How many arms this guy got?
Just the one that he does the Hitler salute with, silly
Why not make it be for bicycle repairs instead?
If I get write-offs for my bike collection, I will also be stimulating the construction sector as I barely have room to store them all as it is. :-D
Only poor people ride bikes that’s why
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
The PC-12 is a turboprop, not a jet, though.
It’s a leech hauler alright, but not a jet.
Lemmutts love speaking authoritatively about things they don’t actually know.
It was a quote from the article. Your complaint is with Boomerang, not the guy quoting them
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.
Certainly a bigger problem is how someone who can afford over $1M private jet would be in only the 35% bracket
I’m out of the loop did they get rid of 39%?
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%
Buy two! Save double!
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
indeductable!
Great deduction!
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.
I like the that term. Just like obese personality for people who need large cars or are excessively loud.
Calling that financial obesity is so weird.
Should we go back to fat cats?
Yess
Why? Is it not an apt description? Or does the wording just make you uncomfortable?
Gluttony would be a better word.
Obesity is something else. People rarely actually want to be obese, but who is actually bothered by having too much money? I guess that makes the wording sound weird to me.
It leads to financial diabeetus.
People who deserve the death penalty like to demonize the concept of fatness as if it’s inherently negative.
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.
The financially obese are weird, a perfectly cromulent framing.
Calling it financial obesity makes it sound like a good thing. These are superfluous parasites.
Any reality where financial obesity can me interpreted as a positive or desirable notion must conjure other fascinating paradoxes, please tell us more…
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.
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.
Finally! Do you have an idea how expensive those things are and how much my wage slaves must work for that?
The cost ranges from $30,000 to over $100M
We couldve been a flight based country instead of cars if we went in another direction, when we had more pilots than planes
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.
I was more thinking taxi/uber, rather than the general population flying themselves lol, and car crashes are very common
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.
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.
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.
This also applies to houses, boats, and inevitably surrogates now that they’re using them like pack mules.
deduce private jet expenses
I can deduce it right from a receipt, if they give you one.
Thank you, government. That is really an improvement of my life!
Gross.
You allowed this before proper health care because that’s Socialism? Communism? Gay?
To be fair, America has the best aviation infrastructure in the world, and it is almost entirely socialized. So we do socialism sometimes
YSK that eating the rich is a nutritious way to redistribute wealth
Way too much fat
Don’t eat shit, mulch the rich.
Valuable mulch.
Deduct. And the USA is taking the world in completely the opposite direction from where it needs to go.
It would be nice if we could deduce them.
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…
Literally no one needs a private plane.
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.
My plumber comes with his private jet all the time.
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.
There are so many uses for private aircraft. It isn’t all executives benefits
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.
Yeah, I was going to say I deducted airplane expenses for a client for twenty years
My plumber’s van has two hot stewardesses.
