Could someone please explain why a corporate jet should receive favorable tax treatment? See, e.g., External Link .

That's a good point. Too bad Rubio didn't make it.

He may have ...

the bigger point is, "closing it" will raise maybe 4 billion over 10 years ....

Obama wants us to believe closing this "loophole" is the solution?

Pointing out that a myriad of other interests have also succeeded in bribing Congress into subsidizing them fails to move me.

Re your second point, I agree that it's small potatoes. It is also a tax code matter about which Obama is correct.

Corporate jets employ lots of middle class people to create them, fly them, maintain them, service them, and manage their movement. Corporate jets are also very regularly used for pro-bono mercy flights for hospitals and for Make-a-Wish etc.

Disparaging corporate jets and their taxable status is ignorant sophomoric rhetoric.

Actually, I think the corp jet issue is accelerated depreciation. The ability of businesses to expense capital purchases more quickly for tax purposes than they do for accounting purposes is a significant tax break. Accelerated depreciation can make sense as a business investment stimulant, but I don't see why it should apply to corp. jets and similar business acquisitions that (arguably) don't directly relate to the business' productivity or output.

MarkW agreed. Please take note that the tax loophole Potus refers to would amount to 4 billion over 10 yrs. He states that by not doing this kids won't go to college but fed money for college is 42 billion just this year.
What a but t Potus was inciting class warfare...thnk God people are smart enuf to recognize his b. s.

Lots of "big ticket items" receive favorable tax treatment in the hope that it will encourage companies to buy said big ticket items, corporate jets included. Typically, if tax breaks or depreciation allowances are rescinded, the companies in questions simply put off buying the big ticket items until some future date. That means that the (usually smaller business) manufacturers of the big ticket items take the hit (lost orders, layoffs, bankruptcy, etc.) that was intended for the "big fat cat corporations." If the government avoided the urge to tax every aspect of business (and the rest of our lives), the need for "tax breaks" and "tax incentives" would be greatly reduced.

Three reasons:

1 -- It's a corporate capital investment. The purchase of a corporate plane supports thousands of individuals and companies making everything from airframes to engines to interior woodwork to support services for the flights. If there is any merit at all to trying to stimulate capital investment, small planes certainly should qualify

2 -- A corporate jet is an investment in worker productivity. Stuart Varney on Fox Business just did a short editorial about how he was able to do his show, fly to a location to make a speech and then return home in time to grab a few hours sleep and then do his next show. Flying scheduled carriers would have required losing a day to travel and lost productivity. My experience in corporate planes matches that -- long, long, long days of work, but accomplishing two days work in one day.

3 -- The government set up the favorable rules for capital investment as part of the stimulus package. While I disagree with the stumulus as a whole, I see no reason why the government should be substituting its judgement on what's a "good" investment for that of the the individual who has the money. Why should government pick hybrid electric cars as winners and corporate jets as losers? That's not their job. It's not their money.

The purpose of the POTUS corporate plane comments was class envy and election positioning. It's not justified by economics and the history of government attempts to tax "fat-cats" (Remember the tax on yachts? Boat builders went out of business in droves. John Kerry had to go to New Zealand for his new yacht.) is that the "little guy" who builds, services and sells the taxed items are the ones who end up paying.