That’s the great thing about being a commercial real estate agent. Whether the market goes up or down, there’s always someone who wants to buy or needs to sell. 
I see. So, you say sort of a glorified parasite on a form of public welfare? And proud of it?
I bet you’re a big porker, too. Why not get out of your hideously overengineered military-inspired wankmobile, which you no doubt wish came with the original machine gun option, and walk your fat ass through the “back woods” section of an Industrial Park, which are probably about as back woods as the auxiliary CostCo Parking Lot.
Oh, and thanks for dragging American community values down further into the crapper, you noxious prat.
While I think the tax write off is horribly abused by people who’s automobiles are only marginally for business, I would not think this is the case for a real estate agent, particularly one in the commercial sector.
It’s a tough job, and part of it is to make your clients feel comfortable, and important so they’ll be well-disposed to purchase the property you’re showing them. A fine automobile is a pretty important business tool for him as he ferries potential buyers around properties.
While I think the law is stupid Astro has displayed adaptibility.
As a civilian, I refuse to own a hummer until the machine gun comes standard.
Oh I would but the CEO and his posse I’m trying to peddle the site to would hate to get their polished Johnston Murphys soiled as we trundle in comfort through the burrs and underbrush.
As to the “community values/public welfare” notion I know this must seem a real brain teaser to you, but I help people buy and sell commercial real estate. Buyers and sellers are generally coming to me, eager to help them dispose of un-needed assets or to acquire new sites. The community and the regional economic development organizations are generally my biggest cheerleaders, especially when I bring a new company to the area that will generate 180 new manufacturing jobs. Interestingly it was that little deal which paid for my new SUV.
As to the “parasite” notion I essentially work for free (and have more than once) if I do not perform and generate a sale, unless I am doing consulting work. I start every year with a 0 dollar base and am paid on a pure commission, non-salaried basis. Many people try selling real estate, but many find it’s a bit more difficult than they imagined. Being a “parasite” is not as easy as you would imagine. :dubious:
None of which explains why you deserve a tax break and others, who also serve the “community values/public welfare,” don’t.
You took advantage of this not because you deserve it more than others, but only because circumstances changed to provide a loophole through which you could avoid paying taxes that others pay.
FYI the tax break is available to anyone who buys a vehicle that weighs more than 6000 lbs GVW and makes use of the vehicle for business at least 50+% of the time. The tax break is up to $ 24,000 and anyone who buys a 6,000 lbs + new or used vehicle in this category can deduct up to or less than this limit.
If I bought a used Yukon or Suburban or similar vehicle for $10,000-15,000. (or less) I could still get the tax break (up to 10K-15K) . Even with the SUV tax break I will still be paying over 30,000. this year in state and federal income taxes, so my moral anguish at getting this (quite frankly unexpected) EOY 2002 tax break is somewhat muted.
And wouldn’t the world be a better place if we all drove SUVs weighing 3 tons just so we could get a tax break.
A $38,000 dollar tax break has to come from somewhere, yes? How many years of Social Security are you pulling out of some old woman’s maw to feed you and your clients’ egos? I hope you feel it’s OK to hate you for that and for gloating about it – even if you didn’t write the law.
A $38,000 dollar tax break has to come from somewhere, yes? How many years of Social Security are you pulling out of some old woman’s maw to feed you and your clients’ egos? I hope you feel it’s OK to hate you for that and for gloating about it – even if you didn’t write the law.
Actually that is an interesting question. I’m not an economics maven, but my general understanding is that SS is supposed to be funded in and of itself primarily by individuals SS contributions and benefits to recipients are not (theoretically at least) linked to the collection of income taxes.
Given the games that the government plays with SS funding however, I would suspect that in real terms that the hefty income taxes I am paying currently are (in some form or fashion) what are funding a good chunk of the current SS payments for that senior citizen, especially considering that an elderly (lets say 80 year old) female who has been getting SS since 1988 is likely to consume far more in total benefits over her lifetime than her contributions would fund.
So if we’re going to indulge in this extended linkage economic model of yours where where every tax break is kinda, sorta, some how going to take money away from those in need, I will need to re-categorize the nascent evil of my mortgage interest deduction, my deduction for dependents, my itemized business expenses and a host of other considerations. It’ll be like doing my taxes all over again, but this time I will know the moral cost of these tax exemptions and the rivers of blood my accountant’s spreadsheet has spilled.
The Hummer must be the World’s Stupidest Automobile. It’s heavy and inefficient and just oddly pretentious
Because the Hummer is so stupid, for the media to dramatize this tax break by referring to Hummer is dishonest journalism. As has been pointed out, tax deductions on business expenses are normal. A restriction was placed in the law some time ago, and now its being relaxed.
But, the new law doesn’t mention Hummers. There’s no claim or demonstration of how many Hummers will get this tax deduction. Damn few, I would suspect. First of all, the person would have to buy a Hummer. Then they would actually have to use it in the business. What would they do with it? Invade beachfront houses?
Please keep this article in mind the next time the subject of media bias comes up. A sensible step to get the economy moving was widely misrepresented as a tax break promoting an offensive vehicle
As has already been stated, there is a tax break available to anyone who purchases a vehicle for business use. It’s just like a railroad buying another rail car. It’s a business expense.
If you don’t like the tax laws, lobby for improvements, but why make personal attacks on people/ companies that are simply following business practices that are made attractive by the tax laws?
Those laws were passed by your elected officials.
Damn it, John, stop injecting logic and reason into this discussion! We have no need for facts here! 
John, it’s a tax break intended for a certain class of businesses, for certain types of vehicles. These vehicles, through coincidence alone, wind up covered by this law. They are absolutely NOT the vehicles for which the law was intended, and the businesses are NOT the businesses that the break was intended for.
It is by the mere fact that these things are so ridiculously oversized that they wind up covered by a law specifically intended for larger commercial vehicles, and specifically NOT intended for passenger vehicles. If the tax break was really supposed to go to lawyers and real estate agents, for their vehicular expenses, the 6,000lb limit would not be there. I guess our lawmakers were really gung-ho about giving lawyers with GIANT cars a tax break, but those with normal cars nothing.