The Costa Citationair

[OHGOON]

You had said Fortune 400 so one would have assumed you were talking about the CEOs of these companies.

If you are talking about the Forbes 400, I have no idea what that is nor do I care. Their income is not relevant as it varies by the amount of assets they sell in any given year. It also doesn't take into account the losses of those that fell off the list.

Why the hate toward the people who are your customers? If we didn't have people with money, there wouldn't be any private aircraft.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2012/09/19/the-forbes-400-the-richest-people-in-america/

Sorry, I did mean Fortune 400. Their income is relevant because what they earned in 2012 vs 2011 is the equivalent of $90,000.00 per hour. Mind you that is the extra cash they had at the end of 2012 that they did not have at the end of 2011.

It's relevant because it disproves your nutsoid ideas that we are "approaching" communism. Actually it's quite the opposite; we are a country by the rich, for the rich, and of the rich. You, who are not among them, are actually buying into their claptrap of "tinkle down theory" for whatever overwrought self destructive reasons.

So your approach is the equivalent of "Let them eat cake" then. That did not work out well for Marie Antoinette. (Hope gunfyter appreciates the reference to the century and events that he so fetishizes.)

Besides, I never said, I hated the rich, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I simply reported the facts as I know them. You judged my words, I didn't. The fact that we have Private Jets buzzing all about the place in ever increasing numbers should be proof enough for anyone that your silly fears about socialism and communism are just unfounded and laughable. What's next: "We gotta fight em over there before we have to fight em over here":nuts::laugh:

 

[gret]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2012/09/19/the-forbes-400-the-richest-people-in-america/

Sorry, I did mean Fortune 400. Their income is relevant because what they earned in 2012 vs 2011 is the equivalent of $90,000.00 per hour. Mind you that is the extra cash they had at the end of 2012 that they did not have at the end of 2011.

It's relevant because it disproves your nutsoid ideas that we are "approaching" communism. Actually it's quite the opposite; we are a country by the rich, for the rich, and of the rich. You, who are not among them, are actually buying into their claptrap of "tinkle down theory" for whatever overwrought self destructive reasons.

So your approach is the equivalent of "Let them eat cake" then. That did not work out well for Marie Antoinette. (Hope gunfyter appreciates the reference to the century and events that he so fetishizes.)

Besides, I never said, I hated the rich, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I simply reported the facts as I know them. You judged my words, I didn't. The fact that we have Private Jets buzzing all about the place in ever increasing numbers should be proof enough for anyone that your silly fears about socialism and communism are just unfounded and laughable. What's next: "We gotta fight em over there before we have to fight em over here":nuts::laugh:

If you meant the Fortune 400, why did you link the Forbes 400?

I don't know what your point is...I do know that if we don't have a people who have achieved success and wealth, we don't have anyone who can afford private aircraft and employ the crew members who fly for them.

 

[X-rated]

Nothing to check. That is what the top 400 richest American's made on average according to Forbes.

Eye popping isn't it? Bet you Fox Noise and the Drudge report ignored that one??!

No, you did mean the Forbes list of the very richest Americans which you linked. If not, your numbers are way off. Even the Forbes list is just under 90K per person not over.

In any case, what do the Forbes 400 have to do with the Top 1 percent of all American earners you were talking about? The Forbes group only represents 0.0000012 of all Americans or about 1.2 10,000th of 1 percent. According to IRS data, the 2009 threshold to make it into the top 1 percent of all American income tax filers was $343,927. That number included dual income jointly filed returns too. Clearly, the bottom of that group is not starving, but no one will confuse them with Buffet either.

Yes, there are a relatively few very wealthy people in the world. Shall we warm up the guillotine, or just steal their money for ourselves?

 

[Helmsalee]

"We now live in a country where, income inequality has soared to the highest level since the Great Depression, with the top one percent taking 93 percent of the income earned last year. A pure plutocracy."

Sure would like a reference for that one.

BTW, Goon, I have not seen anything resembling a humble opinion from you.

Humbly,

Helm

 

[Sparse]

Meanwhile, back at CitationAir.........................

 

[X-rated]

We now live in a country where, income inequality has soared to the highest level since the Great Depression, with the top one percent taking 93 percent of the income earned last year. A pure plutocracy.

Sure would like a reference for that one.

I wouldn't count on it. He just made it up. It's telling to contrast what he thinks is reality with what actually is. Also, OHGOON's inability to distinguish between Forbes and Fortune despite several attempts also speaks volumes.

The Reality:

"The income thresholds are for the amount of AGI on a return, not per taxpayer.

That means a single filer who made $343,927 or more in 2009 is in the top 1 percentile. A married couple with two kids and combined earnings of $343,927 or more also was among the top earners in the country. The 2009 figures are the latest the IRS has tallied. Filing of returns for tax year 2010 didn't officially close until Oct. 17.

The 1.4 million Americans in the IRS' top taxpayer category in 2009 reported nearly 17 percent of all the country's taxable income. From those filers, the IRS collected $318 billion or almost 37 percent of all the individual taxes paid in 2009."

Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx#ixzz2DttEkrZ3

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

To make Praetorians point using your source: "In New York City, where the Occupy Wall Street movement began, the richest 1 percent of households saw their share of all income in the city rise from 12 percent in 1980 to 44 percent in 2007, the last year for which data are available, according to a study by the Fiscal Policy Institute."

Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx#ixzz2DuJEZI6r
Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook"

By any measure, the amount of wealth funneled into the hands of the one percent since the dawn of modern conservatism has been insane.

 

[Praetorian]

"We now live in a country where, income inequality has soared to the highest level since the Great Depression, with the top one percent taking 93 percent of the income earned last year. A pure plutocracy."

Sure would like a reference for that one.

BTW, Goon, I have not seen anything resembling a humble opinion from you.

Humbly,

Helm

Ok, here is one source: http://billmoyers.com/segment/matt-...and-on-the-one-percents-power-and-privileges/

Google it and you will find many other references. It's pretty common knowledge, outside the repub bubble.

 

[Praetorian]

I wouldn't count on it. He just made it up. It's telling to contrast what he thinks is reality with what actually is. Also, OHGOON's inability to distinguish between Forbes and Fortune despite several attempts also speaks volumes.

The Reality:

"The income thresholds are for the amount of AGI on a return, not per taxpayer.

That means a single filer who made $343,927 or more in 2009 is in the top 1 percentile. A married couple with two kids and combined earnings of $343,927 or more also was among the top earners in the country. The 2009 figures are the latest the IRS has tallied. Filing of returns for tax year 2010 didn't officially close until Oct. 17.

The 1.4 million Americans in the IRS' top taxpayer category in 2009 reported nearly 17 percent of all the country's taxable income. From those filers, the IRS collected $318 billion or almost 37 percent of all the individual taxes paid in 2009."

Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx#ixzz2DttEkrZ3

"The United States is a plutocracy, with an income and wealth distribution that rivals South America’s worst cases, but economists refuse to acknowledge that these outcomes are attributable to ill-advised public policies on taxation, regulation, trade, and education spending over the last several decades."

Read more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/2012/05/03/economists-malign-influence-on-taxes/

Yea Forbes, definaty Forbes.

 

[gret]

Taken a bit out of context-

Where the top isn't that much: For most Americans, making more than $340,000 a year does feel rich. But for residents of high-cost areas, such as much of California, New York or major urban areas, that amount, especially for dual-income families, is not that unusual.

In New York City, where the Occupy Wall Street movement began, the richest 1 percent of households saw their share of all income in the city rise from 12 percent in 1980 to 44 percent in 2007, the last year for which data are available, according to a study by the Fiscal Policy Institute.

Part of the reason for the disparity is that the Big Apple is home to a lot of executives, doctors, lawyers, managers and supervisors who work outside of finance.

Those professions are among the most represented occupations of taxpayers in the top 1 percent of earners between 1979 and 2005, according to a November 2010 academic study of "Jobs and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income Inequality."
​

You have to take into account the disparity of wealth and income of NYC residents versus other parts of the country. The average income levels are based on national averages. The percentages should have been based on NYC residents (i.e. the 1% and everyone else should have been calculated for only NYC residents). "The "everyone" else NYC population makes more dough than others with the same occupation (pilots make more in the NE than other areas of the country).

It gets messy, but as the article points out, we are not comparing apples to apples.

BTW...success doesn't always mean money...it can also mean the richness and happiness that one feels when helping others...sadly, this group usually doesn't have the coin to fly private aircraft. On the other hand, 92 of the Forbes 400 have pledged more than half their fortunes to charities. Al Ueltschi, founder of FlightSafety passed away about a month ago and he left at least 1/2 of his $2 billion estate to charity.

The facts remains that private aviation wouldn't exist if we didn't have successful people who have accumulated enough wealth to afford the high costs of flying privately.