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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
Deducting work expenses is no longer allowed at all for most people.
I'm lucky that for my side gig with the large expenses (teaching underwater photography for a university), I'm an independent contractor, so I can deduct my gear.
How many jobs require you to spend your own money on supplies?
I bought paper to print, supplies for labs, pencils and notebooks for students who didn’t have any… any other job I’ve had has told me to expense that kind of stuff.
Graphic designers need to keep gear somewhat up to date and computers/tech gear is only getting more expensive. Not to mention software that is subscription based forever. Then there are printing costs, if needed for proofs.
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.
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.
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"
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This isn't new. With extremely rare exceptions, "private" jets aren't owned by individuals, but by corporations. Operating expenses of hardware owned by a company is almost always tax-deductible.
Granted, that doesn't make it right. But it doesn't make it news, either.
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.
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.
You always could deduct it through depreciation. This allows you to depreciate it in one year though to cover a big windfall instead of spreading it out. Then if you sell it that's income you have to claim but you might not be in the highest bracket then.
113 Comments
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 212 pts · 260d
Deduct. And the USA is taking the world in completely the opposite direction from where it needs to go.
RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 259d
It would be nice if we could deduce them.
thfi@discuss.tchncs.de · 147 pts · 260d
Finally! Do you have an idea how expensive those things are and how much my wage slaves must work for that?
Taldan@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 259d
The cost ranges from $30,000 to over $100M
Typhoon@lemmy.ca · 109 pts · 259d
The law, in its majestic equality, allows rich and poor alike to deduct private jet expenses from their taxes.
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 259d
Made for the
rich whitepeopleTaldan@lemmy.world · -16 pts · 259d
To be fair, you don't have to be rich to buy a Cessna 150. $35,000 can get you a nice old one
Issue is with taking advantage of the tax benefits
aphonefriend@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 22 pts · 259d
You realize that a majority of Americans don't have more than 1,000$ in their savings accounts?
Taldan@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 256d
Yes. My point was that's less than the average new car, which most Americans buy. The average American could own one if they wanted
LillyPip@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 258d
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.
Taldan@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 256d
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
dil@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 259d
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.
ButtermilkBiscuit@feddit.nl · 81 pts · 260d
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 · 15 pts · 260d
The PC-12 is a turboprop, not a jet, though.
It's a leech hauler alright, but not a jet.
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com · 3 pts · 259d
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.
TommyJohnsFishSpot@lemy.lol · -8 pts · 259d
Lemmutts love speaking authoritatively about things they don't actually know.
Taldan@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 259d
It was a quote from the article. Your complaint is with Boomerang, not the guy quoting them
AA5B@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 259d
Certainly a bigger problem is how someone who can afford over $1M private jet would be in only the 35% bracket
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 259d
I'm out of the loop did they get rid of 39%?
AA5B@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 258d
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%
Carighan@piefed.world · 2 pts · 259d
Buy two! Save double!
who@feddit.org · 60 pts · 260d
Gross.
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 48 pts · 259d
YSK that eating the rich is a nutritious way to redistribute wealth
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 259d
Way too much fat
nonentity@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 259d
Don’t eat shit, mulch the rich.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 258d
Valuable mulch.
schwim@piefed.zip · 41 pts · 259d
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
turdburglar@piefed.social · 5 pts · 259d
indeductable!
whimsy@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 258d
Great deduction!
sirico@feddit.uk · 38 pts · 260d
You allowed this before proper health care because that's Socialism? Communism? Gay?
Taldan@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 259d
To be fair, America has the best aviation infrastructure in the world, and it is almost entirely socialized. So we do socialism sometimes
nonentity@sh.itjust.works · 37 pts · 259d
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 · 7 pts · 258d
I like the that term. Just like obese personality for people who need large cars or are excessively loud.
buttnugget@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 258d
Calling it financial obesity makes it sound like a good thing. These are superfluous parasites.
nonentity@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 258d
Any reality where financial obesity can me interpreted as a positive or desirable notion must conjure other fascinating paradoxes, please tell us more…
buttnugget@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 258d
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.
nonentity@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 258d
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.
zeca@lemmy.ml · -4 pts · 258d
Calling that financial obesity is so weird.
nonentity@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 258d
The financially obese are weird, a perfectly cromulent framing.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 258d
It leads to financial diabeetus.
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 257d
nomy@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 258d
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 · 3 pts · 258d
Why? Is it not an apt description? Or does the wording just make you uncomfortable?
zeca@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 258d
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.
buttnugget@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 258d
timeghost@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 258d
Should we go back to fat cats?
zeca@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 258d
Yess
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 260d
YSK that deduct and deduce are two different words.
chillpanzee@lemmy.ml · 33 pts · 259d
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 · 18 pts · 259d
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 · 4 pts · 259d
This also applies to houses, boats, and inevitably surrogates now that they're using them like pack mules.
andros_rex@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 259d
Teachers can only deduct $300 worth of classroom supplies, fyi.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 259d
They're lucky compared to lots of people.
Deducting work expenses is no longer allowed at all for most people.
I'm lucky that for my side gig with the large expenses (teaching underwater photography for a university), I'm an independent contractor, so I can deduct my gear.
andros_rex@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 259d
How many jobs require you to spend your own money on supplies?
I bought paper to print, supplies for labs, pencils and notebooks for students who didn’t have any… any other job I’ve had has told me to expense that kind of stuff.
Pappabosley@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 259d
The fact you have to buy any of that is pretty BS to begin with
sausager@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 258d
Graphic designers need to keep gear somewhat up to date and computers/tech gear is only getting more expensive. Not to mention software that is subscription based forever. Then there are printing costs, if needed for proofs.
jj4211@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 256d
As an independent worker, sure. If you work for a company, or would be insane to expect you to pay your own way.
The teachers all work for school systems that should be separately handling supplies.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 20 pts · 260d
I can deduce it right from a receipt, if they give you one.
JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org · 18 pts · 259d
Thank you, government. That is really an improvement of my life!
But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 259d
Private jets should be taxed at 200% tax
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 259d
I mean, chances are those people have accountants who already know that info.
2910000@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 259d
Where do you think the accountants find it out?!
BlackVenom@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 258d
Tax Laws for Dummies
Bgugi@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 258d
They read the patch notes.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 258d
Well, that's elementary, my dear 2910000.
Hathaway@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 259d
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.
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 4 pts · 259d
In my experience, poor people gamble a lot. I've never seen a rich person buy a lottery ticket
Hathaway@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 259d
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.
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 259d
Pretty sure poor people don't have enough money to hire someone who can write off losses
burgermeister@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 259d
Anyone can write off stuff on their taxes. It's pretty easy actually.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 259d
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.
burgermeister@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 259d
I too get nervous every time I do my taxes but I figure if I'm honest about it they'll forgive most mistakes
Delphia@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 259d
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"
AA5B@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 259d
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
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 259d
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.
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 259d
They don't make enough to itemize in the first place, they'll just take the standard deduction. (Unless they lost like $20k on scratchers somehow)
Hathaway@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 259d
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.
toddestan@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 259d
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.
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 259d
The rest of the world: nah, its insane and difficult that you have to file taxes
AA5B@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 259d
Does it require them to itemize? Most cant
IronBird@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 259d
rich people gamble plenty, they just call it investing and get way more tax write offs for doing so
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 259d
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 pts · 259d
You think the people buying scratch tickets are itemizing? Idk, maybe they will, they're not the brightest
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 258d
I think it's more likely that one could deduce a person's tax burden from knowing they own a private jet.
IWW4@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 259d
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 · 4 pts · 258d
Literally no one needs a private plane.
Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 258d
My plumber comes with his private jet all the time.
IWW4@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 258d
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.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 258d
My plumber's van has two hot stewardesses.
Soup@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 258d
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 · 1 pts · 258d
There are so many uses for private aircraft. It isn’t all executives benefits
jj4211@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 256d
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.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 259d
Yeah, I was going to say I deducted airplane expenses for a client for twenty years
nulluser@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 259d
*deduct
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 259d
No no, if you're worth billions, and your tax is 0, we can deduce that your private jet expenses were... higher than average
MissingGhost@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 259d
Why not make it be for bicycle repairs instead?
iamericandre@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 259d
Only poor people ride bikes that’s why
njordomir@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 259d
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
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 259d
How bout guillotine construction costs?
SendMePhotos@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 260d
Do I have to have flown in one to deduct it?
saltesc@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 260d
Yes. But like most taxed things you're too poor to be exempt so cough up.
niktemadur@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 260d
I'm sure Jedidiah and Zeke must feel so relieved at finally receiving this news, the gotta fan themselves with their red goddamned caps.
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 258d
Americans cannot. Oligarchs can. Oligarchs are not Americans
tym@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 259d
Demonmariner@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 259d
This isn't new. With extremely rare exceptions, "private" jets aren't owned by individuals, but by corporations. Operating expenses of hardware owned by a company is almost always tax-deductible.
Granted, that doesn't make it right. But it doesn't make it news, either.
dil@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 259d
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 · 1 pts · 256d
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 · 1 pts · 256d
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.
dil@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 256d
I was more thinking taxi/uber, rather than the general population flying themselves lol, and car crashes are very common
BigBrownBeaver@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 258d
Outstanding move
roguetrick@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 260d
You always could deduct it through depreciation. This allows you to depreciate it in one year though to cover a big windfall instead of spreading it out. Then if you sell it that's income you have to claim but you might not be in the highest bracket then.
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 258d
The reason why Krasnov wants the ex-Qatari Boeing 747.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 259d
Kash Patel is gonna make a killing!
Deceptichum@quokk.au · -3 pts · 259d
lemmy_get_my_coat@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 259d
Just the one that he does the Hitler salute with, silly