John
You could afford an Eclipse
According to ForeFlight a direct trip from you to DC will take 103 gallons in a Baron and a 135 gallons in a Eclipse using today’s fuel pricing at your airport that’s $530.45 in the Baron and $519.75 in the Eclipse

Fuel is only one (small-ish) part of owning most jets.

Fuel is only one (small-ish) part of owning most jets.

On a % of hull, what is your insurance running? Ie, $1m hull, $20k/yr insurance = 2%

I see someone in that range in the mirror every morning.

To be frank, if you have 5 million, which includes home value, retirement fund and other assets, and you’re not using the jet for business where you could write at least some of the expense off, it’d be a huge stretch. Even 10 mill all in, you’d have to be seriously dedicated to the cause. JMHO.

On a % of hull, what is your insurance running? Ie, $1m hull, $20k/yr insurance = 2%

That’s a fantastic rate, much better than mine, that is very surprising actually, thank your for researching and sharing

Agree with this. Net worth can help write a check for a jet but you'd need some serious cash flow to keep up with operating one. IIRC in the Citation Mustang thread somebody estimated $180K/year all-in. If the jet is helping you make the jump from 5m to 10m to whatever then great. As a personal traveling machine it's gonna eat you alive.

Nit-picking aside, those wealth buckets are probably reasonable ballpark estimates.

Agree with this. Net worth can help write a check for a jet but you'd need some serious cash flow to keep up with operating one. IIRC in the Citation Mustang thread somebody estimated $180K/year all-in. If the jet is helping you make the jump from 5m to 10m to whatever then great. As a personal traveling machine it's gonna eat you alive.

Nit-picking aside, those wealth buckets are probably reasonable ballpark estimates.

Agree with this. Net worth can help write a check for a jet but you'd need some serious cash flow to keep up with operating one. IIRC in the Citation Mustang thread somebody estimated $180K/year all-in. If the jet is helping you make the jump from 5m to 10m to whatever then great. As a personal traveling machine it's gonna eat you alive.

Nit-picking aside, those wealth buckets are probably reasonable ballpark estimates.

I'm often surprised by who can afford what! If I were to put a number on it, I would say that your "all in" cost shouldn't be more than 25% of your post-tax income. But, there's a lot of variables there. I know people who have very modest homes and vehicles and really nice airplanes.

We have several clients who are sitting on SEVEN FIGURES of profit in their airplane! Yet, none of them will even consider getting rid of the airplane and taking the money.

It's also important to remember that a lot of the folks flying multi-million dollar aircraft didn't just go out and sign a note for the full value, they bought something that was hundreds of thousands, paid it off, upgraded to a million dollar airplane, paid it off, etc.

Same is true in houses, back in the 90's I sold homes, I sold $350k homes (a lot of money back then) to people who made less than $100k a year (combined) but when you put down $250k it's not a big deal. They had bought homes, paid them off and rode the market up.

I'm often surprised by who can afford what! If I were to put a number on it, I would say that your "all in" cost shouldn't be more than 25% of your post-tax income. But, there's a lot of variables there. I know people who have very modest homes and vehicles and really nice airplanes.

We have several clients who are sitting on SEVEN FIGURES of profit in their airplane! Yet, none of them will even consider getting rid of the airplane and taking the money.

It's also important to remember that a lot of the folks flying multi-million dollar aircraft didn't just go out and sign a note for the full value, they bought something that was hundreds of thousands, paid it off, upgraded to a million dollar airplane, paid it off, etc.

Same is true in houses, back in the 90's I sold homes, I sold $350k homes (a lot of money back then) to people who made less than $100k a year (combined) but when you put down $250k it's not a big deal. They had bought homes, paid them off and rode the market up.

Every. Single. One. of our airplanes have all skyrocketed in “sales value”. We have 4 that we bought at $1mm and each could easily be sold in 30 days for $2-2.5mm. And you know what - Not one of my owners is selling. Not One.

There isn’t a single airplane we could buy - even at the $2-2.5mm mark that would replicate, let alone improve on, the capabilities of their current aircraft. Why would they sell (at a ‘profit’) only to have to come up with triple or quadruple the cash to replace the current plane? Just don’t make no sense.

John, I agree with the first statement but certainly do not with the second. It is possible that I don’t understand what you mean and would welcome the opportunity to.

With that said I don’t believe concentrations of wealth are destructive to the economy. At least not in a macro sense (certainly, some personal economics change with wealth concentration). When wealth is concentrated it must be invested to maintain its value or time will degrade its value with inflation. This investment leads to economic growth not destruction. When wealth isn’t concentrated it is used for consumption. The consumption itself creates demand which stimulate the economy. So, from my understanding of economics both are valuable. Sucking money out of the economy to pay for bureaucratic regulation, beyond that required to create stable markets (and internal order and self defense which insure the survival of the economy), are destructive to economies.

We need both investment (concentration) and consumption to make economic growth happen. I’d argue that free markets do this better than other mechanisms (though many have tried, and continue to try, other methods based on attempts to control human behavior rather than allowing natural human behavior to express itself).