Finally! Do you have an idea how expensive those things are and how much my wage slaves must work for that?
YSK that americans can now deduce private jet expenses from their taxes
Submitted 2 months ago by henaw2@lemmy.world to youshouldknow@lemmy.world
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/14/tax-cuts-private-jets-big-beautiful-bill.html
Comments
thfi@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
Taldan@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The cost ranges from $30,000 to over $100M
Typhoon@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
The law, in its majestic equality, allows rich and poor alike to deduce private jet expenses from their taxes.
Taldan@lemmy.world 2 months ago
To be fair, you don’t have to be rich to buy a Cessna 150. $35,000 can get you a nice old one
Issue is with taking advantage of the tax benefits
aphonefriend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
You realize that a majority of Americans don’t have more than 1,000$ in their savings accounts?
LillyPip@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
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.
dil@lemmy.zip 2 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.
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Made for the
rich whitepeople
ButtermilkBiscuit@feddit.nl 2 months ago
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
HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
The PC-12 is a turboprop, not a jet, though.
It’s a leech hauler alright, but not a jet.
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 2 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.”
TommyJohnsFishSpot@lemy.lol 2 months ago
Lemmutts love speaking authoritatively about things they don’t actually know.
AA5B@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Certainly a bigger problem is how someone who can afford over $1M private jet would be in only the 35% bracket
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I’m out of the loop did they get rid of 39%?
Carighan@piefed.world 2 months ago
Buy two! Save double!
who@feddit.org 2 months ago
Gross.
quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 months ago
YSK that eating the rich is a nutritious way to redistribute wealth
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
Way too much fat
nonentity@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Don’t eat shit, mulch the rich.
schwim@piefed.zip 2 months ago
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
turdburglar@piefed.social 2 months ago
indeductable!
whimsy@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
Great deduction!
nonentity@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
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.
callcc@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I like the that term. Just like obese personality for people who need large cars or are excessively loud.
zeca@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Calling that financial obesity is so weird.
nonentity@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
The financially obese are weird, a perfectly cromulent framing.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
nomy@lemmy.zip 2 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.
HarneyToker@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Why? Is it not an apt description? Or does the wording just make you uncomfortable?
buttnugget@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Calling it financial obesity makes it sound like a good thing. These are superfluous parasites.
nonentity@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Any reality where financial obesity can me interpreted as a positive or desirable notion must conjure other fascinating paradoxes, please tell us more…
sirico@feddit.uk 2 months ago
You allowed this before proper health care because that’s Socialism? Communism? Gay?
Taldan@lemmy.world 2 months ago
To be fair, America has the best aviation infrastructure in the world, and it is almost entirely socialized. So we do socialism sometimes
chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
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.
Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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.
BanMe@lemmy.world 2 months ago
This also applies to houses, boats, and inevitably surrogates now that they’re using them like pack mules.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
deduce private jet expenses
I can deduce it right from a receipt, if they give you one.
JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 2 months ago
Thank you, government. That is really an improvement of my life!
IWW4@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
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…
sausager@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Literally no one needs a private plane.
IWW4@lemmy.zip 2 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.
Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
My plumber comes with his private jet all the time.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
My plumber’s van has two hot stewardesses.
Soup@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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.
IWW4@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
There are so many uses for private aircraft. It isn’t all executives benefits
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Yeah, I was going to say I deducted airplane expenses for a client for twenty years
Hathaway@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
Ah, and only 90% of gambling loses. 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.
quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 months ago
In my experience, poor people gamble a lot. I’ve never seen a rich person buy a lottery ticket
Hathaway@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
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.
IronBird@lemmy.world 2 months ago
rich people gamble plenty, they just call it investing and get way more tax write offs for doing so
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Wait, if you buy a 10 dollar scratch card, you can deduct 9 dollars from you income for tax purposes?
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 2 months ago
You think the people buying scratch tickets are itemizing? Idk, maybe they will, they’re not the brightest
MissingGhost@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Why not make it be for bicycle repairs instead?
iamericandre@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Only poor people ride bikes that’s why
njordomir@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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
dil@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
We couldve been a flight based country instead of cars if we went in another direction, when we had more pilots than planes
jj4211@lemmy.world 2 months ago
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.
dil@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
I was more thinking taxi/uber, rather than the general population flying themselves lol, and car crashes are very common
dil@lemmy.zip 2 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.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 months ago
lemmy_get_my_coat@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Just the one that he does the Hitler salute with, silly
melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Kash Patel is gonna make a killing!
floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Deduct. And the USA is taking the world in completely the opposite direction from where it needs to go.
RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It would be nice if we could deduce them.