Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Vehicles that qualify for so-called SUV tax deduction for business

2

Comments

  • highenderhighender Posts: 1,362
    I agree ......

    OK...you are right....it would be nice to have numbers ..however little, to at least try to quantify any cost/benefit...

    sometimes theories and good intentions makes things worse. Here in California, we mandated MTBE to be added to gasoline mixture, in order to make the air cleaner. It cost the refinery industries over $4 billion to retool all manufacturing to process the MTBE mix. Now...we find that MTBE poisons our water system...and eats thru gas tanks.

    All gas stations are required to exclavate and renew their underground storage tanks....at great cost. :sick:
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,989
    Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    Well when they try to kick are butts in WWIII, I want you on the front lines along side of me. :sick:

    With your theory, it is not much different than giving Kim Jung Mentally ILL the codes to our nuclear weapons. :confuse:

    I just can't understand people that have this
    "global is good" attitude on everything. Ronald Regans "trickel down theory" has had it's effects. It makes the rich "richer" and the poor drive Geely's and live in trailers with there whole immediant family. :sick:

    Rocky
  • highenderhighender Posts: 1,362
    rocklee:

    YOu missed my point....

    I will fight for the good ole USA ! I will be in the foxhole right next to you....with my chem-bio suit on and hopefully it was made in America ?

    rocky: Well when they try to kick are butts in WWIII, I want you on the front lines along side of me.

    Like I said...I will not be in the opposing foxhole...


    With your theory, it is not much different than giving Kim Jung Mentally ILL the codes to our nuclear weapons.

    MY statement "not that there is anything wrong with that ( regarding globolization) "" was a feeble attempt to be politically correct...or maybe sarcastic attempt. IF you read my posts carefully....I am all for the GOOD OLE U.S.of A. (pipe in 'Battle Hymn of Republic' here) . For the record... I think we should buy more American made goods, if possible. I think Americans need to be more competitive such that people will say GM is the best car company in the whole world.

    I am quite against Kim Il Jung and the shenanigans of North Korea. That is why I am advocating more factories here, and less outsourcing.

    I just can't understand people that have this
    "global is good" attitude on everything.


    WEll..global is good , depending on what you are talking about. For environmental issues...thinking global is good. FOR economic issues, I think we have to keep more industries here...and not move our factories to other countries..... I have been one of the most ardent supporters of USA here...and it does have a bearing on vehicles and this thread.

    Ronald Regans "trickel down theory" has had it's effects. It makes the rich "richer" and the poor drive Geely's and live in trailers with there whole immediant family.

    Though there were flaws in Reagans' economic policy, the fact is that there still were many opportunities here in the USA ....but one has to work and earn it. THere are lots of lazy people who do not work , or do lousy jobs...and expect to get paid, or laid off and get paid. But this is off topic . Globalization has moved all the lower end jobs off shore....so that one needs a great university degree to land a good job...and that is not good for US.

    I hope we could recapture the glory days after WWII, when GM/Ford products were the icons of quality and reliability. Even the presidential vehicles of many countries were Lincolns or Cadillacs.
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,989
    I'm sorry I misunderstood you pal. Glad you will be there by my side. ;) We thankfully agree on most of it. ;) I however still don't agree with your position on importing lower end chinese made goods. :blush:

    Rocky
  • highenderhighender Posts: 1,362
    hi Rocky:

    Yes...we are agreeing on maybe 95% of the things regarding US vs others.

    Can you clarify your position on this ? ( the importing of lower priced goods ) ?

    I think tax deductions may have been instituted to help the US auto makers, as well as midwest farmers and small business owners.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,021
    Ronald Regans "trickel down theory" has had it's effects. It makes the rich "richer"

    I think you have mistaken which economic policy made the rich richer, while not increasing the wage of the worker.

    In 1980, according to Andrew Tobias, the typical CEO made 42 times as much as his average worker. In 1990 it had doubled to 85 times as much as the average worker. During the next ten years up to 2000, that amount went to 531 times as much as the average worker. Tell me which economic plan works best for the rich?

    If you look at the tax plans of the left party. They do not take aim at the real wealthy with their cash in foreign banks & bonds. They target the middle class to upper middle class. It is elitism that we should be fighting not free market economy.
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,989
    Hello, highender

    My position is I'm against importing goods that can be made here in the U.S.-period. I believe all imports should be tarriffed and if those company's want to sell it here, then they need to make the product here. ;) Our corporations are essentially building up our enemy's wealth. The Big Red Machine's army is about 2 million people. The only way to stop them is using a Nuke. They got em' too. China is getting rich and powerful, while we keep loading up debt which they purchase in the form of Treasury Bills. :sick: They are essentially buying America. Well atleast we agree 95% vs. 0 % :D

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,989
    I'm not a die hard democrat. I'm a registered democrat, but had a hard time voting for Kerry. *Gulp* :surprise:

    I hope John Edwards will get the nomination this time around. He is an american worker and buisness protectionist. Edwards is a little flip floppy on the border issue. :( If we don't get a new mentality in Washington, their won't just be a UAW anymore, but a huge reduction in american manufactoring. I suppose President Bush will get his way and reclassify the manufactor of hamburgers at the local Dairy Queen as net manufactoring job gains. :confuse:

    I do agree with you that it wasn't just Reagans administration where CEO's over the years had huge salary and compensation gains. The 90's we saw a huge growth of jobs, thus huge growths in salary's including manufactoring ones. Now your average Joe is making what he did in year 2000, so we've taken a 6 year regression unfortunatly. The left is as much to blame as the right, both have a few politicians that do believe we as a society are getting out of control (spending) However it seems they are still in the minority. :sick:

    Rocky
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 5,893
    Let's swing back to the topic please. We are NOT here to discuss politics.

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? pf_flyer@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,021
    I cannot for the life of me understand why you would not have praised the $100k tax deduction for small businesses. It was good for the little guy and it was good for the Big 3. If they had made it for cars and light SUVs the money would have ended up in Tokyo instead of Detroit. Your dad may have built parts for some of those PU trucks and SUVs that were purchased under that tax bill. It stimulated sales of the vehicles GM builds best and can make a profit on. I think the only Toyotas that would qualify was the Land Cruiser and LX470. Both way over priced. Not built for the working class buyer.
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,989
    agree, but most buisness owners drive 4 runners and Lexus 470's. Do you think they would actually be seen driving a domestic ? :surprise: They are above that. :sick: Thus proving my point. :cry:

    Rocky
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,804
    'Not built for the working class buyer'...unlike the Slade and the Denali and H2, right? Come on now.
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,989
    Maybe the upper middle working class buyer. ;)

    Rocky
  • highenderhighender Posts: 1,362
    really quick, pfflyer.... :D

    Hi rocky :

    NOw you are sounding just like me. I am all for US stuff. I remember the times when "made in america" was a symbol of honor. I am hoping that it will still be in the future...regarding cars.

    I think the dedcution helped alot of business owners....and when they saved....they either spent it on extravagant luxuries...which helped those people who make lux goods, or spent it on hiring more workers...like I did. I saved quite a bit...so I hired more workers to increase production....which took 2 people off the unemployment lines ( they are refugees from dotcom implosion). So now not only did they not go on unemployment nor welfare...but they are producing income for me...as well as paying state, federal, and city income taxes. Their spirits are soaring..and not depressed...which is invaluable.

    I think we should make and buy goods made here. That way the money stays here. I have been saying what you are saying on these forums for the past 2 years now.

    I hope corporate america is listening.

    thanks pf....I think the discussion has some bearing on the topic of SUV deductions.
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,989
    Well in your case I would support this deduction. ;)

    I would wish everyone that uses it has morales, but when you see the local Chevy dealer using it as a gimmick to sell another large SUV. highender, they were essentially telling folks start up a Faux Buisness to get the deduction and that's where I have a problem. ;)

    Rocky
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,021
    but most buisness owners drive 4 runners and Lexus 470's

    I think the class does not include the LX470 or Land Cruiser. They are less than 6000lb curb weight. 4Runner is definetly not included. 3/4 ton PU was far and away the leading rig in that class. They are the default work truck.
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,989
    The Yacht known as the Land Cruiser and LX 470 doesn't weight 3 tons. :surprise:

    Okay if you say so.

    Rocky
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,007
    that 6,000 lb threshold is GVWR, NOT curb weight, although occasionally it gets mis-quoted as curb weight.

    A 4runner probably still has a GVWR of less than 6,000 lb, but I'm sure a Land Cruiser or LX470 easily surpasses it. My uncle's '97 Silverado, a half-ton truck with a V-6 engine, has a GVWR of 6200 lb.

    I'd imagine that just about any full-sized half-ton truck these days would push past 6000 lb GVWR. Most 3/4 ton trucks are above 8500 lb, which not coincidentally exempts them from fuel economy testing, CAFE regs, etc.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,021
    I was wondering about that. No one ever referred to it as the Land Cruiser exemption. Only the Hummer tax break. Yet they are both in the same gas guzzling class. I think when that tax loophole came out in 2004 the Land Cruiser was rated lower in FE and worse emissions than the Hummer 2. I guess it is more politically correct to slam domestics than it is foreign auto makers.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,007
    Edmund's lists the Land Cruiser at 5425 lb curb weight and 6925 lb GVWR, so it's well over that 6,000 lb threshold.

    The 4runner, with the 4.7 V-8 and just RWD has a curb weight of 4280 lb and a GVWR of "only" 5490 lb.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,804
    Maybe because the H2 is more in your face and likely sells more. The LandCruiser seems so 90s anymore.

    Of course, it could just be a media conspiracy!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,007
    that the H2 has been treated like a pariah is because it's based on the 3/4 ton Suburban chassis. Its GVWR is over 8500 lb, so the gov't doesn't even bother to test its fuel economy, and it doesn't get factored into GM's CAFE ratings.

    The Landcruiser still gets tested, and it does get factored into Toyota's CAFE ratings, so if they sell too many of them, then they either have to sell enough fuel-efficient trucks to offset that, or pay a fine.

    FWIW, I think the H2's economy has been estimated at 11/14. I'm ashamed to admit it, but that's about all my aging Silverado gets. :blush:
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,021
    the H2 is more in your face

    I think that is the only reason they sell as many as they do. For those that feel the need to stick out. They are not as practical as a Suburban in any type usage. Maybe they are better off road.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,021
    That is why I did not think the Land Cruiser was in that mix. I was under the impression that 6000 lbs was the cut-off for CAFE & EPA testing. That is confusing as to which vehicles are exempt and which are not.
  • highenderhighender Posts: 1,362
    I was wondering about that. No one ever referred to it as the Land Cruiser exemption. Only the Hummer tax break. Yet they are both in the same gas guzzling class. I think when that tax loophole came out in 2004 the Land Cruiser was rated lower in FE and worse emissions than the Hummer 2. I guess it is more politically correct to slam domestics than it is foreign auto makers.

    I agree. The media and so called politically correct public would slam any domestic car...but kowtow to any Japanese car.....

    maybe having a civic in their lineup makes them elegible for the camouflage exemption ? ;)
  • rotarota Posts: 2
    Not all styles of 4Runners qualify. I have a V8 AWD which is barely over 6000lb and I used it for the deduction.
  • I am a physician and am interested in purchasing an SUV that fits this tax deduction category.
    Is it very complicated to be able to get the deduction or straightforward? Also, could you tell me what exactly are the requirements to qualify for the deduction.
    Thanks.
  • doseidosei Posts: 11
    Very interesting debate, but can someone please explain the current policy on tax deductions for business vehicles? I will be leasing or purchasing a new vehicle for business use in less than 2 months, and am having trouble finding the policy for this. Can someone point me to the right place for this info? Thank you!
  • highenderhighender Posts: 1,362
    The IRS has basically closed the immediate deduction of the full amount of the vehicle..up to $100,000 , in one year.

    If it is used for business, section 179 may still apply....

    But your accountant may elect to do standard business deductions and then depreciate it in 5 years....

    depends on how you do it.

    Or you can lease it, and writeoff the lease payments.

    don't forget to keep a detailed notebook of all the mileage and work events that you go to...
  • doseidosei Posts: 11
    Highender thanks for replying
2
This discussion has been closed.