If you buy a jet for 2.7 million and sell it for 2.1 million, is that a smart move?

Question

Re: Palin

...

She also followed through on a campaign promise to sell the Westwind II jet purchased (on a state government credit account, against the wishes of the Legislature) by the Murkowski administration for $2.7 million in 2005. In August 2007 the jet was listed on eBay, though with no buyer found it was later sold for $2.1 million through a private brokerage firm.[69]

...Wikipedia

Answer 1

Yes. Smarter than flying around in it. See Al Gore.

Answer 2

No, it's a blatantly irresponsible fiscal policy to practice with TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS.

Palin will fit right in with a bimbo like Cindy who's too stupid to know why wearing a $300,000 outfit is a BAD IDEA if you're trying to convince the average American that you "speak for them."

BARF.

Answer 3

She saved alot on gas money that the tax payers pay for.    Can you imagine how much gas money Al Gore pays for his plane and boat.   If you bought a car today for 30,000 and sold it a few months later - it aint worth 30 no more!    

Answer 4

Apparently this is a very nice try at disinformation or a blatant lie.  

Jets, like ANYTHING else in the entire world except wine, devalue with age.  A new car purchased for $25,000 is not worth the same amount 2 years later, is it?  

Anything mechanical is heavily devalued during the first year of ownership.  After that, as a rule of thumb, the decreases are much more moderate.

Answer 5

I'm sure there was some depreciation so maybe that wasn't such a bad payment after all.  However, the first question should be why did they need it to begin with?  They never should have spent the 2.7 million to start with.

Answer 6

When you factor in interest, yes it's a good deal.   There's the 2.7 million loan plus interest they were paying on that loan which surely adds up.  Then there's the cost of maintenance on it and the cost of storage and everything else related to owning a jet. There was probably a pilot as well which isn't free.

Answer 7

What do you think economic genius?  Is the phuckin Yugo you drive worth more or less than what you paid for it before you put miles and wear on it?

Machines depreciate, why don't you try to sell the computer your typing this nonsense on for what you paid for it two years ago.

$600,000 is 23% depreciation over two years, if I knew my Porsche would be worth 77% of what I paid for it 2 years later I would be ecstatic.

Answer 8

I WILL BET A NICKLE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE DEPRECIATED VALUE OF SUCH AIRCRAFT IS...NOW OR THEN....I WOULD LOVE TO SELL YOU A USED CAR AT NEW VALUE

Answer 9

Glenda B:  Don't forget her $800,000 credit card bills also.

Answer 10

Over the long haul, it makes very good sense.  Imagine how much taxpayer money would have been spent for fuel and maintenance.  She's a no-frills gal.  That's what I like about Sarah.  She cares more about the folks than she does about herself.

Answer 11

It was a smart move.

Instead of wasting $2.7 million on an unnecessary luxury, she got $ 2.1 million back.  She was lucky to get that much.  I only offered her $ 1.5 million,.

Answer 12

How much would you have paid?

The problem wasn't the selling price...it was the overvalued purchase price?

Answer 13

No, that would be Neo-con-economics

Answer 14

Oh yes yes used planes always go up in value after a couple of years use... she would have gotten more if it weren't for the coffee stain on the back seat...  

Answer 15

In her speech she said she "Put it on Ebay" well this is true.  She listed it 3 times, and it didn't sell.  She later sold it elsewhere.  That was a misrepresentation.

Answer 16

Depends on how long you had the jet, like automobiles jets lose value over time.  Also, they cost more for maintenance.

Answer 17

She did not buy the Jet, she just sold it after the people in office before her wasted taxpayer money on an unnecessary luxury, so yes, that is a smart move.

Answer 18

If you buy a car for $27,000 then 2 years later sell it for $21,000 then you are genius!

Answer 19

In and of itself, no.  However, the future costs of maintenance, fuel, and insurance will no longer be incurred.

The previous administration who purchased the jet should never have bought it in the first place.

Answer 20

Well, its smarter than lying about it like McCain did today.  He claimed that she sold it on eBay for a profit.  It didn't sell on eBay, it was only listed there (three times).  She sold it for a loss, not a profit.  Of course, they could have depreciated it on the books so the book value was less than the sale price, making a book profit - which is a typical way that the Republicans mislead people.

Answer 21

Absolutely it is a smart move. for many reasons.

1)  The upkeep on a jet is far more than $600,000 in a very short time.

2)   If you aren't going to use the jet, the 2.1 million looks a lot better in the pockets of tax payers.

3)   Why did the previous government official buy a jet for $600,000 more than it was worth?

4)    It teaches other government officials to be more careful with the people's money

Answer 22

They depreciate, primarily based on engine hours.  However, they are extremely expensive to operate and impact emissions quite a bit, as well.

Answer 23

Cost analysis is required. It lost value because it was two years older and then there is the savings on maintenance, operation and fuel.

It probably approached a million a year to have that jet.  

Answer 24

Why fault her for correcting a past administration's frivolous purchase? If she purchased the item under her administration I could see where you could find fault. It is an asset that depreciates so basically she lost the depreciation. In the long run she saved the people of Alaska a bundle with the high costs of fuel these days plus additional depreciation that would have occurred. Sounds to me like she took a loss but eliminated some wasteful government spending in the process.

Answer 25

last time I checked used planes don't sell for the same money you paid  for them