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.

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

In that case, x-rated's post was also out of context. Please call him on that. It doesn't change my point one iota. Concentrating wealth from 12% to 44% over 30 years, even in NYC is effing insane! Did four times as many highly paid professionals move into the city as lived there in 1980 while the population of fast food workers remained stagnant? Not likely!

 

[gret]

"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.

Come on...tricks are for kids. Lee Sheppard is known for outrageous comments to promote herself and her column in a monthly newsletter. The quote above is hers and she doesn't provide any facts backing up the statement.

 

[gret]

It appears there is a lot of dancing about wealth. I don't begrudge anybody that has been successful financially, but it appears that others resent this passionately.

To cut to the chase, what do the the critics suggest happen to rectify the perceived injustice and how would this help private aviation?

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

It's certainly not about resenting success. It's about success at the expense of those who work hard for a living and see stagnant or shrinking real income. The successful are earning much of that increasing wealth by reducing the wages of workers. It's no different from resenting welfare recipients except, welfare recipients are less damaging to the middle class than anti-worker, trickle-down policies of the conservative movement.

 

[X-rated]

In that case, x-rated's post was also out of context. Please call him on that. It doesn't change my point one iota. Concentrating wealth from 12% to 44% over 30 years, even in NYC is effing insane!

How is what I wrote out of context? I didn't offer any commentary other than Praetorian made up the 93 percent of all income number, and then I quoted the text that specifically refuted his claim. It doesn't matter what he may have "heard" from unreliable extremest left wing talking heads. They either don't know what their talking about, or more likely, are purposely lying in an effort rile up the sheep. The actual data from the IRS is 17 percent. If he would have said 20 percent, I wouldn't have called him on it, but 93 percent is a ridiculous and a intentionally misleading inaccuracy.

 

[Sparse]

It's certainly not about resenting success. It's about success at the expense of those who work hard for a living and see stagnant or shrinking real income. The successful are earning much of that increasing wealth by reducing the wages of workers. It's no different from resenting welfare recipients except, welfare recipients are less damaging to the middle class than anti-worker, trickle-down policies of the conservative movement.

I have to ask if you could offer up a solution. If the rich are forcing wages and benefits down what would be the outcome of taxing them more? Would that not encourage them to reduce wages or benefits further? Is it possible that downward pressure on wages is a result of the rich being subjected to higher cost not caused by taxes but by the cost of increased regulations? Could it be because of American's desire for more and cheaper goods? Conservatives, like me realize we, as a society, need a safety net. We also realize there will always be the poor, the bible tells us that. The question is of fairness. The president uses that phrase often. Maybe you could define that.

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

x-rated: that's fine. My post was no more out of context.

Listen, I can dig up numbers all day to demonstrate my point, and even Forbes ("Average America vs the 1%", 3/21/12) has said it is a transference of wealth from the many to the few. The reality is that most industries are less regulated now due to heavy lobbying than since the early days of the industrial revolution. I propose that the downward pressure on wages is due to little more than abject greed, which the bible tells me is a sin.

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

My solution? The middle class are the backbone of this country and account for far more economic activity than the richest few. Yes, keep middle class taxes low, that money will go directly into the economy. Most of the economic activity is people buying necessities. Food, daily needs goods etc. If you made $1,000,000/yr, would you buy 10 times as much toilet paper, food, clothes, cars, etc as someone earning $100,000? Would you spend all that money hiring someone to make a product when there is no demand because the middle class no longer has disposable income? The only way to grow this economy out of its depths, is to empower the middle class. Help raise wages. There are many ways of doing that. Ending the trickle down policies are a good start.

 

[gret]

How do you raise wages for the middle class? Does Congress pass a law ordering it? The question is serious as I simply don't know how you snap you fingers and increase compensation.

Isn't the right answer to increase disposable income of the middle class by reducing taxes and government spending? Income taxes are just a small part of the equation for most people...the taxes for cellphones, land lines, utilities, fuels, transportation, liquor, and tobacco are crazy at the Federal level and impact the middle class on many cases more than any tax on income.

Take a look at the NBAA constant fight over user fees...the industry doesn't want to pay them, but in fact, the tax would be levied on those users who can most afford it. Instead, we currently have the majority of the burden on the people flying commercial who mostly belong to the middle class.

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

Gret, do you accept that wages have been depressed for the past 30 years? OK. There is no snapping your fingers but to undo the damage you must undo the policies that suppressed wages. Weakening unions is undoubtedly the biggest contributor to suppressed wages. Also, returning the highest tax brackets to Clinton levels or higher will put that money back in the economy instead of languishing in hidden accounts. The infrastructure of this country is in dire need of repair, that means more jobs, which means more economic activity and greater competition for workers which gets higher wages. There is no one answer, there has to be many!

 

[Sparse]

What's fair? No one will define what is "fair". And greed? Humans are greedy by nature, (i.e. the frenzies we all saw in Walmarts, BB, Kmarts on Black Friday). So we only penalize the rich for greed? And remember, many of small businesses (run by middle class families) file their returns as individuals. Raise taxes on those making more than 250,000 and you have just hurt a middle class family business. I think raising taxes on the rich is largely for political purposes. It really won't raise that much revenue compared to the deficit and the national debt. The problem our government has is it spends too much. And I agree with you about the middle class. The revenue problem our country faces is not that we don't tax enough, we have too few tax payers. The recovery will begin when the middle class is empowered to spend and buy housing. When they do tax revenue will go up. They will do this when they have jobs. They will have jobs when the wealthy create those jobs and they will do that when the level of uncertainty in our economy is corrected. The uncertainty in our economy has to be eliminated before those with with money (rich and middle class) feel safe to spend it. I would like to buy a new car but I am not sure I should because I am not confident enough of where I will be employment wise to let go of the money. Raising taxes on the wealthy is not going to change that.

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

Sparse, I wouldn't equate Walmart stampedes with, for example, Hostess executives destroying 18,000 lives to make another million. So there is a good baseline for "fair" vs "greed". Yeah, it's a moving target but I know you know it when you see it.

Just because raising taxes on the richest won't solve all our problems doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It really isn't about "penalizing" them. They have done really well benefitting from the laws and infrastructure of the nation. For the richest to pay a little more is the right thing to do. This isn't taxing them into the poor house. Remember, lower taxes on the first $250,000 applies to the rich as well so they are still getting the same tax cut as everyone else. Certainly, taxing the middle class will not help the economy as much as freeing up idle money by taxing the rich.

I would counter that government spending on infrastructure has been cut too much.

 

[OHGOON]

My solution? The middle class are the backbone of this country and account for far more economic activity than the richest few. Yes, keep middle class taxes low, that money will go directly into the economy. Most of the economic activity is people buying necessities. Food, daily needs goods etc. If you made $1,000,000/yr, would you buy 10 times as much toilet paper, food, clothes, cars, etc as someone earning $100,000? Would you spend all that money hiring someone to make a product when there is no demand because the middle class no longer has disposable income? The only way to grow this economy out of its depths, is to empower the middle class. Help raise wages. There are many ways of doing that. Ending the trickle down policies are a good start.

This is excellent and simply put. Henry Ford, a very conservative man, was once quoted as saying that if his lowest paid employee could not afford his product than he would eventually go out of business.

Another very effective tool would be to re-empower the Union Movement in this country. It is shameful how Union busting is applauded everywhere while we whine about high unemployment and stagnating wages. Look at all societies that have a stable and thriving middle class and you will find strong and healthy Union movements in most of them. Ask yourself why Germany,widely seen as the economic engine of Europe, did better during the Great Recession than almost any other economy. IMHO, (for the Helmsman...feel better now??) they did not loose the manufacturing sector like so many others because the Unions for the most part prevented management from outsourcing those jobs. Yet despite it all, the German skies did not cave in and they are striving still.

While we're at it, make University education affordable and more effective again. It is ridiculous that most college graduates today have loan payments that resemble the average mortgage while many graduate without even being able to compose coherent sentences never mind the abilities to think critically.

BTW x-rated, you are right that I did confuse the Forbes 400 with the Fortune 500. (I even called it the Fortune 400 which doesn't even exist) I suppose we could say that I actually got it right before I got it wrong :laugh: I apologize profusely for this major error and I do hope that you can now see fit to actually look at WHAT I was trying to say rather than just get hung up on the HOWs.

OH, oh...almost forgot Helm's again

I M H O

 

[OHGOON]

....They will have jobs when the wealthy create those jobs and they will do that when the level of uncertainty in our economy is corrected. The uncertainty in our economy has to be eliminated before those with with money (rich and middle class) feel safe to spend it....

I think Sparse might just be Sean Hannity. Listen and repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repe.....zzzzzzz

This theory, always reported by the "right" as unassailable fact, is known as "Trickle Down" A more organized and less costly albeit a little messier version of this was known as Sharecropping which itself evolved directly from Slavery. It really would be more honest to just call it "Tinkle On" instead.

IMHO

 

[gret]

I think Sparse might just be Sean Hannity. Listen and repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repe.....zzzzzzz

This theory, always reported by the "right" as unassailable fact, is known as "Trickle Down" A more organized and less costly albeit a little messier version of this was known as Sharecropping which itself evolved directly from Slavery. It really would be more honest to just call it "Tinkle On" instead.

IMHO

So you suggestion is what?

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

Yeah, I agree about the unions, but I was avoiding it because union talk tends to make some react as if you were dissing their religion. I would propose that the problem isn't unions, but non-union companies with their unfair competitive advantage. The whole anti-union campaign is about destroying the middle class for increased profits. A high rate of unionization will benefit the middle class far more than it's social costs, and takes the unfair advantage away from those who would base their business strategy on low wages. IMO, always a losing strategy. In the end, more unions=higher wages=more stuff being bought=more profits. Right to Work for Low Wage rules and union busting for short term profits really is a short sighted strategy.

 

[gret]

Yeah! That will work....

And as much as it hurts to admit this, labor unions just aren’t very popular. In Gallup’s annual poll on confidence in institutions, unions score close to the bottom of the list, barely above big business and HMOs but behind banks. More Americans—42%—would like to see unions have less influence, and just 25% would like to see them have more. Despite a massive financial crisis and a dismal job market, approval of unions is close to an all-time low in the 75 years Gallup has been asking the question. A major reason for this is that twice as many people (68%) think that unions help mostly their members as think they help the broader population (34%). Amazingly, in Wisconsin, while only about 30% of union members voted for Walker, nearly half of those living in union households but not themselves union members voted for him (Union voters ≠ union households). In other words, apparently union members aren’t even able to convince their spouses that the things are worth all that much.
​

By Doug Henwood who publishes a newsletter from a left-wing perspective.​

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

Unions aren't unpopular because they suck. There has been a tremendously successful
PR campaign against them.

What was the knee jerk response to the Hostess fiasco? "Unions destroyed the company". When in fact as usual, it was unbelievable mismanagement and predatory venture capitalism that did them in. Of course, the workers always get the shaft, and the profiteers love it if they happen to be unionized.

 

[Sparse]

I think Sparse might just be Sean Hannity. Listen and repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repe.....zzzzzzz
IMHO

Can't stand the guy. I just feel uncertain about the economy. How about you? We just have different views on how to bring certainty back around. I think less government and allowing people keep more of what they make will stimulate the economy. Let the people chose winners and losers. You think bigger government and letting politicians redistribute the taxes as they see fit as the way. It's a difference in philosophy.

 

[gret]

Unions aren't unpopular because they suck. There has been a tremendously successful
PR campaign against them.

What was the knee jerk response to the Hostess fiasco? "Unions destroyed the company". When in fact as usual, it was unbelievable mismanagement and predatory venture capitalism that did them in. Of course, the workers always get the shaft, and the profiteers love it if they happen to be unionized.

Believe what you want and live with the consequences...

Mgmt at Hostess was a big part of the problem. However, the baker's union representative was dumber than a stump and, as the link below mentions, should be sued for being a dumb ass. I think the critter was quoted saying something to the effect that if they put Hostess out of business, the new buyers would pay the bakers more....and he wasn't even on drugs when he made the comment.

The union leaders still have jobs, while 18,000 of their members don't. Do you really want people like this deciding your future?

​

Hostess lost $341 million last year. The money for the compensation that the bakery union wanted simply wasn’t there. Even the Teamsters union, whom nobody would ever accuse of wimping out during contract talks, looked at Hostess’ books and acknowledged that the only way to keep the operation afloat would have been for workers to accept lower compensation.

The bakery union, however, would have none of it. They couldn’t have been so stupid as to misunderstand the simple arithmetic of Hostess’ financial predicament, so one can only conclude that they went berserk with ideological madness—“better to destroy the company than to make concessions to management” seems to have been their cold-hearted calculus. The bakery union lost sight of an important truth understood by Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federal of Labor, over a century ago: that what workers need is a company that operates at a profit.​

​

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhen...bakery-union-members-blasted-twinkie-killers/

Hopefully this won't happen in the fractional industry.