[link|http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/business/1743724|tax break for SUVs]

DETROIT -- The Bush administration's economic plan would increase by 50 percent or more the deductions that small-business owners can take right away on the biggest sport utility vehicles and pickups.

The plan would mean small businesses could immediately deduct the entire price of SUVs like the Hummer H2, the Lincoln Navigator and the Toyota Land Cruiser, even if the vehicles were loaded with every available option.

I just keep telling myself: "It's not about the oil, It's not about the oil, ...

Unless, of course, you want to go down to Dubya's "ranch" and eat some grass.

You implied that, by definition, all ranches are businesses. You have yet to provide anything to support that position. Instead of taking cheap shots at me, like questioning whether I was raised in a rural setting or not, try debating your point of view in an intelligent manner.

Unless you CAN'T support your position with any real facts.

If Scott's parents want to go into hock to buy a business, which he didn't say it was in his original post, that's their choice. He called it a ranch without telling us what kind of business it is. He states that his parents have already purchased an SUV to use for the business, but must have "leather seats because of the dogs". Unless they run a kennel, that option is not relevant to their business. They can use the current tax code to depreciate the vehicle at a rate set by the IRS. President Shrub, your buddy, wants to increase the value of said SUVs that can be purchased and depreciated at a faster rate than is current.

Tell me how jacking up the value of "business" SUVs to the level of buying a Range Rover with leather seats, power seat covers, electric ashtrays (both $700 options from Detroit SUV builders, dontchaknow) is good for the economy and necessary to put our government's budget back into a surplus. And are only used on "business" ranches.

If someone tells me they live on a ranch I assume they are working it until they tell me otherwise. Apparently to you if someone tells you they live on a ranch they are rich and dont need tax breaks.

Cutting down scrub brush, i.e., "working the land", still has nothing to do with a ranch being a business. You're avoiding the issue, again.

If you run a business you are entitled to claim expenses against income.

Which I never disputed. Remember, Scott never mentioned his parent's ranch was a business in his original post.

Doesnt matter if you are a rancher or a movie producer. Expenses are written off. A rancher can justify a SUV in many ways, load hauling, crew hauling, dog hauling. A movie producer can also justify an SUV, crew and equipment hauling.

And it can also be used for driving to church, going to Grandma's, picking up groceries for your Super Bowl party, and this mileage can be written off too. After all, who's going to know that these aren't "official business" activities? Uncle Sam sure won't. Good deal for those owning an SUV; bad deal for American taxpayers who help subsidize its purchase and annual usage.

So the only problem here is that you do not beleive anyone owning a chunk of land should get a tax break because they are already rich.

Your straw man again. I said nothing about tax breaks ON THE LAND, I'm miffed that President Shrub wants to up the tax breaks ON PURCHASING SUVs and making them available to more people, with a larger grey area in the definition of what is a "business".

And you're still not providing any facts to back up your assertation that ALL RANCHES ARE BY DEFINITION "BUSINESSES".

you are the one insisting ranching isnt a business

No I am not. I'm saying that a ranch DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A BUSINESS. You're the one saying that a ranch MUST be a business.

I linked to where Bush's ranch is a business.

No, you linked to where Shrub is a "gentleman rancher" STRICTLY for the tax break it provides his personal residence. Go check his tax returns; look at the line that says "profession" - does it say "rancher" on it?

You stated only farms grew food.

No, I stated that a farm GROWS food, i.e., crops, while a ranch RAISES animals, which MAY be turned into food.

To me and a lot of people a ranch by definition is a business

Which is nothing more than your OPINION, something that you have yet to PROVE.

If you own a lot of land and sit in a house in the middle of it and do not use the land to either
A: grow crops
B: graze cattle
C: mix of either of A or B
you do not have a ranch, you have an estate.

Once again, from[link|http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary|http://www.m-w.com/]

Main Entry: es\ufffdtate
Pronunciation: is-'tAt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English estat, from Old French -- more at STATE
Date: 13th century
1 : STATE, CONDITION
2 : social standing or rank especially of a high order
3 : a social or political class; specifically : one of the great classes (as the nobility, the clergy, and the commons) formerly vested with distinct political powers
4 a : the degree, quality, nature, and extent of one's interest in land or other property b (1) : POSSESSIONS, PROPERTY; especially : a person's property in land and tenements "a man of small estate" (2) : the assets and liabilities left by a person at death c : a landed property usually with a large house on it d British : PROJECT 4
5 British : STATION WAGON

Your position is that an estate is a large piece of property that is not worked. When I visited heard George Washington's Mount Vernon home, the tour guide called it an "estate", yet he grew tobacco for profit. Jefferson's "Monitcello" estate? Ditto - slaves tended his crops. There are plenty of residences of rich people in the northeast states that are called estates and do not grow crops or raise animals. There's nothing in Merriam Webster's definition about an estate being land NOT worked, leaving open the potential for an estate to BE worked.

now lets extrapolate can we. Were you at work when you posted that? If you were does your employer take a deduction for all the equipment, connect charges etc?

So let's post an example. I'm a brand new employee and my employer will put a desktop PC in my assigned cubicle for me to perform my duties. I can easily be productive with a Pentium II or Pentium III but, thanks to a proposed change in the tax laws by President Shrub, my employer decides to purchase a loaded-to-the-gills Pentium IV workstation with dual CPUs, 1 gig RAM, dual 160 gig hard drives. Lots of options, completely unnecessary, and never would have occured if it weren't for a useless incentive provided by President Shrub. The tax break accomplishes nothing but to get people to purchase more expensive things and will not help put unemployed people back to work.

Same thing with a work truck and SUVs. If Scott's parent's need to haul people or stuff around, they had other choices like pick-up trucks, work minivans, or panel trucks. Instead, he states that they purchased it with leather seats "for the dogs". It probably came with a great stereo system and other nice options too. That doesn't sound like my definition of a "work vehicle" unless their business is raising dogs or running a kennel.

You cant discriminate against rural people.

And who says I am? Your remark is completely off topic. I'm against a proposed tax break that is designed to do nothing more than get President Shrub into the good graces with the Democratic party voting United Auto Workers.

I'm still waiting for you to PROVE your contention that a "ranch by definition is a business".