Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Oh you hapless United States of Americans, is this really what it means to make (your part of) America great again? By David Cay Johnston of DCReport.org:

Deducting a CEO’s Jet, But Not a Cop’s Uniform

What the Republicans’ Tax Bill Really Means for People Like Us

. . . . .

Buried in the hastily drafted tax bill’s more than 500 pages are provisions eliminating “miscellaneous” deductions taken by almost 28 million taxpayers in 2015. Those are costs you bore to support your job or an investment you own or to pay a professional to prepare your income tax return.

This year cops and other first responders can write off the costs of buying uniforms and dry cleaning them. But in 2018, cops who buy their uniforms or are required to buy their own guns and ammunition will no longer be able to deduct those costs as reasonable and necessary expenses to support their earning a paycheck, thanks to Trump and Congressional Republicans.

But that’s not all. Cops and anyone else who belongs to a union will no longer be allowed to deduct their union dues. People who must bear travel costs without reimbursement from their employers will just have to suck it up starting in January.

The new law takes special aim at teachers who seek advanced degrees, which typically qualifies them for more pay. Tuition, books and related costs of getting advanced degrees will not be deductible after the end of this year.

Why are Trump and Congressional Republicans dinging first responders, teachers, nurses, traveling salespeople and even those who pay someone to prepare their income tax returns? So the rich can get bigger tax breaks, of course.

. . . . .

What Congress left intact are the rules that let Trump write off his Boeing 757 jet . . . . Similarly, untouched are the bar tabs of corporate sales agents or the costs of executive retreats at resorts like Trump golf courses.

It’s a good thing you’ve all got your guns. Looks like time for a coup against the plutocracy and time to establish a real democracy.



The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

11 thoughts on “”

  1. I’m reading a blog titled “Pearls and Irritations’ written by John Menadue, well known Australian bureaucrat and businessman.
    I came across this – context is largely irrelevant – and offer it as an incidental donation before I shut down for Christmas – which reminds -“Merry Xmas” all of you:
    ” Almost 3 years ago, when a Parish Priest at Manly in Sydney, I remember being woken early in the morning by text messages from several of my siblings informing me that our parish church St James at Gardenvale in Victoria was on fire ….”

  2. Aussie`s Trump clone has been trying to make the rich more wealthy. Odd that these fiscal Neaderthals are nearly all Xians. Or lawyers. Or accountants. Y`know those trades that set up corporations to dodge tax. I`m almost sorry for those with a religious bent who know what`s best for us. But a cuppa tea and a liedown and I think it will pass.

  3. It’s sad, embarrassing, and frightening. The plutocrats buy the government which they use to grab more of the money, which they use to buy more of the government. All enabled by the Christians and the racists, who would rather give their money to the rich than help out the poor and needy, especially if they are people of color.

  4. The people with all the guns *support* Trump and his tax cuts, so if they were going to use their firepower for anything, it would most likely be against anti-Trump heretics like David Cay Johnston.

    Trump empowers and invigorates all the bigots in America, so they are quite happy for him to get richer at their expense.

  5. I belong to two or three professional orgs. On my Canadian taxes, unions and professional groups are the same category, work related expenses are a general category. There is clearly no intent to simplify the tax code. In Canada you could probably deduct your private jet if you required use of it for your work and certainly companies do especially considering how vast and empty Canada is. There simply isn’t any need to spell out these specific details except to deliberately trigger popular contempt.

    1. I suspect that if jets are required to regularly commute to work in order to earn an income then they will be company owned or public jets. Private jets are usually owned by persons who do not need them in order to earn a weekly income, but private jet owners certainly may see their annual reimbursements augmented by throwing private dinners and special gifts to potential customers, including free travel in private jets….. Not quite in the same ballpark as the guy needing to hire a taxi to get to a job that he needs to keep up his mortgage payments and clothe his kids.

      1. Knowing someone who has a plane (not a jet if it makes any difference), it is owned as part of a partnership separate from his business, because the aircraft could be shared with his partners unrelated to his business, and the aircraft is used more frequently than if he owned it by himself. And he chiefly used it because he lived on the other side of the country for family reasons and “commuted” to his business on the opposite coast and to his clients in various US states. So the expenses of using the aircraft could be on his business, but the aircraft itself was essentially private even though it could be used by others since it wasn’t owned by any specific profit-making business.

        1. I am sure we can all come up with instances of personal knowledge that will be exceptions to general rules. I think we all know what we mean by the scandal of the filthy rich claiming deductions for private jets while simultaneously removing the option for deductions for work expenses from the ordinary wage-earners. Jumping to the defence of your comparatively affluent friends in the context of this discussion is not a good look.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Vridar

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading