Obama's Class Warfare Struggle

general35

5,000+ Posts
it appears this will be the main tactic of the upcoming elections.

President Obama has a new term for the people he wants to tax more: jet owners.

In his news conference today, the president said: “I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that’s doing so well to give up that tax break….I don’t think that’s real radical.”

Asking private-jet owners to give up tax breaks may not be that radical. And it probably would be supported by the vast majority of the nonjet-owning voters.

The problem is that most of the people that would be subject to the higher taxes the president wants aren’t likely to be private-jet owners. Someone earning $250,000 a year–among those scheduled for a tax increase in 2012–is unlikely to afford a jet–or even a few charter trips on a jet.

For those, like the president, who may not be well-versed in Jetonomics, here are some of the basics. The numbers come courtesy of Jay Duckson at Central Business jets:

COST OF BUYING A JET

New Citation CJ (entry level jet)–$5 million. Annual operating costs (fuel, hangar space, pilots) about $500,000.

Cheapest Used Jet–$100,000 to $500,000. Annual operating costs (hangar, pilots, mechanics, fuel) about $1 million a year.

COSTS OF CHARTERING A JET

Typical charter–$3,000 an hour

It is possible, of course, that someone earning $250,000 a year might spend 5% to 10% of their annual income on a single flight by chartering, in which case we could call them “corporate-jet fliers.” But it is unlikely. Even more unlikely is someone earning $250,000 a year paying $500,000 to $1 million a year to operate a jet–even if they received it free.

According to Mr. Duckson and others, most of those who own their own jets have net worths of $100 million or more and earn more than $10 million a year–minimum.

The President may be right that is fair to tax private-jet owners. He may even be right that it is fair to raise taxes on those earnings more than $250,000 a year. But the only kind of jet owned by people earning $250,000 a year would be the kind that sits on your desk.

How rich do you think you have to be to own a jet?

ADDITIONAL NOTE: While Obama was referring in part to the Democratic effort to close a tax loophole for jet owners, known as “accelerate depreciation,” the loophole would raise only $3 billion over the next decade. The larger point is that his “jet owner” comment blurs the lines between super-rich jet owners and the far lesser rich, whose whose taxes would go up under the Democrats plan.
The Link
 
Is the author not conflating two very separate issues here? This is a silly op-ed. It is entitled:
"Obama Calls People Earning $250,000 a Year ‘Jet Owners’"


why is 'jet owners' in quotes? who is being quoted?

I haven't seen or read today's press conference, but i am pretty certain that is not what Obama is saying or even implying.

this is quite a leap.
 
Will this cause a drop in the purchase of jets? And if so, will that hurt companies like Cessna and Gulfstream who build those planes?

The luxury tax on yachts (among other things) back in '90 or '91 basically drove all domestic yacht builders out of business when folks purchased them overseas. Will this have a bit of the same effect?
 
It's pretty damn simple....SPEND LESS!!!! We don't need any more taxes, and 250K in income is not a huge sum of money. Don't get me wrong it's a nice chunk of change, but the people he is talking about are WAY WAY above that figure.
 
OK WAIT
didn't Obama give a tax break to private jet owners in the porkulus package?

If I can find it I will post it but I remember a hub bub about it back then, 09
 
I agree with Yo. The articles don't specify what the "tax loop hole" for "corporate jet owners" to which Obama refers actually is. They just race to accuse Obama of wrongly declaring those making $250k jet owners.

Frankly, the articles in the National Review and WSJ aren't even very coherent on the point they are trying to make. I guess the recipe was for red meat instead of rationality.
 
It's important to remember that 250k isn't that much money once you pay for cars, house, private school, etc. Unless the person works for the government, then its suddenly a huge sum of completely wasted money.
smile.gif
 
This will just serve to clear the airspace for Michelle to jaunt around the world on her pseudo state visits.
 
OK WAIT
didn't Obama give a tax break to private jet owners in the porkulus package?
__________________________________________________

yes, obama's press conference was genius. Back in 09, he puts a tax break in for corporations to buy private jets to help the airplane manufacturing business which took a big hit. so now, he is demonizing those that purchased jets because of his plan. later he said he didnt want to use scare tactics to get these increased taxes but a few moments later claimed that without them, "johnny" wouldnt be able to get a college loan, we would all be eating poisonous food and the mentally disabled would be out dieing in the streets.
 
Demonize? Really?

Again, the original opinion pieces and now those running with their foggy conclusions seem pretty insistent on being obtuse.

I'm shocked!
 
When a dem runs a class oriented message, it is class warfare. When republicans want to cut all the taxes that the rich pay, it is not.

The fact is that politics is always class warfare. When the dems are ascendant it is because they have convinced the middle and lower classes it is in their interest to elect them. With the republicans it is an attempt to get the middle class to see their interests as aligned with the wealthy.

Obama's big problem is that he was financed last time by hedge fund managers and insurance companies and has basically left the lower classes to stew. He pushed stimulus which included tax cuts instead of job creation and the lower classes don't see where he has been of much benefit to them.

The gop has the middle classes terrified of economic colllapse and have switched the blame from the financial institutions to some poor people who allegedly bought houses they defaulted on.

Class war is what politics is all about all the time. The rest is just distraction. Honest elections would be about class all the time and not bs distractions like Willie Horton or some ragheads hiding in caves or compounds in Abbottobad.
 
Gosh with all this so-called "punishment" and "demonizing" I guess I'll have to reconsider whether I want to be a millionaire.

OK. Thought about it . Yeah, I still want to be a millionare.
 
? I thought this guy was a big Obama supporter? What happened?
general
thanks for providing the information on Obama's tax break on private jets back then. Do you think he forgot he did that?
or do you think people won't pick up on it?

btw on a funny aside Obama mentioned Alcoa in that presser
"I was in Alcoa, in Iowa, one of our most successful companies. They took a big hit during the recession, but they still invested $90 million in new equipment in a plant that makes airplane wings
and parts for automobiles. And they’ve bounced back. They’ve hired back all their people and are increasing market share because they made those investments"

Makes AIRPLANE WINGS?
I guess we can hope for them that they don't make airplane wings for private aircraft.
"
 
Y'all finally find your true and most comfortable level of political debate. I congratulate you on your contentedness. This is the Holy Grail of the amateur operative who combs the webs for quotes.

Throw in a dose of dull sophistry, and I expect Horn6721, general 35 and maybe Clean to start claiming that Obama is, indeed, literally a penis. "I got a quote! He's not even a whole human, he's just a body part!!"

How can anyone hope to prove otherwise?
 
BTW is there any clarification on what "loophole" he is referring to? Is there really a corporate jet loophole aside from the one Obama put in place a couple of years ago?

Or is he just talking about corporations being able to write off their jet due to amortization of assets? If that's what he's talking about, then what, is he now going to say that accounting principles are only applicable if the government says they are, otherwise we're going to completely screw over how you manage your books?

Or is it that they can write it off as a business expense? So are we going to get in the business of arbitrarily deciding what business expenses are or are not deductible?
 
roma
A really smart person never presumes to know what another will think or will post.

My ONLY comment on Obama being called a D**k was to point out that the person calling him that is known as a bug Obama supporter..

Am I wrong? Is not Halperin generally known to support obama?
 
My understanding is that you can accelerate depreciation on corporate jets from 7 years to 5.

Unless you lease it out, then you are back on 7. My guess is that almost all corps lease those babies out to defray the cost so there is really no revenue to be gained.

It was just a cheap throwaway line and part of the whole political theatre. Presidents should be above that sort of cheap shot but they evidently are not. Pretty clumsy.
 
I see the WaPo Factchecker gave obama 2 Pinocchios for yesterday's presser pointing out things like
"In a bit of class jujitsu, the president six times mentioned eliminating a tax loophole for corporate jets, frequently pitting it against student loans or food safety. It’s a potent image, but in the context of a $4 trillion goal, it is essentially meaningless. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised
, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years."
and
"Eliminating oil and gas preferences would raise $44 billion over 10 years, according to administration figures (table S-8), so that begins to look like real money. But the real dollars are in what the president calls “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires” — eliminating the ability of people making more than $250,000 to itemize their deductions. That proposal would raise $290 billion over 10 years.

Wait a minute, the president said he would target “millionaires and billionaires” and yet the fine print of his proposal would affect couples making more than $250,000 (and individuals making more than $200,000)? That’s right."

and
"Yes, Gaddafi is a bad guy, but Obama conveniently ignores the fact that until the uprising, the administration was rushing to do business with him. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with one of Gaddafi’s sons, Mutassim Gaddafi, in 2009, declaring, “I’m very much looking forward to building on this relationship.”


More at link and explanation of PinocchiosThe Link
 
Wealth in the United States is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Even in this recession, the wealthy in America have grown wealthier, the poor have grown poorer, and the the middle class is disappearing.

Merrill Lynch released a fascinating report on this last week or the week before. I'll see if I can find it.

Class warfare is already being waged, and most of you guys are losing it. Income inequality is at an all-time high and continues to grow.


Of course, in my view, income inequality is irrelevant ----- until it results in revolution. What truly matters is equality before the rule of law. If someone is politically powerful (via wealth or otherwise) and can use force or political influence to gain an unfair advantage at the expense of others, they are not equal with those others in the eyes of the law. On the other hand, if a large group of people vote to inflict harm on a select group of people, this also is not equality.

The common denominator here is government.

In any case, the current trends cannot, and will not, be sustained indefinitely. History offers no examples in which wealth became increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people which did not eventually result in revolution.


In reply to:


 

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top