Forums | MacLife

Let's see 6000 LBS gross vehicle weight...that's the weight of the vehicle + cargo, not many SUV's are going to qualify for that-only the Chevrolet Suburban, Ford Excursion, and the Hummer might.

I think that SUV's are easy targets for most people to criticize, but if they really looked at what was on the roads and being fuel inefficient-they'd also have to include pickup trucks, vans (who hasn't seen a mini-van with the capacity to carry 9 people with only one person in them?), Cadillacs, Lincoln Town Cars, and just about every high performance sports car (Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc.). Also include just about every car made before 1990, because as a vehicle ages it's fuel efficientcy dramatically declines.

People who live in glass houses...

Eh, I don't. I have 2 Mini's. The newer gets in the 35 mpg range, the older in the 28 range. One is an 84, the other is a 69.

Gesh, one would think that everyone would have realized the underwear thing was a joke, oh well.
Back to topic for the last time.
This just makes 709 possible again for larger vehicles. That suv's qualify sounds bad and makes a nice point for the liberals. The fact that for business use they are deductable now over term seems to be a point that some in the group want to ignore.
Enough said, don't want to believe me, call your accountant and ask him.

Freezer- it doesn't seem right because you didn't do it right.
You save the taxable income amount on what value was depreciated, the full amount of purchase doesn't get subtracted from your tax bill even with full depreciation.
Example
car cost $10
30% tax bracket
depreciation savings make the car cost $7 in effect.

I object to statements (Limbaugh makes them all the time) that swear that SUVs are safer than other cars on the road. 

SUVs are definitely bigger, and thus create more of a hazard to people driving sedan-type cars.  I have yet to see crash-rating tests that place SUVs as the safer of car types, and rollover accidents probably negate most of the advantage.

There have been several occasions when I've seen single car, rollover accidents involving SUVs (generally, Ford Explorers).  Many of those times, the vehicle had rolled over on flat ground.

Ok, first of all, you really want to quote Rush Limbaugh?

Actually I can state from experience, SUVs tipping, I have never seen, nor care to, but under extreme surcumstances will you have that happen, if you drive normally and not like a madman you will be fine...

As for accidents, I drove a Chevy S10, it was a truck, but at the time it was considered a SUV...I was hit, going 45MPH, head on collision... I walked out of it, with a bump on my head and abrasion against my chest from the seatbelt...

The person who hit me wasn't so lucky... they spent 3 weeks in the hospital, I don't know much else after that cause I was never told...

But needless to say, if I car could do the same thing, I'd of moved over to a car a long time ago, but because of what happened, I traded safety for milage.

Cyberpawz

Back to topic for the last time.

This is not true. You post again at 4:04 pm 

That suv's qualify sounds bad

No, that is not what sounds bad. It's only vehicles that weigh 6000lbs or more (aka gas guzzling suv's) :arrow:

a real estate agent about to buy a 20-mpg midsize SUV that doesn't qualify for the deduction might opt for a full-size SUV instead, because it does qualify

You are correct Ronald.

the language regarding vehicles limits the tax benefit to those with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or more. That means full-size SUVs and pickups.

Curious. You seem to have disdain for liberals. This makes me presume you are a conservative. Ever heard of conservation?

I just think there is a lot of posturing that goes on about SUV safety without actual facts to back it up.

Perhaps you haven't experienced it, but the facts on SUV rollovers exist.  You don't have to be driving like a madman, at all.  Obviously some sort of disturbance has to take place, but a involuntary swerve to avoid something right in front of you could cause a rollover. 

Luckily you weren't hurt in the accident, but the number of larger cars on the road does create a hazard for other drivers...if you're of the mind to give a booboo about the people around you...

There are more facts to back up their safety, than their not being safe...if they weren't their design wouldn't of been considered after the first year.

I have never seen or heard of an SUV tipping over when taking a turn at a safe speed...if you go faster than need be, then you are going faster and if you tip you deserve to...

Only time i ever saw an SUV loose control was when a smaller car swerved in front of it. You are right, it can "hurt" smaller cars, but if those cars were trying to play chicken with it, they deserve to be squashed.

Cyberpawz

you know that you could get a hummer H1 for less than $15,500 with this new law..... thats a savings of over $87,000.

I don't think it works that way.

Say the hummer costs $100,000

Say your income is $150,000 in the given year.

You write off the full cost of the Hummer in one year.

Your taxable income is now $50,000

If your tax rate is 30% then at $150k your tax liability is $45k. Lower your taxable income to $50k, and your 30% tax burden is $15k.  Since you have written off the entire value, you can not depreciate it further.

So yes, there is a savings up front.  This will benefit businesses that earn a lot of money.  In the above example, it stands to reason that there will be at least another $50k in expenses.  Every dollar over $50k will be lost, as the once the taxable income reaches 0, there's no tax deduction to take, as you pay no tax.  In this scenario, it's probably wiser to show a small profit and amortize deductions on the car over 3-5 years.  If the business on the other hand earns say $2 million, then it might be a good idea to deduct all of it in one shot.

It's technically the same amount of deductions, just taken in one year as opposed to five.

Consider the Hummer H1 as an example of the new deduction. Costing about twice as much as the Hummer H2, it is one of the largest and most expensive SUVs, with a base sticker price of $102,581, including destination charge. Under the Bush plan, small-business owners could use all of an annual $75,000 capital equipment deduction toward the purchase; the current equipment deduction allowance is $25,000.



That is in addition to thousands of dollars in other deductions businesses can take. Under existing rules, a business could deduct 30 percent from the base price left after the capital equipment deduction, a benefit put in place as part of a post-Sept. 11 stimulus package. In the case of the H1, that would be a further deduction of $8,274.



Finally, an additional 20 percent could be deducted from what's left, part of business deductions available for automobiles. For the H1, that would be $3,861 more in deductions.



The grand total? More than $87,000 in deductions, or about $33,500 in savings in federal taxes alone for buyers in the highest bracket. Under current rules, just less than $60,000 could be deducted.



Deals for cars and small sport utility vehicles are much less appealing. A business can deduct no more than $7,660 for a car in its first year of service, $4,900 in the second year and less in the succeeding years. The Toyota Prius, which uses a highly fuel efficient blend of gasoline and electric power, is eligible for an additional $2,000 clean vehicle deduction. That means a business owner could deduct less than half of the $20,500 sticker price of the Prius in the first year of purchase, for about $3,700 worth of federal tax savings for those in the highest tax bracket.

-from the link i posted

-from the link i posted

I read it.  But I missed something.  The max deduction is $75k.  So, you can't deduct as much as I had said.  AND $75k is the total equipment deduction.  You'd be in a real spot if you ran a legitimate business taxed in the highest bracket (as your link says) and had only one equipment expense. 

Do you understand it completely?

Go near the bottom of the 2nd link...you will see the site you sated was slightly off it's mark. (about roll overs) because roll overs are actually a small part of the entire accident report.

That's only because there are less SUV's and trucks on the road overall versus the smaller cars.  You could make the statement that more white people are in car accidents than minorities, and it would be true...but only because there are a lot more white people than anything else!

The facts concerning SUV accidents are still valid.

Observe:



That page is only a consumer advocacy/rights group...concerned with the fact that they feel most people are not given the straight facts on how much more likely you are to have a rollover accident in an SUV and how much more likely rollover accidents are to be fatal than most other types of accidents.

Observe:



That page is only a consumer advocacy/rights group...concerned with the fact that they feel most people are not given the straight facts on how much more likely you are to have a rollover accident in an SUV and how much more likely rollover accidents are to be fatal than most other types of accidents.

That website is biased...hence the name, find another site.

Cyberpawz

That website is biased...hence the name, find another site.

It's called www.suvrollovernews.com 

That's what it's about.  All the numbers I've posted come from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA.

Do you think the NHTSA is biased? 

If this site is 'biased' against anything, it's rollover accidents (hence the name).