AIN Blog: Is President Obama Really Calling the Bizav Industry 'Bad'?
... On the one hand, it’s
probably time for the president to find new examples of tax breaks that ought to be eliminated. Ending breaks for business aircraft—an apparent reference to bonus depreciation, which was part of the stimulus package Obama himself signed—
wouldn’t exactly do much to deflate the national debt....
... As the editor who put together a special issue of Business Jet Traveler called “The Bizav Advantage,” I fully understand that
business jets are not used primarily to transport the wealthy from playground to playground; they’re employed by lots of executives and middle managers to
boost efficiency and productivity. But let’s get real. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any poor people who own business jets, nor am I even aware of any struggling businesses that are out shopping for jets at the moment.
The companies that are buying and operating aircraft in this or any other economy tend to be the ones that are doing better than most. In fact, studies cosponsored by NBAA have repeatedly suggested exactly that. It’s
questionable how many of these companies would actually forgo jet purchases just because the tax break went away....
... Moreover, as I noted in a blog post last year, there are other reasons why
the elimination of bonus depreciation for business aircraft buyers might not do significant harm to the industry or the economy. As BJT tax columnist Jeff Wieand has noted, for example, bonus depreciation could ultimately result in higher aircraft prices. Also, the companies that manufacture many of the business jets sold in the U.S. are based outside our borders. As such, a tax break for purchase of their aircraft does little to help the American economy....
COMMENT:
By -------------
on October 22, 2012 - 12:24am
Thanks, Mr. Burger
Kudos to Mr. Burger for the courage to suggest we look past the rhetoric of well-heeled lobbying firms and corporate-funded aviation organizations, those who want to short-circuit any real discussion of
how to fund the aviation infrastructure.
The
current entitlement program for corporate-jet users, a fuel tax that comes no where near to assuring these
affluent freeloaders pay their fair share for services incurred, has got to be revised to a higher percentage. Now. ...
... let's have an end to all the hogwash about how special and important and exceptional these corporate jet users are. That's
fatuous self-promotion. Have any of these self-absorbed misfits heard the word “teleconference”, “Twitter”, “GoToMeeting.com”? The term “business travel” is an anachronism, a quaint twentieth-century notion, another example of corporate waste and inefficiency.
AOPA, the NBAA, and other pro-entitlement lobbies never admit that
corporate jet flights are currently subsidized by the U.S. Taxpayer, and have been for far too long....
I laugh when I read respondents' claims that the current president is inciting class warfare. Class warfare, my friends, began when
Reagan instituted welfare for the wealthy, decades ago. ...
It's become popular, too, to criticize the current president for using Air Force One. The claim: it's a tremendous waste of taxpayer money. I'm sure these respondents were equally critical of Mr. Bush for this same abuse.
I limited quotations of the blog post and the ranting but greatly considered comment. The emphases are all mine. Read more:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/blogs/ain-blog-president-obama-really-...
My response to some wild pieces of the comment:
To be kind, you cannot connect the dots. You might be suffering from logic deficit disorder. You are trying to wet both sides of the dipstick. Just your last comment alone. I don't have time to go through all your other far-leftist rant.
First, on the matter of [Air Force One] AF1: Not known anyone complaining about Obama using AF1 as wasteful, in some holistic manner, but his having it and not conceding the irony in his chastising business aviation -- he comes off as a top-notch hypocrite.
Second, where you are double-dipping the dipstick: you complain about corporate waste by using aviation, but have issue with people who have an issue with Obama using AF1.
You either want it both ways, or you want corporate jets and AF1 grounded. So which is it? Should we also ban space travel, Amtrak, cars, helicopters, boats, or are you just an air travel Luddite?
Third, no broad complaints were made while Bush was POTUS, regarding AF1, because he didn't chastise those who used private sector aviation -- "corporate jet owners" -- on a quarterly basis. He didn't attack people who built companies and ran businesses for cheap political points among the envious and whining masses. You might know some of them.
Obama has been something of a waste of taxpayer money, not specifically for his use of AF1 (short of his overusing it for his political campaign) [but] because he hasn't grasped [the] need for reducing our government. Such a big government leader was the wrong guy when the economy collapsed. A stiff belt-tightening would not have been good, either, but we sure could have used less government and more economic confidence than Obama offered.
His hypocrisy, since you are apparently not grasping it, is in chastising business aviation (you'd prefer we all do everything, like a video gamer, from a chair, I get it) while he enjoys the fruits of this country's greatest aviation symbol. Or, not? Do you have a position, or is your politics essentially undecided -- permanently?
