this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
421 points (99.1% liked)

Not The Onion

21523 readers
1315 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/47052375

To understand how a New York City private jet tax could actually be implemented, you need to understand who controls the airports.

The Port Authority is a bi-state agency jointly controlled by the governors of New York and New Jersey with an annual operating budget of $10.1 billion and a proposed $45 billion capital plan from 2026 – 2035. It operates JFK, LaGuardia, Newark Liberty, and Teterboro — all rated high tax-risk under current political conditions. Teterboro Airport, which does not allow scheduled airline flights and only services private flights, handles approximately 177,000 arrivals and departures annually.

Westchester County Airport (HPN) is not a Port Authority facility. It is owned and operated by Westchester County — outside Mamdani’s direct political sphere and outside the joint gubernatorial control structure of the Port Authority. This makes it the most insulated major reliever airport in the New York metro under current political conditions.

Republic Airport (FRG) on Long Island is New York State property — its vulnerability depends on whether Governor Hochul aligns with Mamdani’s agenda, which remains an open question.

Key policy context: The Port Authority has the authority to set fees, surcharges, and access terms at its facilities without requiring standard legislative processes in many scenarios. The question isn’t just whether a tax gets proposed — it’s whether the mechanism to implement it already exists. In many cases, it does.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Oh fuck, this absolutely ruins all of my private jet related plans, damn.

[–] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 hours ago

Good, I hope he takes it

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 12 points 8 hours ago

Good, nobody should have one to begin with.

[–] dan69@lemmy.world 22 points 10 hours ago

Amen to that brother, every second it’s in an ny airport it should be charged a dollar and flat rate of 15 mins 1500$

[–] xSikes@feddit.online 64 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

You can tax all my jets! You’re more than welcome to.

[–] abrake@lemmy.world 27 points 12 hours ago

The law, in it's majestic equality, imposes taxes on the private jets of the poor and the rich. - Anatole France or something

[–] LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone 120 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Are we sure this isn’t the onion? The article is worth a read, what a bunch of absolute gems!

If you own an apartment in New York and don’t live there full-time, you’re taxed. If your heirs inherit assets in New York, they’re taxed at thresholds that now reach the upper middle class. The logical extension of this trajectory — and the question the entire private aviation industry should be asking — is: what about the $70 million jet you landed at Teterboro this morning?

No! Say it ain’t so! Rich dips being taxed as much as gasp the upper middle class??? and that’s nothing, now they want to tax your 70 million dollar jet? Thats not even the nice one! Why even own it anymore???? Taxes on property? I mean, you’re not even using it! How dare they tax it!

This isn’t about airspace. It’s about politics. And the pattern is unmistakable.

The author is so close! It’s not about politics, it’s about people realizing that the rich people are trash and are strangling the rest of us. So fuck your private jets, fuck your entitled ass for being outraged at having to pay taxes on your manhattan vacation home or whatever has you so worked up over the pied-à-terre tax. I hope you choke on the gold leaf you put on your bagels or whatever. If the masses get hungry enough, they are going to eat you.

[–] NRay7882@lemmy.world 55 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Not really a surprise, the article was written by a CEO of a private jet company.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago

Shame of he ever had to get a job that didn't involve crawling for rich assholes.

[–] hypnicjerk@lemmy.world 31 points 15 hours ago

bro is just trying to sell charter flights to other rich fucks. it's an ad.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 13 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

If I have to pay taxes on my labor they can pay it on their luxuries. At least I'm doing something useful for this country.

[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Tbf, it could also be a little about airspace. Teterboro, JFK, and LaGuardia make for some of the busiest and most crowded airspace in the world. I'm sure ATC would love not having to deal with the extra headache of vectoring around planes with 200 people in them for the sake of some stuffy fuck in his private jet.

[–] chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It's not about airspace at all. ATC (part of the FAA) isn't funded by airport landing/handling/ramp fees. Controllers wouldn't ever get any of this money, and they probably wouldn't care either way, other than that directionally less traffic probably means smaller federal budget allocations for ATC.

As things go, ATC is pretty egalitarian. If you fly up in hour homebuilt carbon cub, they'll give you the same respect and attention that they give Delta or JetBlue. Private jets don't get special treatment. If anything, ATC gives you favorable treatment for being knowledgeable, predictable, communicative, and not actin the fool.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

And that's the whole point. Why should 10 private jets with total of 10 passengers get 10x more attention than a single airbus with 300 passengers?

[–] auntieclokwise@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

The reason is that each of those private jets is a missile that, if not given appropriate attention, can run into any of the airliners. From an ATC POV, a plane is a plane - they all need to be kept separate. Some of them have different characteristics, to be sure. But they all have to be managed for the safety of everyone. Now, it could be a different argument as to whether you should allow private jets in really busy airspace. But if you let them in, you have to manage them, same as everyone else.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 189 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Good. Whoever owns a private jet can afford to participate in the funding of the city.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 51 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Damn. I'm 9 minutes too late to make the same comment.

[–] Diddlydee@feddit.uk 35 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Do it anyway. You only live once. I'll upvote it no matter how many times it's posted.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 70 points 16 hours ago

Good. Whoever owns a private jet can afford to participate in the funding of the city.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 20 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

I'll upvote it no matter how many times it's posted.

Infinite points exploit unlocked

How do we call them here anyway?

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 5 points 9 hours ago

I believe they're called doots, as in updoots and downdoots

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 20 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Upperlemmerdings and Downerlemmerdingos are the very serious technical terms.

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 15 hours ago

You got upperlemmerdinged by me for such an informative post

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 14 points 11 hours ago

Guess I'm just going to have to sell that sucker, I'm hoping to get 8 figures off of it, but I'll honestly be happy with 6. What will I ever do....

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 68 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

I saw a Fox News talking head arguing with Ro Khanna the other day, and she attacked Mamdani by saying the top 1% already pay 45% of the city's tax revenues. Bitch, the top 1% controls 90% of the wealth.

[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

Sounds completely straightforward that if you own 90% of the wealth, you pay 90% of the tax. And they'll fight you till the bitter end to convince everybody otherwise.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 10 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I've got a proposal: flat tax + UBI.

Flat tax, everybody everywhere pays the same tax rate on ALL THE THINGS every time. Simple as imaginable, one tax rate collected on every transaction. One tax rate collected on every holding. All this "tax rebate incentive" legislation? Call it what it is: incentive legislation. Keep the incentives, but structure them equally for all people, not just as tax dodges for people who pay a lot of taxes.

UBI, all citizens, regardless of needs, income or any other criteria - are you alive? are you a citizen? You get the same UBI as every other citizen. But the rich don't need UBI - no they don't, and they pay plenty of taxes, they still get UBI too - if they don't like it, they can donate it to charity - not for a tax break - but because it feels good.

Own 90% of the wealth? Pay 90% of the taxes, that's how it works. You get the same UBI as everybody else.

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

Flat tax rates are furthering inequality, because poor people have to use up a far larger percentage of their disposable income on necessities, effectively paying way more taxes. All the while, rich people can save much more.

[–] carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

The funny thing with financial aid is that it is possible to spend more money figuring out who isn't eligible than it would cost to just give it to more people

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

That's why the UK NHS is not means-tested. Gatekeeping is complex and expensive as well as damaging quality of service.

[–] auntieclokwise@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, and the way you do the means testing is by allowing a parallel private system. People with money will use that system, at least some of the time, on their own. The less money you have, the more you'll use the public system. That way, you don't have to spend a dime figuring anything out - people naturally sort themselves out.

[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

And it's not even a rare occurrence. It's so common that being cheaper is one of the most common arguments in favor of schemes like UBI or universal single-payer healthcare.

Of course the most common (but unspoken) counterargument is that distressingly many people would prefer to make everyone worse off to make sure people who "don't deserve it" don't get paid.

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Unironicly, Mr. Doolittle's speech in My Fair Lady convinced me that aid should be given to both the "deserving" and "undeserving" needy.

What am I? I ask you, what am I? I'm one of the underserving poor, that's what I am. Now, think what that means to a man. It means he's up against middle-class morality for all the time. If there's anything going, and I puts in for a bit of it, it's always the same story: you're undeserving, so you can't have it. needs is as great as the most deserving widows that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. need LESS than a deserving man, I need MORE. less hearty than he does, and I drink... oh, a lot more.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 39 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

My private jet?!

Oh my god!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This is Greg Raiff's first piece for Fortune's user-generated content program. He appairs to be the CEO of a charter jet company.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

I'd dispute that it doesn't reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune, though, based on this:

gestures towards everything they've ever published

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago

Needs more breathless adulation of wealthy sociopaths.

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

I guess that's why they put not necessarily there.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 28 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (4 children)

Army of people making under $30k a year about to come out of the woodwork to scream about how bad this is for the economy

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] GarboDog@lemmy.world 15 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Ok? A reasonable person doesn’t have a fucn private jet and those who do should pay taxes???? We’re people owning large polluting private vehicles not paying taxes????

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (9 children)

EXACTLY why I crossposted it in !nottheonion@lemmy.world.

The entire thing reads like The Onion satirizing clueless rich people, except with all of the wit removed.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DickFiasco@sh.itjust.works 10 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Surely no one is this out-of-touch with reality. This must've been written by a leftist in disguise just to make rich people look clueless.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›