable to most SUVs and trucks. Insurance is cheaper than car insurance, although maintenance is a bit higher

    I don't own a car, but I do own a plane. It has been cheaper for me than the average American pays each year for their cars

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Maybe this somehow makes them start manufacturing planes again, remember seeing those homelesss pilot photos when they had a surplus of pilots and not enough planes or ppl taking flights

    Can't find an image on google was "will fly for food" or something like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 78 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    For example, a $3 million aircraft purchase – of America’s favorite business jet, the Pilatus PC‑12 – could potentially lower your tax liability by over $1 million if you’re in the 35 % bracket. This isn’t just savings; the Big Beautiful Bill private aircraft subsidy offers financial strategy at its finest. You can read more about the tax benefits of private aircraft ownership in our special report here.

    Thanks magats

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    The PC-12 is a turboprop, not a jet, though.

    It's a leech hauler alright, but not a jet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    The distinction isn't relevant to the point being made. Although the article title says "jets", the body of the article uses the more generic "aircraft" interchangeably with "jet."

    I'd expect this is applicable to helicopters as well, though they have a different usage.

    Edit: I looked it up and apparently helicopters are not included. The distinguishing feature is "fixed wing" aircraft.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Certainly a bigger problem is how someone who can afford over $1M private jet would be in only the 35% bracket

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    I'm out of the loop did they get rid of 39%?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    Nope, you’re the only one who knows what’s going on!

    I was repeating the number from the person I replied to - it did cross my mind that there’s a higher bracket, but I took the number - the existence of one more bracket doesn’t really change anything. Why do the brackets end when there are so many people so much wealthier? While I understand wealthy people tend to get money through other types of income, and that’s an even bigger issue, we should have more brackets. It seems like everyone agrees to have a partly progressive income tax (disregarding other types of income) with brackets so wealthier people pay a higher percentage, it shouldn’t end at what may be considered the lowest income of the wealthy.

    Edit: 37%

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    YSK that eating the rich is a nutritious way to redistribute wealth

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    It's bonus depreciaton, not expenses, and it's a business tax benefit, not an individual tax benefit.

    Businesses can, and for a long time, have been able to deduct aircraft expenses. Nothing has changed there, and it's not unique to this turd of a president. The return of bonus depreciation lets them depreciate faster, but again, depreciation is not new. It's reasonable to removed about that, but you have to get every fact wrong to make that complaint.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    And let me tell you how this works with cars. With planes it is the same, except that the savings are even better.

    A real rich person owns no cars. He owns a car sales company. That company has a few select cars, which the rich person can "test drive" whenever they like. If the prime time of a car is over, the car is sold and a new one is bought. The car sales company pays for everything: purchase, insurance, taxes, fuel, cleaning, etc. Of course, this company does not make any profits. On the contrary. So the rich person pays for these losses, and those payments are tax deductable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago (14 children)

    Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

    Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Calling that financial obesity is so weird.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    I love it. They have more than they'll ever need but can't help but continue to gorge themselves. Half of them probably miss out on sleep or family or other healthy activities in their pursuit of more wealth. Financial obesity is a fantastic term that paints a very accurate picture.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Calling it financial obesity makes it sound like a good thing. These are superfluous parasites.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    Any reality where financial obesity can me interpreted as a positive or desirable notion must conjure other fascinating paradoxes, please tell us more…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Who’s us? Obesity just conjures up images of fat people. Normal decent folks. So if you’re talking about “financial obesity”, you’re just describing normal decent people, not superfluous parasites.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Obesity is a term which explicitly defines an entity which has accumulated an excess of resources, to the point of causing damage to itself and the environment it inhabits.

    If obesity conjures representations of normality for you, that’s a function of the gravitational distortion inherent from your current perspective.

    Finally, I invoke this notion as literally a medically morbidly obese middle aged white guy, but I’d easily pass for a medium as a Seppo.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    You allowed this before proper health care because that's Socialism? Communism? Gay?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (18 children)

    Ah, and only 90% of gambling losses. Looks like another point against the poor.

    Not that I’m condoning gambling, but, weird how those things impact polar opposite sides of the wealth gap.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (15 children)

    In my experience, poor people gamble a lot. I've never seen a rich person buy a lottery ticket

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (13 children)

    That’s the point. Poor people gambling can’t write off their losses on taxes. Well, they can, just only up to 90%. Rather than all of it like it has been.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    Pretty sure poor people don't have enough money to hire someone who can write off losses

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    Anyone can write off stuff on their taxes. It's pretty easy actually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    I'm always terrified to write stuff off because I fear I will accidentally write something off that I'm not really allowed to due to some obscure legalese and then I will get audited in 5 five years and owe 10 grand in late fees and interest or some shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I too get nervous every time I do my taxes but I figure if I'm honest about it they'll forgive most mistakes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago*

    In most countries for average people if you can make a convincing argument about why you thought it would be allowed and can argue it with a straight face they arent interested in nailing you over it because it isnt worth their time.

    I asked my accountant "Hey, when I take sick leave at work and I have to get a doctors certificate to get paid for those days, does that make the doctors visit a work expense?"

    He said "Thats a legitimate enough argument that if you want me to I'll put them on your return. Dont know if it would pass an audit but the reasoning is solid"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    It’s not too bad as long as you’re not a dick about it. One year I marked myself as head of household instead of single. I’m not even sure why I did it. I only thought “huh, this saved a lot on my taxes”, and really had no idea what I was doing. They sent back a correction and how much i owed. I paid and that was it. Not scary at all.

    Of course in today’s world all about spite and punishment I could imagine it being much worse

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, I'm a sane world you just get a letter explaining where they think you made a mistake, and you can either pay the difference or provide evidence your position is correct. All done by mail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    And before anyone thinks we should try the new irs now that auditing and collections have been purged, that won’t work for us. The vast majority of us have long since faced automated auditing. The computers are still there.

    It’s only the wealthy with vastly more complex tax situations requiring teams of auditors to look at, that now have more opportunity to cheat on their taxes

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    It’s not hard to file taxes. Especially for an individual, with a normal W2 income, and not much else. Certain people try to make it hard, but it’s not.

    I don’t need to pay someone to put a number on a form.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    Most poor people probably just take the standard deduction anyway. It's not like they have enough money to accumulate a large amount of deductible expenses anyway. Possible exceptions might be large medical expenses or a mortgage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago

    deduce private jet expenses

    I can deduce it right from a receipt, if they give you one.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    We couldve been a flight based country instead of cars if we went in another direction, when we had more pilots than planes

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    Was never going to happen. The most efficient plane uses way more fuel than even a "gas guzzler". The common driver is dangerous enough with a land vehicle between mistakes operating and slack maintenance, imagine if that population were all flying around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    The population was well trained after being drafted, some war ended (idr history that well) and we had a fat surplus of pilots, eventually they increased the hours needed for training, etc. to bring those numbers down, and up until recentlly, we apparently had a shortage, according to google.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Why not make it be for bicycle repairs instead?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    I am pretty sure this isn’t new. Air travel is like any other business travel expense, and plane are an expense like a plumbers van is..

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Plumbers actually need their vans to get their stuff around but for these business people there’s no real reason they can’t fly in a normal plane like everyone else. They can fly fancy, but this whole private plane nonsense is comepletely absurd.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    There are so many uses for private aircraft. It isn’t all executives benefits

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Might be nice to make that distinction, and have caps.

    Millions to move an executive around makes no sense. Even if the route and timing can't work using commercial, you can still fly a cheaper turboprop for people moving.

    A freight company needing millions to move packages, ok, sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Literally no one needs a private plane.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    NFL teams would cause a riot if they flew commercial..

    It is cheaper for College sports to use private planes.

    Oil companies fly to remote places all the time on irregular schedules.

    One of my friend owns a demolition company that blows up shit all over the world, his company literally can not use commercial planes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Kash Patel is gonna make a killing!

  • source
  • [+] -2 points 11 months ago (1 child)