mirage62 0 #151 September 27, 2011 So John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. Buddy THAT is going to be a small, small group of peopleKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #152 September 27, 2011 Quote So John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. Buddy THAT is going to be a small, small group of people my rough, back of hand calculations, suggest that that small group of people will be approximately 1% of the population stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #153 September 27, 2011 QuoteSo John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. Buddy THAT is going to be a small, small group of people Per the 2009 IRS tax stats, about 140k persons/families. They have 13.8% of the income and pay 28.8% of the tax bit as it is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #154 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. Buddy THAT is going to be a small, small group of people Per the 2009 IRS tax stats, about 140k persons/families. They have 13.8% of the income and pay 28.8% of the tax bit as it is. Good. Makes a lot more sense than taxing the bottom 1% In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. According to a 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #155 September 27, 2011 QuoteSo John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. Buddy THAT is going to be a small, small group of people Nope, you wrote "He won't ever answer what is "rich" You wanted my definition of "rich", NOT who I would tax.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #156 September 27, 2011 Quote Quote So John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. Buddy THAT is going to be a small, small group of people my rough, back of hand calculations, suggest that that small group of people will be approximately 1% of the population In 2007 the top 1% of the US population owned 42.7% of the nation's financial wealth, while the bottom 80% owned 7.0% of the nation's wealth. Source.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #157 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. Buddy THAT is going to be a small, small group of people Per the 2009 IRS tax stats, about 140k persons/families. They have 13.8% of the income and pay 28.8% of the tax bit as it is. Good. Makes a lot more sense than taxing the bottom 1% In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. According to a 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population. Wealth != incomeMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #158 September 27, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote So John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. Buddy THAT is going to be a small, small group of people Per the 2009 IRS tax stats, about 140k persons/families. They have 13.8% of the income and pay 28.8% of the tax bit as it is. Good. Makes a lot more sense than taxing the bottom 1% In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. According to a 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population. Wealth != income Didn't say it was, see posts #156 and #160, this thread... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #159 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. Buddy THAT is going to be a small, small group of people Per the 2009 IRS tax stats, about 140k persons/families. They have 13.8% of the income and pay 28.8% of the tax bit as it is. Income != assets. Please pay attention.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 895 #160 September 27, 2011 Awesome comment regarding the glaring confusion in our society of the difference between income, assets, and profits from businesses, as well as capitol gains. Details can make a big difference in what is communicated vs. what the real message is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #161 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. Buddy THAT is going to be a small, small group of people Per the 2009 IRS tax stats, about 140k persons/families. They have 13.8% of the income and pay 28.8% of the tax bit as it is. Income != assets. Please pay attention. Then why did you bring up assets in a thread about income taxes? Another failed attempt to muddy the waters, or can you not tell the difference between income tax and property/estate taxes?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #162 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. Buddy THAT is going to be a small, small group of people Per the 2009 IRS tax stats, about 140k persons/families. They have 13.8% of the income and pay 28.8% of the tax bit as it is. Income != assets. Please pay attention. Then why did you bring up assets in a thread about income taxes? The thread title says NOTHING about income. Fortson was curious about my definition of "rich" (see thread title AND post #154, this thread). You really have a short attention span or a reading problem.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #163 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteThen why did you bring up assets in a thread about income taxes? The thread title says NOTHING about income. Fortson was curious about my definition of "rich" (see thread title AND post #154, this thread). You really have a short attention span or a reading problem. Speaking of reading problems...perhaps you should have read the linked story, or simply the last sentence quoted in the OP. "Buffett, a long-time critic of the US tax system, has calculated that he handed over 17.4% of his income as tax last year"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #164 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThen why did you bring up assets in a thread about income taxes? The thread title says NOTHING about income. Fortson was curious about my definition of "rich" (see thread title AND post #154, this thread). You really have a short attention span or a reading problem. Speaking of reading problems...perhaps you should have read the linked story, or simply the last sentence quoted in the OP. "Buffett, a long-time critic of the US tax system, has calculated that he handed over 17.4% of his income as tax last year" So what? It should have been more because he is super rich. Asked for my definition of "rich" by Fortson, I gave it, If you don't like my replies to other people you don't have to read them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #165 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThen why did you bring up assets in a thread about income taxes? The thread title says NOTHING about income. Fortson was curious about my definition of "rich" (see thread title AND post #154, this thread). You really have a short attention span or a reading problem. Speaking of reading problems...perhaps you should have read the linked story, or simply the last sentence quoted in the OP. "Buffett, a long-time critic of the US tax system, has calculated that he handed over 17.4% of his income as tax last year" So what? It should have been more because he is super rich. Ah, yes... class envy at it's finest. Smells like sugar cookies. QuoteAsked for my definition of "rich" by Fortson, I gave it, If you don't like my replies to other people you don't have to read them. Perhaps you should have thought of that BEFORE you responded to ME.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #166 September 27, 2011 Well, gee, Mike. Since when do I have to get YOUR permission to respond to Fortson's posts? Your name doesn't come up in green on my screen.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #167 September 27, 2011 Quote Well, gee, Mike. Since when do I have to get YOUR permission to respond to Fortson's posts? Your name doesn't come up in green on my screen. Post 163 - you made your 'wealth' post in response to ME, not Fortson. Reading comprehension, much?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #168 September 27, 2011 QuoteThe data is now clear that the last three decades have witnessed a divergence between haves and have-nots unprecedented in the United States, at least since the lead-up to the Great Depression when a similar era of income inequality set the stage for financial disaster. For instance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office – in an analysis of data from 1979 to 2005 – found that the inflation-adjusted income of middle-class Americans rose about 21 percent (only about one-fifth the increase enjoyed by the middle class during the post-World War II era). Meanwhile, the income for the ultra-rich (the top 100th of one percent) jumped 480 percent from 1979 to 2005, rising from an average of $4.2 million to $24.3 million. And CBO’s analysis ends in 2005, thus missing the decimation of the middle class from the Wall Street bust of 2008. The other bitter irony about all this is that despite the oil shocks and other problems of the 1970s, the United States was actually poised to reap huge benefits from the government’s investments in the 1950s and 1960s. Eisenhower had used tax revenues to build the Interstate Highway system and other modern transportation infrastructure. Kennedy had pushed the Space Program which led to microprocessors and other crucial technological breakthroughs. Government funding also was behind major advances in medicine and in the creation of the Internet. There were benefits emerging, too, from global markets based on an international system promoted and defended by the United States. The wealth created by these various developments should reasonably have been shared by the American people, with some of the money reinvested to keep the United States at the cutting edge of transportation, science and technology. http://www.alternet.org/story/152534/by_cutting_taxes_on_the_rich%2C_we%27ve_incentivized_greed--how_do_we_return_to_fairness__/?page=entirestay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #169 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuote Well, gee, Mike. Since when do I have to get YOUR permission to respond to Fortson's posts? Your name doesn't come up in green on my screen. Post 163 - you made your 'wealth' post in response to ME, not Fortson. Reading comprehension, much? Post 163 starts: "So John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. " Reading the thread makes it obvious that the failure to comprehend what was going on in the conversation was yours. Not an uncommon occurrence for you, either.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #170 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Well, gee, Mike. Since when do I have to get YOUR permission to respond to Fortson's posts? Your name doesn't come up in green on my screen. Post 163 - you made your 'wealth' post in response to ME, not Fortson. Reading comprehension, much? Post 163 starts: "So John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. " My quote of Fortson's post is immaterial - your response was to ME and not him. QuoteReading the thread makes it obvious that the failure to comprehend what was going on in the conversation was yours. Not an uncommon occurrence for you, either. Reading the post makes it obvious that the failure to comprehend was yours, as is the sheer arrogance in not admitting your fault. Not an uncommon occurrence for you, either.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #171 September 27, 2011 Both of you cut it out. Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #172 September 27, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Well, gee, Mike. Since when do I have to get YOUR permission to respond to Fortson's posts? Your name doesn't come up in green on my screen. Post 163 - you made your 'wealth' post in response to ME, not Fortson. Reading comprehension, much? Post 163 starts: "So John for taxing purposes you would apply these taxes ONLY to people who are in the top 1% of assets. " Reading the thread makes it obvious that the failure to comprehend what was going on in the conversation was yours. Not an uncommon occurrence for you, either. agreed stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #173 September 27, 2011 Quote Look into flying clubs. The club I belong to has 10 members with an Archer II. We each pay $56 a month and $38 an hour dry to fly. I can fly a few hours a month in exchange for not having the car payment/insurance cost of a newer vehicle. We do much of the maint on our aircraft under the supervision of an understanding A&P/IA. I know this is not where you were going with your post. I just wanted to point out that you need not be "rich" to fly. Well yes of course one does not need to be "rich" to fly. One only needs some disposable income and yes sacrifices can be made certain areas of life to help free up some disposable income for one's hobbies. $38/hour dry for an Archer is good ... then again you said dry. I never used to rent dry, I always rented wet. At the club I used to fly at in Colorado back in the 2001 - 2005 time frame I believe they were renting out an archer in the $50/hour wet range (I forget the exact prices), basically 152s were unheard of in CO due to the altitude, older 172s would go for about $45/hour wet, the archer while the same performance as the 172 was a little more expensive. But in CO if you wanted to fly over the rocks (mountains) you needed a minimum of a 182 and/or a Dakota which was in at least $70/hour sometimes as high as $80 (oh and modern 172s were also in the $70/hour). Definitely not a cheap hobby but I will forever remember those solo flights I made into the Colorado Rockies with a big smile on my face. Back on topic ... I always laugh when an airplane owner whines about rich people. Talk about being out of touch with reality. Yes there are some filthy rich people in this world and yes society would not fall apart if the filthy rich people were made to pay more. But two things to remember: 1) When taxes are raised, people who can avoid the new taxes will avoid them and it's not just rich people who avoid taxes. When consumption taxes are raised too high, poor people flock to the underground economy while when any sort of taxes are raised too high, rich people move their assets to other countries. Raising taxes too high too fast will have an adverse effect on what was trying to be achieved. You end up with high taxes that actually bring in less revenue because the tax payer base ends up shrinking due to less "legal" economic activity. 2) There are simply not enough ubber rich people to deal with the structural deficits the US government is in. How many times do we need to say this. The US Government does not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. But all we hear about is "Tax the Rich" rhetoric. It would be nice to see a serious attempt to cut spending (this includes military spending), but we never do see it. Once again it is simply hilarious when an airplane own whines about rich people. I own a 14 year old Porsche 911 (which is worth less than most brand new cars). In the eyes of some people, I am rich because I own a Porsche and they are not 100% wrong though they may be mistaken about the value of my car. My car is purely for fun as it is not my daily driver. But damn you should see how much fun it is on the race tracks. It's not the fastest car out there but definitely not slow. People who own airplanes need to face up to the facts that they are rich. They may not be as rich as the ubber rich, but they are rich. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #174 September 27, 2011 >Yes there are some filthy rich people in this world and yes society would not fall >apart if the filthy rich people were made to pay more. Yep. And the merely filthy rich are often heard saying things like "well, I'm a regular hardworking American, not some obscenely rich guy like Buffett or Gates." Here in the US, everyone wants to be seen as non-privileged. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #175 September 27, 2011 The US Government has a spending problem not a revenue problem. There are simply not enough filthy rich people to solve government spending issues through "Tax the Rich" rhetoric. But it sure makes for a good talking point when engaging in class warfare doesn't it. It's none of my business how much wealth someone has. It is my business when governments are spending beyond their means. Everywhere you look we have politicians spending money like there is no tomorrow. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
