The White House’s new focus on corporate aviation is drawing backlash from an industry that says it supports manufacturing.

The Biden administration is looking to the skies for government revenue, scrutinizing corporate jets as it tries to get big companies to pay more in taxes and to crack down on rich tax evaders.

From Taylor Swift to Fortune 500 chief executives, private air travel has for years been portrayed to exemplify lavishness and excess, putting it on the radar of Democrats who want to rid the tax code of incentives that promote its use.

Companies have long benefited from laws that allow them to write off the cost of jets more quickly than commercial airlines can, and to pay less in fuel taxes. Included in the $5 trillion of tax increases proposed by the White House were plans to target corporate aviation and ramp up scrutiny of executives who use company planes for private trips.

President Biden raised the taxation of corporate jets at his State of the Union address this month and at a campaign event in Philadelphia last week as he laid out his ideas to make big companies “pay their fair share.”

At a Senate hearing on Thursday, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen praised the Internal Revenue Service for embarking on a “new initiative to end abuse of corporate jet write-offs.”

The ideas have drawn swift backlash from the corporate aviation industry, which argues that the proposals unfairly undercut American companies that rely on private planes to allow their executives to more easily visit factories and remote offices.

Non-paywall link

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Put some teeth on this.

    Private jets should have a 10,000% fuel tax. Fuck you and your impatience.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Tie it to the exact current cost to remove the same pollution from the environment… right now that might be more than 100x… fuel tax

    • Nudding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      8 months ago

      Recreational flight using fossil fuels should have been banned 10 years ago.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        IDK why you got downvoted.

        We should have hybridized planes forever ago.

        Electric motors are more capable than combustion engines for the purpose of rapid acceleration for takeoff. Maybe a battery weight limitation? Idk.

        • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          Maybe a battery weight limitation?

          I’m no aviation engineer, but as far as I understand it that’s exactly it. The more weight, the more thrust you need, which means your fuel (or in this case, stored energy) needs to be very efficient in thrust per kg.

          • foggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yeah but electric motors are WAY more capable of thrust than combustion.

            Things can go from 0 to black hole maker in an instant. We all know what jet engines sound like firing up, and it isn’t explosive.

            I’m also no engineer though. Well, not that kind anyways.

            • Patches@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Batteries are way heavier than gasoline. It’s not even close in comparison.

              Stored energy in fuel is considerable: gasoline is the champion at 47.5 MJ/kg and 34.6 MJ/liter; the gasoline in a fully fueled car has the same energy content as a thousand sticks of dynamite. A lithium-ion battery pack has about 0.3 MJ/kg and about 0.4 MJ/liter (Chevy VOLT).

              https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201208/backpage.cfm

        • Nudding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Because /politics is full of neoliberals just begging to be radicalized into fascist pigs.

      • Patches@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        So uh going home for Christmas is banned but uh Flying 45 people to have a meeting that could’ve been an email is “OK”?

        Or is recreational flight flying for fun - like the Blue Angels?

    • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      Fuel + mileage. I don’t know shit about planes but they have to have something akin to an odometer.

  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is yet another positive baby step by Biden. But come on Joe, let’s just rip the bandaid off and do it: Corporate tax at 50%, and no fucking loopholes to offshore earnings. Do it you coward, that’s all the tax revenue you’d ever need to actually be FDR 2.0. Do you care about your legacy or not?

    • dezmd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah this is just time wasting on bullshit political punting. Saying something while doing nothing. I’m so exhausted with political theater.

  • underisk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Private jets should not exist. As a source of tax revenue or otherwise. The fact that there are tax write offs rather than penalties for using them is just mind boggling.

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It’s not like private jets are gonna get any less use even if taxed 1000% on everything, so ez money. Even the poor lobby workers are gonna get some work this way (sarcasm, also because usually payed by results). Most of actual private jet users aren’t gonna notice.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    While going after anything one could label “private jet”, keep in mind that nobody in his or her right mind owns a private jet. They have invested in a charter company and now have exclusive or preferred access to charter a certain plane. But they don’t “own” it.

    What they need to get after is fuel consumption per person-kilometer or similar metrics.

    Or simply ditch that aerospace agreement from the 1940s that grants tax-exempt status for commercial airliner fuel. Worldwide.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    From Taylor Swift to Fortune 500 chief executives, private air travel has for years been portrayed to exemplify lavishness and excess, putting it on the radar of Democrats who want to rid the tax code of incentives that promote its use.

    President Biden raised the taxation of corporate jets at his State of the Union address this month and at a campaign event in Philadelphia last week as he laid out his ideas to make big companies “pay their fair share.”

    At a Senate hearing on Thursday, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen praised the Internal Revenue Service for embarking on a “new initiative to end abuse of corporate jet write-offs.”

    The ideas have drawn swift backlash from the corporate aviation industry, which argues that the proposals unfairly undercut American companies that rely on private planes to allow their executives to more easily visit factories and remote offices.

    “We haven’t seen any real justification on why an important and essential American industry is being targeted for tax increases,” said Ed Bolen, president and chief executive of the National Business Aviation Association.

    He said many executives were required to fly on corporate airplanes, even for personal travel, and argued that finance departments tended to be overly cautious about how they reported aviation taxes because of the risk and cost of getting them wrong.


    The original article contains 902 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!