June 30, 2011

Team Obama Parses His "Corporate Jet Tax" Language...He Didn't Mean The Good Tax Break He Signed, He Meant The Bad One Reagan Signed
— DrewM

The only "adult in the room" is a churlish little prick who evades responsibility for everything he does and says (Other than getting bin Laden that is. For that he claims way too much credit).

Here's the White House spin on why Obama wasn't talking about the corporate jet tax he signed as part of the so-called "stimulus" bill.

There are two different corporate jet tax items. In the deficit talks, White House officials say, the President has proposed eliminating the preference for corporate jets allowing them to depreciate in 5 years versus 7 years for commercial aviation. This proposal is longstanding. In its current form, it has been in place since 1987. We have never supported it and obviously didn’t sign it into law. In the stimulus bill, there was a separate provision called bonus depreciation. The current round started in 2008, signed into law under President Bush, was continued in the stimulus bill. A White House official says that “bonus depreciation—and this year 100 percent expensing—allows people to write off their property faster than they would otherwise—and is a broad provision that helps millions of companies from many sectors of the economy. To be eligible, you do have to meet certain criteria. One of those criteria is the date by which your property is placed into service. And, here’s where there’s a special provision for aviation (signed by President Bush)—both commercial airlines and private jets get an additional year (beyond the normal) to place in service. This same provision also applied to other capital goods that take a long time to contract and build. In short, bonus depreciation applies very broadly; and the small special provision in that for aviation applies to both commercial and private jets as well as other capital goods that take a long time to contract and build—not preferencing one over the other (and this special provision was first signed into law by President Bush).”

First, good luck making that argument into a sound bite and convincing people the old tax cut is horrible and inhumane but the one he signed is just dandy.

Second, look at all the mentions of "corporate jet" from yesterday's temper tantrum. All SIX of them.

[1]There’s been a lot of discussion about revenues and raising taxes in recent weeks, so I want to be clear about what we’re proposing here. I spent the last two years cutting taxes for ordinary Americans, and I want to extend those middle-class tax cuts. The tax cuts I’m proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires; tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners.

[2] It would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is, but we’ve got to make some tough choices here if we want to reduce our deficit. And if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship.

[3] I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up a tax break that no other business enjoys. I don’t think that’s real radical. I think the majority of Americans agree with that.

[4] So the question is, if everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows and do tough things in order to achieve the goal of real deficit reduction, then I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say that the tax break for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we’re not willing to come to the table and get a deal done. Or, we’re so concerned about protecting oil and gas subsidies for oil companies that are making money hand over fist -- that's the reason we’re not going to come to a deal.

[5] If you are a wealthy CEO or a health -- hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they have ever been. They’re lower than they’ve been since the 1950s. And you can afford it. You’ll still be able to ride on your corporate jet; you’re just going to have to pay a little more.

[6] And I’ve said to some of the Republican leaders, you go talk to your constituents, the Republican constituents, and ask them are they willing to compromise their kids’ safety so that some corporate jet owner continues to get a tax break. And I’m pretty sure what the answer would be.

What Obama engaged in yesterday was not an attack on a specific tax provision is was a general attack on "corporate jet owners" as part of his larger pool of anointed enemies for the day. Maybe what he's saying is true in terms of what's on the table in the negotiations he delegated to Joe Biden but that's not what he said yesterday.

I guess whoever keeps refusing to let Obama be clear got to him again. But hey, he said what he said, it's his fault he wasn't specific enough.

Based on the description of the 'bad' jet tax break the difference is corporate jets get written down over 5 years instead of the 7 like commercial aircraft. That's the provision Obama is trying to say is holding up a deal? A 2 year difference in a depreciation schedule? So if we go from 5 to 7 years for all aircraft then...what? No more deficits? Medicare is solved?

I'm not a tax guy but is that even a revenue enhancer for the federal government? Isn't the write down amount the same, just a company gets the full benefit sooner? Or is Obama trying to eliminate depreciation on all planes?

Meh, it doesn't really matter. Let's be honest, yesterday's performance was nothing but out and out class warfare. "Corporate jet owners" sounds a lot scarier than "the aviation industry", so facts weren't really the point to begin with.

One other thing. Where's his proof the GOP is simply standing on the sidelines over either of the jet proposals?

As far as I can tell, only one side has refused to publish a budget proposal (as they are supposed to do under law) and only one person has decided to sit out negotiations because he can't have his way.

We don't have an adult in the Oval Office, we have a petulant man-child.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:13 PM | Comments (174)
Post contains 1143 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Tangentially on topic . . . Amity Schlaes:

Liberalism is not for attacking. It is for recapturing. There is much in “our” movement, whatever that is, that is liberal — the love of freedom, the emphasis on individual character. Libertarianism is an insufficient derivative of true liberalism that often becomes hostage to nonessential causes, whether marijuana legalization or the draft.

She loves her some Calvin Coolidge.  We can only hope to do as half as well with the next President.  The Occupant currently in the office is Not Sufficient.

Posted by: filbert at June 30, 2011 12:17 PM (smvTK)

2 This is dense.  Is he saying that the 5 year depreciation that he inherited from the failed administration of Ronald Reagan is bad, but the bonus even better depreciation he signed is good?

Or the reverse?  I'm getting what President Been Doing is trying to stammer.

Posted by: toby928 at June 30, 2011 12:17 PM (GTbGH)

3 not getting


dammit.

Posted by: toby928 at June 30, 2011 12:17 PM (GTbGH)

4 That's an insult to petulant men-child's.

Posted by: eleven at June 30, 2011 12:18 PM (7DB+a)

5

Obama doesn't do it  =  E V I L

Obama does it  =  A W E S O M E

Posted by: Truman North at June 30, 2011 12:19 PM (K2wpv)

6 Up in the air, Junior Birdman! Up in the air, way up high! Up in the air, Junior Birdman! Dontcha wish the heck that you could fly? Pretty sure those aren't the words.

Posted by: USAF at June 30, 2011 12:20 PM (4Kl5M)

7 Posted by: toby928™ at June 30, 2011 05:17 PM (GTbGH)

I don't get it either.

Either they are saying they should make it 7 for corporate jets but I don't see how that really raises any revenue, they are writing off the same amount, just over 2 more years.

I guess it would mean some more revenue through first 5 years but then it's just paid out over the last 2 so over 7 years it's a wash.

Or...they want to eliminate the write down entirely for corporate jets (and maybe all planes).

It's a mess but the reality is, it's a talking point. Nothing more.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 30, 2011 12:21 PM (WNzUA)

8 "man-child"

Why don't you have a seat right over there...

Posted by: Chris Hansen at June 30, 2011 12:21 PM (2p0e3)

9 If you can fully depreciate a huge purchase like a corporate jet in one year, it's a huge boost for businesses. Say it costs 12 million. You can apply that entire $12 million as expenses. Right now. Meaning that for tax purposes, your taxable income for this year just got $12 million lower.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 30, 2011 12:21 PM (lbo6/)

10 We don't have an adult in the Oval Office, we have a petulant man- child. FIFY No man present.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 30, 2011 12:21 PM (+vkOU)

11 >> I'm not a tax guy but is that even a revenue enhancer for the federal government? Isn't the write down amount the same, just a company gets the full benefit sooner?

That's exactly right if you're just talking about moving from 5 years to 7 on the depreciation schedule. Only in the la la land of a ten year budget window does this even matter.

There's obviously time value of money, too, but the entire effect of this whole thing is like pissing in the ocean when you're looking at multi-trillion dollar debt and trillion plus dollar deficits.

Also, I'd like to hear that buffoon explain why this won't have the exact same effect the luxury tax did back in the '90s. Namely, falling hardest on the people that make the planes and not so much on the eeevilllll rich.

Posted by: Andy at June 30, 2011 12:21 PM (5Rurq)

12 "Dick" is a lot quicker than "petulant man-child." Just sayin'

Posted by: Mark Halperin at June 30, 2011 12:22 PM (Xm1aB)

13 Never use the word "man" in any form with this POS. Child is where it starts and ends. A spoiled child is more an adult in behavior.

Posted by: baseballguy at June 30, 2011 12:22 PM (MaS0T)

14 I'm tired-beyond-tired of this President.

And why is it that Republicans aren't out there screaming "Class Warfare!" against the Administration?  According to his view, it's Class Warfare to want to cut things out of the budget.  So why can't  we make our (much more principled, IMO) case that, in fact, it is punishing the wealthy for having the gall to obtain wealth that is Class Warfare?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 30, 2011 12:22 PM (8y9MW)

15 So I suppose they'd be ok with simplifying the tax code, as in say. Flat tax or fair tax proposal? Get rid of those pesky depreciation schedules and all. Oh? Didnt think so.

Posted by: brak at June 30, 2011 12:23 PM (teIAw)

16 WH may want to tell Obama to STFU and walk back "corporate jet" language all together.  Otherwise, voters might start remembering things like this:

http:////tinyurl.com/3o6yj2a

Posted by: Stop Shouting at June 30, 2011 12:23 PM (OLKDg)

17 Also, I'd like to hear that buffoon explain why this won't have the exact same effect the luxury tax did back in the '90s.

Great point.  I don't think that our domestic yacht business has ever fully recovered from that.

Posted by: toby928 at June 30, 2011 12:23 PM (GTbGH)

18 Rubio called Obama a leftist strongman. Thune got his shot in today. I swear, if the Republicans would just lower themselves ever so slightly and start going after this bitch, the country would get the signal and start finally turning on the dick.

Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2011 12:24 PM (Xm1aB)

19 So, is this an example of Obama "going with his gut"?  Great start..keep it up Obumbles... keep it up.

Posted by: jewells45 at June 30, 2011 12:24 PM (Z71Vg)

20 No man present.

HEY!

Posted by: Reggie Love at June 30, 2011 12:24 PM (tqwMN)

21 They're losing it ... Shaka, when the walls fell

Posted by: No Whining at June 30, 2011 12:24 PM (HmCnI)

22 I'm ready to write-off Air Force One as a total loss and waste. It doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose beyond hauling garbage. At least private jets transport people with productive jobs.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 30, 2011 12:25 PM (+vkOU)

23 9 If you can fully depreciate a huge purchase like a corporate jet in one year, it's a huge boost for businesses.

Say it costs 12 million. You can apply that entire $12 million as expenses. Right now. Meaning that for tax purposes, your taxable income for this year just got $12 million lower.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 30, 2011 05:21 PM (lbo6/)

....and your taxable income for the upcoming six years just got $12 million higher.

Posted by: cthulhu at June 30, 2011 12:25 PM (kaalw)

24 Namely, falling hardest on the people that make the planes and not so much on the eeevilllll rich.

Seconded.

Really, those wascally wich folks can just (gasp) keep the jets they've got.  Or whatever.  The only way this works is if you assume they won't figure in the added cost (or, at least, difference in loss mitigation) into purchase decisions.

One thing rich people (and companies) didn't do?: Get rich by wasting money.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 30, 2011 12:26 PM (8y9MW)

25 Great point.  I don't think that our domestic yacht business has ever fully recovered from that.

I know.  Just ask John "Reporting for Duty" Heinz Kerry.

Posted by: Stop Shouting at June 30, 2011 12:26 PM (OLKDg)

26

I read legal documents for a living.  About halfway through that explanation Ace quoted my mind shut down, I fell unconscious, my face collapsed forward onto my desk, and even the pain of my nose breaking wasn't enough to wake me.  Good luck selling that explanation to the voters.  All the best.

Now I'm off to the doctor to get my schnozz reset.  Stimulus! One more medical job created or saved.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at June 30, 2011 12:26 PM (epBek)

27
>>14 I'm tired-beyond-tired of this President.


Fuck him. I pray he resigns claiming his job is too hard. Whatadick.

Posted by: sickinmass at June 30, 2011 12:26 PM (1rflU)

28 Is that quote from the WH? That is some seriously-mangled and unclear language.

Posted by: Waterhouse at June 30, 2011 12:27 PM (IdoRk)

29 The only "adult in the room" is unmutual.

Posted by: No Whining at June 30, 2011 12:27 PM (HmCnI)

30 Each time the Dick-in-Chief heads to the golf course, the RNC should be sending out public releases asking if they could sit down and try to work things out after his round. Each and every time!

Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2011 12:27 PM (Xm1aB)

31 That is some seriously-mangled and unclear language.

Posted by: Waterhouse at June 30, 2011 05:27 PM (IdoRk)

It's "some seriously-mangled and unclear" thinking.

Posted by: cthulhu at June 30, 2011 12:28 PM (kaalw)

32

Obama's pal Warren Buffett owns NetJets, the largest lessor of private jets in the world. 

I wonder if the Oracle of Omaha will wake up to this doublecross and realize his support for Obama was a huge mistake.

Posted by: Kortezzi at June 30, 2011 12:28 PM (piR98)

33 ....and your taxable income for the upcoming six years just got $12 million higher.

Well, 2 million higher (each year) or 10 million (aggregate).  But the point stands.

The issue, though, is that having that extra 12 million (or whatever) RIGHT NOW leads to other investment which could, with relative ease, lead to bigger returns than those tax deductions would have provided anyway.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 30, 2011 12:28 PM (8y9MW)

34 I think that the simplest explanation is always best.  Whenever a Democrats mentions taxes, in any context, he wants to raise them. 

Posted by: toby928 at June 30, 2011 12:29 PM (GTbGH)

35 @32 Fuck Warren Buffett. The asshole loves Dick and want to pay even higher taxes don't you know?

Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2011 12:29 PM (Xm1aB)

36 "In its current form, it has been in place since 1987. We have never supported it and obviously didn’t sign it into law." Ok, dumbass, then why didn't you repeal it as part of the savior stimulus package? These idiots seriously don't think before they speak, do they? And this was *clearly* a prepared statement, so it's not exactly like they were responding off the cuff...

Posted by: acrojason at June 30, 2011 12:29 PM (9iZk/)

37

Cthulhu, #23,

and your taxable income for the upcoming six years just got $12 million higher.

----

Elder Gods who eternally lie may not care about the time value of money, but us disgusting earthling grubs do. 

Also, you know, uncertainty--if you know you have 12 mill in profits this year, you'd rather expense your plane this year, because nest year some squamous horror might rise from the deep suppressing sales growth.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at June 30, 2011 12:30 PM (epBek)

38 Posted by: Kortezzi at June 30, 2011 05:28 PM (piR9

Actually, this would be a huge boon to NetJets: anyone who really needs a new jet could easily lease one instead of buying new now- increasing mr. Buffett's revenues.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 30, 2011 12:30 PM (8y9MW)

39

Great point.  I don't think that our domestic yacht business has ever fully recovered from that.

 

It hasn't but its just starting to come back, Trinity has launched some hulls over two hundred feet recently

Posted by: kj at June 30, 2011 12:30 PM (Q1Okj)

40 Pretty sure that O wants to tax the right wing of corporate jets, but not the left. 

OK, that weak jest aside, I think this is a really good sign for us.  The Dems know this isn't a big revenue generator.  This is a face-saver.  They can tell their slope-headed base that they really stuck it to the fat-cats and made the GOP eat their no-tax pledge, while in reality, 99.9% of any budget deal is cuts in spending. 

Posted by: pep at June 30, 2011 12:30 PM (6TB1Z)

41 brb, beein' a dick

Posted by: Big O at June 30, 2011 12:30 PM (q177U)

42 ....and your taxable income for the upcoming six years just got $12 million higher. No, it stays the same as it would have had you not purchased the plane, assuming all other inputs remain the same. Plus you have more money to reinvest in today's dollars.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 30, 2011 12:31 PM (lbo6/)

43 Will someone at the RNC please cut an ad featuring all the recreational uses of Air Force One and other planes by Obama and the First Lady? Is anyone even fucking there?

Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2011 12:31 PM (Xm1aB)

44
brb, goin for a smoke.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at June 30, 2011 12:31 PM (QMtmy)

45

The frightening thing is that people like my 83 year-old mother will vote for this fool again. Guilty whites just can't admit that a black man can be a clueless loser and small-minded divider who has no idea how to get out of the way of business so it can save the country through strong economic growth.

That is the quickest way out of this mess. High tax revenue raised due to people getting richer rather than minimally higher or flat tax revenue through rate increases. 

 

Posted by: Meremortal at June 30, 2011 12:32 PM (7FgWm)

46 "And then he came for the business jet owners, and still no one spoke up . . ."

(Thereby hitting the racist/Nazi Daily Double, I think.)

I also realize I broke the sacred AoSHQ FIRST!!! rule.  I denounce myself.

Posted by: filbert at June 30, 2011 12:32 PM (smvTK)

47 The issue, though, is that having that extra 12 million (or whatever) RIGHT NOW leads to other investment which could, with relative ease, lead to bigger returns than those tax deductions would have provided anyway.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 30, 2011 05:28 PM (8y9MW)

Except that interest rates are artificially kept at near zero, meaning that the time value of money can essentially be ignored. Besides, corporate cash is at record high levels -- corporations won't invest in anything long-term while Captain Pinhead is still flailing randomly.

Seriously, have you tried to figure out some investment that "could, with relative ease, lead to bigger returns" sufficient to make up for the eroding dollar?

Posted by: cthulhu at June 30, 2011 12:33 PM (kaalw)

48 Posted by: pep at June 30, 2011 05:30 PM (6TB1Z)

I think the better sign is that Republicans are still saying, "no."  They seem to have gotten the message that ANY tax increase is off the table, as far as their voters are concerned, and ONLY spending cuts should be considered.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 30, 2011 12:33 PM (8y9MW)

49 I guess he was against the jet write off before he was for it.
Why does this sound familiar?
Anyone?

Posted by: baseballguy at June 30, 2011 12:33 PM (MaS0T)

50 beck's last half hour.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at June 30, 2011 12:34 PM (QcFbt)

51 @46 ...I denounce myself..... There, now you're gettin' it. Good cracker.

Posted by: President Maobama at June 30, 2011 12:34 PM (Xm1aB)

52

If anyone can make a coherent noncontradictory point out of that 267 word "clarification," I will vote for you for President of the United States in 2012.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 30, 2011 12:34 PM (B+qrE)

53 Barky O'Bumbles: I am prepared to cede back to Mexico via Executive Order lands obtained by the United States under adversarial processes in the 19th Century.

MSM: You are so right, O Wise One, we should have paid more to Mexico for the Gadsen Purchase.

Barky O'Bumbles: No! No! No! The Gadsen Purchase was a good thing! I'm referring to the lands we seized after Kinetic Military Action of Gringo Aggression.

Posted by: No Whining at June 30, 2011 12:34 PM (HmCnI)

54 Wish it was baraky's last hour.

Posted by: baseballguy at June 30, 2011 12:34 PM (MaS0T)

55 I wish some smart-ass Republican would propose a bill mandating that the all executive office travel within the United States be accomplished by road travel.

Because, you know, jettin' around the country is bad and stuff.

It wouldn't go anywhere, but it'd be damned funny.

Posted by: Warden at June 30, 2011 12:35 PM (HzhBE)

Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2011 12:35 PM (4Kl5M)

57 Posted by: cthulhu at June 30, 2011 05:33 PM (kaalw)

Depends on your market, really.  I happen to work in software development, where we need every employee we can beg, borrow, or steal.  Investment doesn't mean, necessarily, in stocks or financials, it could be hiring new employees, or replacing aging equipment, or whatever.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 30, 2011 12:35 PM (8y9MW)

58 GOP retort if they actually had balls;

Run a montage of Dem politicians, big Dem donors, Hollywood phonies, and other big lefties with private jets

Posted by: kbdabear at June 30, 2011 12:35 PM (so1xa)

59 It's not me, it's you.

Posted by: The Prezdent at June 30, 2011 12:36 PM (k0TKJ)

60 I swear, if the Republicans would just lower themselves ever so slightly and start going after this bitch, the country would get the signal and start finally turning on the dick.

You know, I'd really rather not contemplate that last phrase.  What exactly would he look like when turned on?

Posted by: pep at June 30, 2011 12:36 PM (6TB1Z)

61 That little faggot got his own jet airplane, the little faggot is a millionaire ...

Posted by: Dire Obama Straits at June 30, 2011 12:37 PM (so1xa)

62 I think the better sign is that Republicans are still saying, "no."  They seem to have gotten the message that ANY tax increase is off the table, as far as their voters are concerned, and ONLY spending cuts should be considered.

 I really hope so.  Spank this dick unmercifully.

Posted by: pep at June 30, 2011 12:37 PM (6TB1Z)

63 No, it stays the same as it would have had you not purchased the plane, assuming all other inputs remain the same.

Plus you have more money to reinvest in today's dollars.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 30, 2011 05:31 PM (lbo6/)

1. We're not talking about buying the plane or not; we're talking about the difference in tax treatment. If you depreciate the plane immediately, then you can't depreciate the plane later -- comparing this to not purchasing the plane is a non sequitur.

2. Per my point above, investing money with today's rapidly depreciating dollars isn't the same as investing during the Reagan years. The Fed's ZIRP policy is trashing returns.

Posted by: cthulhu at June 30, 2011 12:37 PM (kaalw)

64 Guilty whites just can't admit that a black man can be a clueless loser and small-minded divider who has no idea

Really?  'Cause they seem to have no trouble claiming that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas writes at a 4th grade level, or some such bullshit.

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at June 30, 2011 12:37 PM (HwE/1)

65 @58 Good idea. Put it to the Steve Miller track Big Jetliner. It will never happen.

Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2011 12:38 PM (Xm1aB)

66 I haven't read all the comments but, has anyone noted that Barry is a stuttering cluster fuck of a miserable failure, and a dick, yet?

Posted by: that guy that doesn't read all the comments and beats memes to death for google purposes at June 30, 2011 12:38 PM (GTbGH)

67 Somehow I don't think he meant Algore, Arianna, Soros, or Spielberg when he was talking about private jets

Posted by: kbdabear at June 30, 2011 12:39 PM (so1xa)

68 The Sergeant Major was a lady sufferagette! Jet!

Posted by: USS Diversity and Wings at June 30, 2011 12:39 PM (Jyt+i)

69

the whole point of the exercise is to split the GOP from their base ...  If Obama can get a single tax hike into the deal his minions will push the "GOP lied to their base meme" every chance they get to try and drive a wedge between the Tea Party and the GOP ...

It will of course fail because as imperfect as the GOP may be to many in the Tea Party they will NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER vote for Obama ...

Posted by: Jeff at June 30, 2011 12:39 PM (A3tpD)

70 hey seem to have no trouble claiming that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas writes at a 4th grade level, or some such bullshit.

As opposed to University Professor Cornell West's latest rap album. 

Posted by: pep at June 30, 2011 12:39 PM (6TB1Z)

71 We don't have an adult in the Oval Office, we have a petulant man-child.

Frankly, I thought "churlish little prick" said it better.  Or maybe "dick".

Posted by: Roger at June 30, 2011 12:39 PM (tAwhy)

72 66
Posted by: that guy that doesn't read all the comments and beats memes to death for google purposes at June 30, 2011 05:38 PM (GTbGH)

Change that "memes" to "mimes" and I with you, all the way!

Posted by: No Whining at June 30, 2011 12:40 PM (HmCnI)

73 Plus you have more money to reinvest in today's dollars.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 30, 2011 05:31 PM (lbo6/)

This makes sense.

You aren't always foul-mouthed and piggish! Who knew?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 30, 2011 12:40 PM (LH6ir)

74 Depends on your market, really.  I happen to work in software development, where we need every employee we can beg, borrow, or steal.  Investment doesn't mean, necessarily, in stocks or financials, it could be hiring new employees, or replacing aging equipment, or whatever.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 30, 2011 05:35 PM (8y9MW)

You're looking at completing your project. Does it provide a return? Quite a bit of software development never pays back its initial investment.

Posted by: cthulhu at June 30, 2011 12:40 PM (kaalw)

75 You flew your lear jet up to Nova Scotia to see the total eclipse of the sun . . .

You're so vain . . .

Posted by: Carly Simon at June 30, 2011 12:40 PM (smvTK)

76

Other than getting bin Laden that is. For that he claims way too much credit.

Are you kidding me? Obama getting bin Laden was downright heroic!

It was like the climax scene in the remake of Clash of the Titans when Perseus heard of a plan to kill the Kraken from a group of warrior friends, then went home to think about it, and came back the next day and slammed his hand down onto a table and said "Take him out!" The exciting part was when Hera rendered the slaughter of the Kraken on the surface of a serene pond so that Perseus could watch the whole thing.

(I didn't actually see the movie, but a friend of a friend told a friend about it, who told me, so it was like I saw it. Still, my point is valid even if some details are misrepresented.)

Posted by: FireHorse at June 30, 2011 12:41 PM (jAKfY)

77 he's a dick and the 52% who voted him in are dickless

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 30, 2011 12:41 PM (5jbD3)

78 Posted by: that guy that doesn't read all the comments and beats memes to death for google purposes at June 30, 2011 05:38 PM (GTbGH)

Change that "memes" to "mimes" and I with you, all the way!

What's this about a bureau of mimes?  Why do we need such a thing?   What?  Oh, that's different.  Never mind.

Posted by: Emily Litella at June 30, 2011 12:41 PM (6TB1Z)

79 brb, finnin' mah prescriptionz

Posted by: Berry at June 30, 2011 12:41 PM (q177U)

80 Really I'm just tired of those damn corpse-porate jets flyin' over when I'm tryin' to putt. And eat my waffle. And remember my son's age. I mean daughter. Whatever. Explanation and revisions to follow.

Posted by: President Brilliance at June 30, 2011 12:42 PM (7FgWm)

81 @80 lol

Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2011 12:42 PM (Xm1aB)

82 beck's last half hour.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at June 30, 2011 05:34 PM (QcFbt)

And thank God for that!

If I wanted to be lectured to I would talk with my wife.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 30, 2011 12:42 PM (LH6ir)

83 Seriously, have you tried to figure out some investment that "could, with relative ease, lead to bigger returns" sufficient to make up for the eroding dollar? The Deerhurst Resort in Ontario. An Israeli picked it up for $26M last year, after it had done $60M in renovations to prep for the G8 under the previous owner. Last months release of condos for sale generated $22M. On the first day. So YES, I can think of more attractive investments to spend my G-500's bonus depreciation on.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 30, 2011 12:43 PM (lbo6/)

84 There's way too much clarifyin' goin' on heah!

Posted by: zombie Fritz Hollings at June 30, 2011 12:43 PM (HmCnI)

85 brb, getting new kneepads for my meeting with the muslim brotherhood

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at June 30, 2011 12:43 PM (c45xH)

86 75, I love that song. I also Like that's the way I always heard it should be.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 30, 2011 12:44 PM (NtTkA)

87

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at June 30, 2011 05:37 PM (HwE/1)

Sorry, that should have read "liberal black man" etc.

Posted by: Meremortal at June 30, 2011 12:44 PM (7FgWm)

88 The electorate is hungry for a revision in corporate aviation depreciation schedules and we walked right into Obama's trap. He may be a dick, but godddamn is he a crafty sonofabitch.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at June 30, 2011 12:44 PM (+lsX1)

89 Done with work for the week, and taking a 4-day weekend.  Yeah, I'm a fed.  Wanna make something of it?

Posted by: pep at June 30, 2011 12:45 PM (6TB1Z)

90 he's a dick and the 52% who voted him in are dickless

Truthfully, it was the genuinely dick-less that put this man-child in office.  Remove their votes and it wasn't even close.  Now, I'm not saying that women's suffrage is a bad thing...
...
...
...shit, maybe that is what I'm saying.

I guess I denounce myself.

Posted by: Rod Rescueman at June 30, 2011 12:45 PM (HwE/1)

91 Is it true you can only get to the extra 7 (or is it 9) States that only The One knows about by flying corporate jets?

(. . . gotta take my sock off one foot at a time, just like anybody else . . . but maybe in honor of Halperin's non-gaffe they should be re-dubbed dick-puppets. 


OK, bad idea . . .)

Posted by: filbert at June 30, 2011 12:45 PM (smvTK)

92 "Damn, why doesn't he just just his fuckin' mouth, had this thing damn near swept under the rug, and he has to go yakkin'......."

Posted by: Claire "Air" McCaskill at June 30, 2011 12:45 PM (Xm1aB)

93 All this talk about the dick is hot!

Posted by: Tony "The Tweeter" Weiner at June 30, 2011 12:46 PM (sj4Tq)

94 82
If I wanted to be lectured to I would talk with my wife.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 30, 2011 05:42 PM (LH6ir)

{ * sotto voce * } Just before this was typed, we slipped some "From CBD's Keyboard to His Wife's Ears" into this thread. Let's watch what happens ...

Posted by: Folgers, messin' where they got no business goin' at June 30, 2011 12:46 PM (HmCnI)

95 @89 "You ain't got shit on us. We've had the whole year off."

Posted by: America's Unemployed at June 30, 2011 12:47 PM (Xm1aB)

96 So YES, I can think of more attractive investments to spend my G-500's bonus depreciation on.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 30, 2011 05:43 PM (lbo6/)

Sounds awesome! Have you got any examples that might, actually, happen in the future? BTW, how much of a piece of that last one did you get? Who clued you in on it?

Posted by: cthulhu at June 30, 2011 12:47 PM (kaalw)

97 Posted by: cthulhu at June 30, 2011 05:40 PM (kaalw)

That's actually a (somewhat) misquoted statistic.  Most software projects never get return on investment, because most are abandoned or cancelled before they can be deployed.  I'd be willing to bet that, when only looking at solutions actually deployed, better than 50% do make positive returns, and, indeed, make up for all the others that don't.

And it's not just about new development.  If you're not in the industry, you wouldn't believe the amount of man-hours used in maintaining current systems (if you are in the industry, you likely already know).  Remember that those man-hours, while a cost, are preventing loss of revenue by preventing (or correcting) down-time in your systems.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 30, 2011 12:48 PM (8y9MW)

98 Thirteen minutes....  twelve.... eleven.... ten....

Posted by: Glenn Beck Nervously Fingering the Detonator in His Coat Pocket at June 30, 2011 12:48 PM (XRCmy)

99 What a dick.

Posted by: observer at June 30, 2011 12:48 PM (Beb1i)

100 Posted by: America's Unemployed at June 30, 2011 05:47 PM (Xm1aB)

I know exactly what you're going through, brothers!

Posted by: Mitt Romney at June 30, 2011 12:48 PM (uhAkr)

101

Posted by: Glenn Beck Nervously Fingering the Detonator in His Coat Pocket at June 30, 2011 05:48 PM (XRCmy)

OK, that's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 30, 2011 12:49 PM (B+qrE)

102 beck's last half hour.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at June 30, 2011 05:34 PM (QcFbt)

Even though he gets on my nerves with the drama half the time, I really appreciate all that he's done and find myself feeling a bit of a sense of loss. He really has done some great, informative shows.

 

Posted by: Ms Choksondik at June 30, 2011 12:49 PM (sVk8z)

103 100
Posted by: America's Unemployed at June 30, 2011 05:47 PM (Xm1aB)

I know exactly what you're going through, brothers!
Posted by: Mitt Romney at June 30, 2011 05:48 PM (uhAkr)

Piping hot cornbreros, anyone?

Posted by: Mittens, unemployed, but still a gracious host at June 30, 2011 12:50 PM (HmCnI)

104 Besides which, I will have Government Jets at my beck and call, for the Rest of my Life... ergo all you folks with Corporate Jets can go right under the Bus.

Posted by: President O'bombya at June 30, 2011 12:50 PM (NtXW4)

105 "Seriously, have you tried to figure out some investment that 'could, with relative ease, lead to bigger returns' sufficient to make up for the eroding dollar?" Come January 2012, if our side wins, I'll rent my DC-area house for a tidy sum to people in town for the inauguration. If the dick wins, I will rent it for an obscene sum--cash up front. That's my hedge.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at June 30, 2011 12:51 PM (cbyrC)

106
Why is calling someone a "dick" a no-no, but "teabagger" is ok?

Posted by: Dr. Varno at June 30, 2011 12:51 PM (QMtmy)

107 #98!

Thread winner!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 30, 2011 12:51 PM (LH6ir)

108 @106 Because we said so. Now suck it winger.

Posted by: Liberal Media at June 30, 2011 12:52 PM (Xm1aB)

109 You’ll still be able to ride on your corporate jet; you’re just going to have to pay a little more. I detect a theme. The use of the word "still". You'll still be able to have your old insurance. You'll still be able to ride on your jet. When he says "still" he means he's going to take it away!

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at June 30, 2011 12:52 PM (KOAYS)

110 106
Why is calling someone a "dick" a no-no, but "teabagger" is ok?

Posted by: Dr. Varno at June 30, 2011 05:51 PM (QMtmy)

 

Don't forget twat and cunt.

Posted by: Ms Choksondik at June 30, 2011 12:52 PM (sVk8z)

111 106
Why is calling someone a "dick" a no-no, but "teabagger" is ok?

Posted by: Dr. Varno at June 30, 2011 05:51 PM (QMtmy)

It's all about the fluids, dude . . . the Precious Bodily Fluids . . .

Posted by: filbert at June 30, 2011 12:52 PM (smvTK)

112

If I wanted to be lectured to I would talk with my wife.

 

My wife cried a lot less than Beck.

Posted by: garrett at June 30, 2011 12:53 PM (XOK/H)

113 @112 lol

Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2011 12:53 PM (Xm1aB)

114 What he is talking about is a frakin 2 year shorter depreciation of a legitimate business expense?

That is some serious WTF stuff there. If we had true justice there would be no damn depreciation schedule at all. If you bought a jet for business use you would write off the entire expense that year.

After all, you spent all the money that year unless you "financed" it. I know a lot of business people who will not buy anything like this for that very reason. What they do is "lease" it because then they can write off the entire amount.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2011 12:54 PM (M9Ie6)

115 Hell, I don't even cry that much!

Posted by: Speaker Boehner at June 30, 2011 12:54 PM (Xm1aB)

116 If you can fully depreciate a huge purchase like a corporate jet in one year, it's a huge boost for businesses.

Well, you can't.

There is a dollar ceiling on Section 179 depreciation. It must go to MACRS if over

Posted by: beedubya at June 30, 2011 12:54 PM (AnTyA)

117

Don't forget twat and cunt.

Posted by: Ms Choksondik at June 30, 2011 05:52 PM (sVk8z)

That's all we think about.

Posted by: Typical hard-up moron at June 30, 2011 12:55 PM (LH6ir)

118 Roger, Mercury One, we read you five by . . .

Posted by: filbert at June 30, 2011 12:55 PM (smvTK)

119 C'mon, I don't think Glenn Beck cries all that much!

Posted by: John Boehner at June 30, 2011 12:55 PM (piR98)

120

Flew INTO Miami Beach BOAC..

Didn't get to bed last night...

All the way the Paper bag was on my knees.

Man it was a dreadful flight

I'm back in the USSR... hey...

(funny how changing one little word, can change the entire meme)

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 30, 2011 12:56 PM (NtXW4)

121 We're going to miss Glenn the most.

Posted by: Kleenex and Puffs at June 30, 2011 12:56 PM (sVk8z)

122 Sounds awesome! Have you got any examples that might, actually, happen in the future? BTW, how much of a piece of that last one did you get? Who clued you in on it? Are you asking for my credentials? You can't have them. It seems like you're calling bullshit, so here's another tidbit if you're so inclined. A lot of debt buyers seek non-bank lenders to finance purchasing consumer paper. Cargill, the agro-giant, is the largest financier to the debt-buying industry in the U.S. I'm sure if you offerred 15 percent on your money, they'd line up to borrow. What's your appetite for risk?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 30, 2011 12:57 PM (lbo6/)

123 There is a dollar ceiling on Section 179 depreciation. It must go to MACRS if over

I like titties and beer.

Posted by: beedubya at June 30, 2011 05:54 PM (AnTyA)

FIFY

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 30, 2011 12:57 PM (LH6ir)

124 That's actually a (somewhat) misquoted statistic.  Most software projects never get return on investment, because most are abandoned or cancelled before they can be deployed.  I'd be willing to bet that, when only looking at solutions actually deployed, better than 50% do make positive returns, and, indeed, make up for all the others that don't.

And it's not just about new development.  If you're not in the industry, you wouldn't believe the amount of man-hours used in maintaining current systems (if you are in the industry, you likely already know).  Remember that those man-hours, while a cost, are preventing loss of revenue by preventing (or correcting) down-time in your systems.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 30, 2011 05:48 PM (8y9MW)

As a Silicon Valley CPA, I'm vaguely familiar with software projects.....and I suspect that a lot of this depends on the definition of "deployed". If you "deployed" means "actually producing returns", then it's much easier to get to "net positive returns over development costs".

But it's not just software -- by some estimations, the entire commercial airline industry has never turned a profit. They just keep getting investors to pony up more dough.

The fact is that many people can do good work and produce, and still end up without a return on investment. Think of all the proud engineers who produced a superior product at Sony with Betamax. If you're looking from the engineering side, congrats! If you're looking at investment.....oh, so sorry.....

Posted by: cthulhu at June 30, 2011 12:57 PM (kaalw)

125 Did someone say dick?

Posted by: David Brock at June 30, 2011 12:57 PM (Xm1aB)

126 Anyone have a corporate jet they want to sell for under $500k??

I'd get a great tax break if I could find one.

Posted by: beedubya at June 30, 2011 12:58 PM (AnTyA)

127 I like titties and beer.

Foreveeeeeeeer!

Posted by: Zombie Frank Zappa at June 30, 2011 12:58 PM (XOK/H)

128 121 We're going to miss Glenn the most.

Posted by: Kleenex and Puffs at June 30, 2011 05:56 PM (sVk8z)

When I first read that, I thought it said, "Glenn the moist".

Posted by: cthulhu at June 30, 2011 12:59 PM (kaalw)

129

Posted by: cthulhu at June 30, 2011 05:57 PM (kaalw)

Case in point... United Airlines bankruptcy... who lost? only us little people who had invested money in their Stock.

Then they reissue...

Airline assets SHOULD have been sold off, and everyone made whole... and yes, there were more than enough assets to do so.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 30, 2011 01:01 PM (NtXW4)

130 Ok, I just started to get misty at the end of Beck. Someone get me some midol and chocolate NOW!

Posted by: Ms Choksondik at June 30, 2011 01:01 PM (sVk8z)

131 Quitter !!!!11!!!

Posted by: Cherry π at June 30, 2011 01:02 PM (OhYCU)

132 Michael Jackson's troubles started when he was the only adult in the room.

Posted by: t-bird at June 30, 2011 01:03 PM (FcR7P)

133 Anyone have a corporate jet they want to sell for under $500k?? Yes. You're not going to be a hardass about the whole "clear title" thing, are you?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 30, 2011 01:04 PM (lbo6/)

134 Posted by: cthulhu at June 30, 2011 05:57 PM (kaalw)

"Deployed" means... deployed.  It means "actually in a production environment" whether sold to some external party or developed for internal use.

Just for the record.

And I don't doubt there are lots of ways (and, indeed, not a few industries) where losing money is the order of the day.  But someone SOMEWHERE is making money on it...

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 30, 2011 01:04 PM (8y9MW)

135 Posted by: Romeo13 at June 30, 2011 06:01 PM (NtXW4)

Not being an Obama (dick), really.

Who should have been made whole on sale of assets?

Posted by: beedubya at June 30, 2011 01:05 PM (AnTyA)

136 And I don't doubt there are lots of ways (and, indeed, not a few industries) where losing money is the order of the day.  But someone SOMEWHERE is making money on it...

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 30, 2011 06:04 PM (8y9MW)

You rang?

Posted by: Goldman Sachs at June 30, 2011 01:06 PM (kaalw)

137 Under 500K. Hahahahahaha

You can't buy a used twin engine turbo prop for that, much less a jet.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2011 01:08 PM (M9Ie6)

138 Under 500K. Hahahahahaha

You can't buy a used twin engine turbo prop for that, much less a jet.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2011 06:08 PM (M9Ie6)


Well, apparently there's a tax break if'n you can find one.

Posted by: beedubya at June 30, 2011 01:11 PM (AnTyA)

139

Changing cost-depreciation schedules is not raising or lowering tax rates. I see no reason why they should not be on the table as part of a long-range plan to cut the deficit, provided no one is deluded into supposing that the effect is anything but minor.

Lengthening those schedules does reduce the government's need to borrow now. Thus, it reduces future borrowing costs for the government (assuming everything else is the same) and so does help  reduce the deficit (by a very modest amount). Of course, it temporarily but immediately raises the tax payments due from businesses that are investing, and that might not be a wise thing to do in a recession. (I know: Obama and wisdom represent an oxymoron.)

I do not think conservatives should object in principle to having uniform tax laws. If most businesses have to use a depreciation schedule of seven years on capital invested in equipment, it is pure crony-capitalism to say that airplanes get a break compared to X-ray machines or pizza ovens. Either 5 years is good for everyone putting their capital at risk in equipment or 7 years is good for everyone doing so, but the government should not be playing favorites and distorting the economy.

And, yes, it is supremely hypocritical to object to a 5-year period for depreciation as a corporate give-away after passing a 1-year period.

Posted by: JeffM at June 30, 2011 01:13 PM (zD0RO)

140 Anybody want to ask the JED about all the money that the gummint legislates into the pocket of GE and gets nothing back?

Posted by: nickless at June 30, 2011 01:14 PM (MMC8r)

141 If Team Obama are such great communicators, how come they couldn't have handed out a background sheet during the press conference that provided the details of what Obama meant when he was talking about CORPORATE JETS X6? This is a walk-back, plain and simple.

Posted by: Socratease at June 30, 2011 01:17 PM (vaIln)

142 Someone gives me a suitcase full of enough cash money and I'll give them the keys to a corporate jet.

It may need to be cleaned thoroughly and flown somewhere warm for a while, but you'll get the keys.

Posted by: sifty at June 30, 2011 01:17 PM (gYuf3)

143 " it is pure crony-capitalism to say that airplanes get a break compared to X-ray machines or pizza ovens. Either 5 years is good for everyone putting their capital at risk in equipment or 7 years is good for everyone doing so"

I'm sorry but that is just jibberish.  Items should be depreciated based on their estimated life.

Posted by: Cherry π at June 30, 2011 01:17 PM (OhYCU)

144 We don't have an adult in the Oval Office, we have a petulant man-child. And I would add, a consummate fuck-stick. Good Lord, who in the world would actually vote for this ass wipe?

Posted by: RickS at June 30, 2011 01:17 PM (Kogrf)

145 Dick.

Posted by: Corona at June 30, 2011 01:20 PM (fh2Y7)

146 Empire of Jeff and all: Keep in mind for pricing, a Lear 85, which is the top of the line smaller biz jet, is slated to cost 12 Million. A G650 is in the range of 60-80 Million.

Posted by: GeoSTI at June 30, 2011 01:21 PM (Pm5JB)

147 132 Michael Jackson's troubles started when he was the only adult in the room. Posted by: t-bird at June 30, 2011 06:03 PM

That right there is teh funneh!

Not so much if Jugears wants to play rubbah

Posted by: kbdabear at June 30, 2011 01:25 PM (so1xa)

148

Empire of Jeff and all: Keep in mind for pricing, a Lear 85, which is the top of the line smaller biz jet, is slated to cost 12 Million. A G650 is in the range of 60-80 Million.<<<

 

Thanks.

 

However, the point still stands.  If a bonus depreciation allows you to accelerate 50% of the aircraft's cost to be written off in the first year, like in the 2008 stimulus act, that's a shitpot of money that could be put to alternative, profitable uses (don't know why 100% was sticking in my mind, I think there was a restaurant lease, or some equipment I bought, or something, was allowed to depreciate at 100% my first year - not that it helped - we lost our ass on that one.)

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 30, 2011 01:34 PM (lGFXF)

149 I'm sorry but that is just jibberish.  Items should be depreciated based on their estimated life.

As I said, you should be able to write it off totally the year you actually spend the money. i.e. no depreciation schedule.

And BTW, I bought a computer for work and my wife who was in maintenance a set of tools. Both of those were 5 years.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2011 01:36 PM (M9Ie6)

150 This villification isn't as stupid as 'the doctors harvesting diabetics feet at $10,000 a piece' one.  Few people have friends that fly in private jets but everyone has a doctor they can keep forever (my precious).

Posted by: East Bay Jay at June 30, 2011 01:43 PM (ocHBO)

151

There are two different corporate jet tax items. In the deficit talks, White House officials say, the President ...woof woof ...  depreciate in 5 years versus 7 years for commercial aviation ...woof woof woof woof ...signed into law by President Bush).”

Ever'body know dat. Now where my money?

Posted by: Peggy Joseph at June 30, 2011 01:45 PM (juSmz)

152 88 The electorate is hungry for a revision in corporate aviation depreciation schedules and we walked right into Obama's trap. He may be a dick, but godddamn is he a crafty sonofabitch. ----------- That is hilarious.

Posted by: MayBee at June 30, 2011 01:47 PM (PLixr)

153 142 Someone gives me a suitcase full of enough cash money and I'll give them the keys to a corporate jet.

It may need to be cleaned thoroughly and flown somewhere warm for a while, but you'll get the keys.

Posted by: sifty at June 30, 2011 06:17 PM (gYuf3)

We may be headed for this kind of economy soon.

I'm making a list of trustworthy but unethical friends just in case.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at June 30, 2011 02:01 PM (bxiXv)

154 I was working up the courage, @66, but thank you!

Posted by: Vercingetorix at June 30, 2011 02:03 PM (psCad)

155

He is a petulant man-child because his whore mother hated his filthy guts.  And his realization of her hatred and his own constructed self-hate defined him for the rest of his life.  He can't even be bothered with the ages of his own children.  He is still making up for the hatred his own mother had for him as he grew up.  He is a sick bastard and need treatment. 

Furthermore, the only organization he can identify with is islam because it is the only political theocracy that his brand of crazy fits into.  He and Armchairdinnerjacket and any imam or cleric of islam are made from the same cloth...socially shunned and sexually abused boys who have grown into the petulant evil haters they are because their parents were abusive and hated the very DNA in each cell of their bodies.  And they knew it from a very early age.

That's my humble opinion. 

Posted by: whole truth be told at June 30, 2011 02:10 PM (YA6+6)

156

Now that Obama is the new term for dick, I am going to have to stop telling my children that they are acting like "Obama's kids" when they are being lazy. 

It was good while it lasted; never seen a 7 year old and 10 year old get up and do their chores so fast and so well.  A big thank you to Obama's kids for being the example of what my children apparently do not want to be like.

I don't want them to call me Michelle, either.

Posted by: whole truth be told at June 30, 2011 02:20 PM (YA6+6)

157

"I'm not a tax guy but is that even a revenue enhancer for the federal government? Isn't the write down amount the same, just a company gets the full benefit sooner? Or is Obama trying to eliminate depreciation on all planes?"

It is a revenue enhancer for the government when you take into account the time value of money. tl;dr version of the post below: time is money. Changing the depreciation schedule changes the timing, which means someone pays more.


Say the airplane costs $X. Say the tax rate on a company is "t." The interest rate on t-bills we'll call "i."

Under a five-year schedule of straight-line depreciation (for simplicity), the government allows a deduction of $.2X in the first year, and thus receives $.2X * t less revenue that year. That means that the government is $.2X*t more in debt at the end of the year, and must purchase t-bills to cover the gap. The government will pay $.2X*t*i more to service the debt that year than without depreciation. Under a seven year schedule, the same analysis holds, except the government ends up paying $.142X*t*i more to service the debt that year. Pretty straight forward so far.

The difference between the two numbers represents additional debt the government takes on in the first year. In the second year the government will have to pay interest on the gap between the two numbers as well. But on top of that, the government has to pay for additional debt it issues to pay the interest on the extra debt from the first year.

Continue this process down for the next six years, multiply it out by however many jets are depreciated, and by the cost of the jets, and all of the sudden I'd guess that the difference is in the "couple of billion dollars over ten years" range. It'll still be a pathetically small amount in the face of a $1.7 trillion deficit, but it's not nothing. And let's face it, it's hard to come up with any aspect of the budget that doesn't amount to a pathetically small amount in the face of $1.7 trillion.

Posted by: sayyid412 at June 30, 2011 02:28 PM (EjnMv)

158 Corporate jet owners vs. high-speed rail.  Smackdown!

Posted by: stock oriental character at June 30, 2011 02:36 PM (g1Q6b)

159 My 8 year old daughter wanted ice cream this afternoon so we headed to her favorite place. When we got there it was out of business. When she saw that it was closed forever she yelled out "THANKS OBAMA" It made my mom heart proud

Posted by: Caunotaucarius at June 30, 2011 02:53 PM (0SoSB)

160 It may need to be cleaned thoroughly and flown somewhere warm for a while, but you'll get the keys.

A little club soda will get the blood right out.

Remember to dab though, don't rub.

Posted by: toby928 at June 30, 2011 03:22 PM (GTbGH)

161 Yep! I was agreed, I'll keep in touch to your blog.

Posted by: Buried Secrets AudioBook at June 30, 2011 03:30 PM (hc7H2)

162 Great information! Very useful for me. Thanks a lot.

Posted by: Sexy corsets at June 30, 2011 03:38 PM (2g7zz)

163 I saw King Putt arrive at PHL airport today, while I was working the Phillies-Red Sox game. Citizens Bank Park is located close to the airport, and we were treated to the sight of the world's most famous corporate jet flying by the stadium after the grueling 10-minute flight from Andrews. I'm surprised that he didn't have the pilot buzz the ballpark for a photo-op. Of course, being a man of the people, he came to town at 4:30 on a weekday, the beginning of rush hour, as well as the end of the ballgame. The gridlock was historic.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at June 30, 2011 04:10 PM (jn3w5)

164 of course its ok for his dog to be jetted out to be with the family

Posted by: av at June 30, 2011 04:11 PM (XgePz)

165 Sorry, DICK, but accelerating the rate of depreciation is HARDLY a "tax break". As if there is some natural law about how fast capital depreciates. Halprin really nailed it on this one.

Posted by: deadrody at June 30, 2011 04:13 PM (GJhuj)

166 "The frightening thing is that people like my 83 year-old mother will vote for this fool again."

Lincoln was right, as usual: you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Posted by: Brown Line at June 30, 2011 05:28 PM (ydXux)

167

If a corporate jet is owned by a public company, then everyone who owns stock in that company is a corporate jet owner.  Which means he might be trying to raise taxes on a whole lot of people.  But we knew that.

Obama: Do you think corporate jet owners should pay more taxes?

Middle class dude: Damn right!

Obama: Do you own IBM stock?

Middle class dude: What are you getting at?

 

Posted by: Michael at June 30, 2011 06:21 PM (FC2+c)

168

Given that the government is profiting off of gasoline and diesel sales per gallon, who is the greedy little bugger getting rich off of oil? Let's get something straight here, taxes are profits for the government. 

The oil companies themselves profit about 9 cents per gallon are modest providers compared to federal taxes of 18.4¢/ gal and 24.4¢/gal for diesel fuel.  The States in varying degrees are more than twice as greedy again as the federal government with California raking in 50 cents a gallon pure profit via their taxes. 

If the oil companies are being asked to pay higher taxes by losing the standard depreciation credits on new equipment, then the government should reduce their profits as well to put more money in the pockets of the citizenry.  Remember liberals, you are the ones claiming this is a consumption based economy, your logic, your rules.  We on the other hand assert our economy is an investment based economy where capital is risked by investing in plant and equipment which spurs the economy by creating wealth.

Posted by: dscott at June 30, 2011 08:37 PM (NGe7F)

169

@ Cherry Pi with jibberish on top

Well if you want to have depreciation schedules for tax purposes based on useful life, an airplane used as a corporate jet has a useful life longer than seven years, let alone five. No company in the world would depreciate it over five years on its own books.

In any case, it is crony-capitalism to say that people who buy airplanes get a special tax break that is not available to other businesses who buy long-lasting equipment. So what term do you prefer for such favoritism?  

 

 

Posted by: JeffM at July 01, 2011 09:01 AM (zD0RO)

170

Can we please step back and take a look at the bigger picture?  We have all, in various forms and from all political leanings, been borrowing too much and saving too little for about 30 years.  It is now time to pay the proverbial piper and we need to change our ways. 

There are two excellent blueprints put together by bi-partisan groups to get the United States back onto a sound fiscal track.  One is the Simpson-Bowles Plan, the other the Dominici-Rivlin Plan.  Both have the benefit of having been written by very smart people who understand this large and complicated issue. 

Both plans contemplate about 30% of the solution coming from revenue (tax) increases and the other 70% coming from expense cuts.  Keep in mind that some of these expense cuts come in the form of reduced benefits, especially for Medicare, but this has been an uneconomic program for decades.   And both plans comtemplate this solution occuring over a 20-30 year period.

This level of partisan battle over a infiniteesimally small matter in the tax code is a wasteful distraction.  I wish we would all look at the bigger picture and insist that our elected representatives work cooperatively with their political counterparts to implement the fiscal changes recommended in Simpson-Bowles and Dominici-Rivlin.  We also need to acknowledge that these changes will increase our taxes and reduce our government benefits.  This is all very manageable if we admit we brought this matter on ourselves and we have the collective responsibility to fix it.

 

Posted by: Jon Willis at July 01, 2011 04:46 PM (ffhhU)

171 I am so lucky to read your post!thank you!

Posted by: Jersey at July 02, 2011 12:23 AM (VpAvQ)

172 2011 sees the seventh Rugby World Cup to date, with the first egrey purple black jordan shoesver being played in 1987, jointly hosted by New Zealand and Ausair jordan 11 dark concordtralia. England will host the eighth Rugby World Cup in 2015, bair jordan 13 white true red-black priceut lots of English, Irish, Welsh and Scottish supporters will bAuthentic Jordan Shoese enjoying the rugby and the hospitality in New Zealand in 2011Air Jordan 15 Black Varsity Red.

Posted by: jordanx5 at July 03, 2011 11:45 PM (W4cM9)

173 NEW version Meizitang botanical slimming product is made from selected naturalslimming botanical formula for beauty-making and the active extracts from jobstears and Lotus Leaf. It is produced in SFDA approved GMP factory.

Posted by: meizitang at July 05, 2011 02:10 AM (9y4aU)

174 thank you for sharing,I enjoyed the article.

Posted by: Philadelphia Phillies Jersey at July 09, 2011 08:53 PM (dwhLX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
177kb generated in CPU 0.11, elapsed 0.1362 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0466 seconds, 361 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.