Well, it seems the discussion of wealth is directly related to the airplane market inasmuch as everyone who participates in it is wealthy to a degree - at least in comparison to most of the rest of the planet.

In the thread we've now seen quite an upwelling of support for a leveling of wealth beyond personal preference. I say personal preference as there is no, to my knowledge, any movement to actually cap wealth at a number. Which raises the essential question of who decides when enough is enough?

Those opposed to unlimited accumulation stand on the moral ground that it foments unfairness (whatever that is - and by this I mean that the concept is equally fuzzy, ill defined and transmutable), corruption and obscenity (again, whatever that is). They seem to feel that if wealth were only capped we'd be all the closer to that ideal we fled from when Adam first desired more than he was to have.

But, again, who decides? Certainly, in the case of Adam the deity did. Shall we now set up some other version of deity to decide in the present case?

But to be practical one must agree that progress in all its forms comes as a result of unmet desire. Or perhaps you'd rather call it ambition, drive or something similar. In other words greed in some form. Greed, much maligned as it is, is in its many manifestations the driver of progress in the world. If I work hard, take risk, save my capital instead of squander it (on airplanes?) perhaps I can do better, have more and - obscenity of obscenity - give it to whom I wish rather than whom I am dictated to.

If you cap by artificial means those drives you will undoubted see negative and entirely foreseeable results. John likes to postulate homilies of his life in the rural south as proof of his arguments. In similar fashion I'll offer one of my own. As a college student in the 1970's I came home early in the fall one year to find my father hard at work. Yet, it wasn't on his business which was being left to run itself. No, it seems that the government in those days determined to limit individual incomes by imposing taxes in 80-90 per range above what someone(s) had decided was enough (unless you wanted to contribute to certain pet projects of those in power, i.e. "tax shelters"). What I saw my father doing was turning his creative and ambitious energies into trying to hold on to what he'd already earned rather than productively creating more. And he was as ordinary a human being in this respect as anyone.

Or, perhaps the rich will simply go elsewhere. Most of the rest of the world is less interested in wringing their hands over unfairness (which is an impossibly specious thing to prove) as they are in getting ahead (just witness citizenship sales for one thing, or the active assistance of governments in sheltering wealth in much of the world as another). A simple example, close to home, can be seen in how this works when you consider the recent change of domiciles of the very wealthy from New York to Florida.

Look, this isn't a new issue. People have been arguing this topic since the beginning of time. An instructive example of the entire cycle can be seen if one is willing to devote some time to studying the French Revolution for example. Lots of smoke, noise and head rolling and we're back once again to? Well the rich get richer and the sans cullottes go back to where they came from. Right Citizen? Or perhaps we cap the rich and then they are neither able to help, or perhaps become unwilling, and then JP can't save the nation as he did in 1893 and 1895.

If you've made it this far let me summarize. You can't apply simple theories to complex problems and hope to do anything more than complicate things in ways you can't possibly imagine. And, who decides, is a dangerous slope from which you yourself may lose your footing. Eh, Robespierre?

I'm going to guess it's the same person that decides when I've finally paid my "fair share".

Nothing like looking at median net worth graphs to make you feel fortunate, and airplane prices to make you feel more ambitious.

I think your story is a little misleading.
Per Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... %20dollars,
"For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% 1954 through 1963. For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981. In 1978 income brackets were adjusted for inflation, so fewer people were taxed at high rates.[36] The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% for tax years 1982 through 1986."

By the 70's, the top marginal rate had diminished quite a bit from what it had been for previous decades. I'm pretty sure that the US had run up quite a war debt and that these extreme top marginal rates helped pay that down.
Are the 50's and 60's remembered for diminished prosperity and entrepreneurship? I don't think so.

I would like to add a bit of humor into this heavy, meaningful and worthwhile discussion.

Last week we received a form letter from the IRS advising that they have not received our Income Tax Return for 2020. The letter further advised that they were crediting our account with some $2,8xx.xx which represented our four $500 quarterly estimated tax payments and the $8xx.xx additional amount that was due for taxes that year per our Tax Return.

The IRS clearly received and deposited the $8xx.xx check within a week of our mailing it to them, as indicated by a check image from our Credit Union which reflects this. This occurred in late March 2021, prior to the filing deadline.

The punchline is that this check was mailed to the IRS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE with the Income Tax Return which they claim to have not received.

Now, unless a Postal Worker opened my envelope, removed my Tax Return and then forwarded the check with the Payment Voucher to the IRS, the IRS must have received our Return. The cancelled check is proof of receipt.

Our government in action. Or is it inaction?

You likely made an error, my dad tried to help me do my taxes when I was running my first business in grade school, he helped me calculate and send in the payments, the IRS ended up doing the same thing, they refunded it all and sent it back, and also sent a letter saying the return was not received

My dad, not knowing any better, said well you’re off the hook

6 years later, I was surprised to see a regular paycheck not appear when expected, that was when I got to learn about garnishing first hand; and penalties; and interest, and how a statute of limitations didn’t apply to missing or non-filed returns

I hired a CPA to investigate and learned a lot in the process, the punchline was, don’t ever do your own taxes, and always file in a manner where you can receive a receipt/proof of filing, ACH is preferred these days

Sending a physical check in the mail, certified or registered, or having a scanned check image of a cashed check, will end up costing you more than it’s worth

Disagree with me? Now the IRS wants facial recognition for their electronic payment and filing system, what does that tell you?

Brian, I recently checked my IRS online account and there was also a message that they had not received my 2020 tax return.

However, several months ago I received a notice that I had made a mistake on my 2020 tax return (I didn't, but that's another story). It showed my reported income amounts for 2020, so obviously they did receive and process my tax return.

Some big glitch going on at the IRS.

I received a similar letter from the IRS, but it was notification of some type of refund for something I’m not sure we filled.

Two emails, one to our CPA and one to our tax attorney.

Dealing with the IRS is like negotiating potato prices with an Irish farmer.

(I’m a descendant of Irish potato farmers so I can say that)

Hire experts. Money well spent.

I've been trying to avoid addressing this, but when Tony Caldwell misses the point, a little explanation is appropriate.

Let's start with a tidbit that should garner some attention.

50% of the land is England is owned by 1% of the population.

In 2007, Karen and I were visiting John Jr. who was taking some advanced economics courses at the University of St. Andrews. We only saw him for supper as he was in class and lectures all day, so we drove through the countryside on our own for several days.

I kept seeing sigs that simply had numbers on them, the exact numbers I don't recall, but it was something like 85/7. The next morning at the B & B where we were staying, I asked the owner what they meant. He said it was a political statement regarding the percentage of land in Scotland owned by private individuals, mostly acquired through the structure of royalty over the years.

I stirred thought that led me to recall purchases of vast amounts of land by the mega rich in the western states, as well as large tracts of farm land in Mississippi. So, I played with some numbers.

First, I took the Forbes 400 list and started adding assets starting with #1. I was a looking for a number on which a 5% annual return would buy "how much?" agricultural land in Mississippi at a average purchase price of $1,500/acre. I gave a number of 90% of the acreage as "farmland" vs. urban.

When I had totaled the assets of the richest 80 families in the country, I put the annual income figure to the purchase price. IN ONE YEAR, THOSE PEOPLE COULD PURCHASE THE ENTIRE STATES OF ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.

This wealth under current tax laws can be passed to untold generations of descendants. The power this money wields has no relationship to the democratic process of our nation.

Go to London and visit a real estate office to buy an apartment/condo/flat, whatever you want to call it. You will look at a hundred listings and not find one where the land will be passed fee simple. 99.9% will have term estates of, usually, less than 30 years.

The issue of housing is probably the #1 political issue in Scotland. There is simply no land available for development and the people are living in squalor in most areas.

Just keep on supporting the unchecked accumulation of wealth in this country and you, we, will become nothing more than the peons of the landed class.

Jg

I think your story is a little misleading.
Per Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... %20dollars,
"For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% 1954 through 1963. For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981. In 1978 income brackets were adjusted for inflation, so fewer people were taxed at high rates.[36] The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% for tax years 1982 through 1986."

By the 70's, the top marginal rate had diminished quite a bit from what it had been for previous decades. I'm pretty sure that the US had run up quite a war debt and that these extreme top marginal rates helped pay that down.
Are the 50's and 60's remembered for diminished prosperity and entrepreneurship? I don't think so.

I haven't missed anything. I see the arguments. I see the point of the homilies and the intellectual misdirection. Understand them. And have a different point of view.

The entire state of Alabama isn't owned by the wealthy people and in the Scottish example you fail to mention that over time the amount owned by the aristocracy has declined and continues to decline as a consequence of taxation.

If you do a casual search on wealth inequality there are many statistics to be found showing how it has grown. Over the last 50 years. It's much harder to find any thinking on the subject over a broader period of time. Why? It's because there is a political axe to grind and seeing who, and where, stakes are being placed in the ground it's clear we're on a slippery slope. There has always been massive inequality and while the amount waxes and wanes the current period isn't unusual.

In this country the overwhelming majority of millionaires are self made. Studies and estimates vary between roughly two thirds and 80%. A majority of billionaires are self made. Wealth inequality has always existed throughout time and place and when viewed in a broader historical context is not especially disparate today. What is disparate is the level of hurdle one must overcome to make to wealth. Taxes have never been higher. Regulation designed to prevent progress has never been greater.

Even if it were it is undeniable that the rising tide of history, in economic terms, has lifted all boats. Today in America everyone has better access to health care, more calories, better housing, more comprehensive education, more easily accessible entertainment, shorter work hours and safer work and a better living standard than at any other time in history. The sum of this fact is expressed in life expectancy though there are many, many other measures.

I was not born into a wealthy family. In fact I grew up rather poor. I did not drive an expensive sports car as a youngster or enjoy the other fruits of wealth. I grew up in a house with no furniture with a father who worked 16 hours a day in the hopes of improving his lot and my future. I did receive ultimately an excellent education and a burning desire to succeed. My children's head start is different. But, history, including that of my own family, shows that my progeny's future economic situation will wax and wane with their own efforts, talents, opportunities and luck. What I don't want is to have their future proscribed by someone lopping off their inheritance to give it to a yawning bureaucratic monster who regurgitates a fraction of what it takes in to those who don't want to make the effort to take advantage of the opportunities in front of them. And, as long as I am able to grasp I don't want the thing for which I grasp to be arbitrarily removed from my dreaming.

Who decides? And further, what do they decide? I hope they don't decide to proscribe or circumscribe the dream of reaching for, and occasionally grasping, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of hard work, risk taking and luck and replace it with a handful of brass. Those who whistle past the graveyard as they cruise slowly by in their own wealth and comfort would do well to remember the wisdom expressed by Niemoller when he said "when they came for me there was no one left to speak out". A different context to be sure but the point is apt.

This is where I see it going in a very big way. You can't help people when the government keeps taking your resources away, or, the people you are trying to help refuse to help themselves then criticize you for having what you have.

Tony,

I agree with JGG that you are missing the point.

The problem that we must deal with is corruption. Wealth enables that corruption but it is the corruption that is the problem. It is the corruption that tears countries apart (as in your French Revolution reference) because people see a small group of people getting benefits that they do not get. You have not addressed a single one of my examples of corruption and explained why they are ok.

If the wealthy simply amassed money through legal and non-corrupt means, and then spent it on nice houses, boats, airplanes, cars, and food, no one would have any problem. But the wealthy (as a whole) do not do that. They use their wealth to change the system to further advantage themselves. At some point, the people get pi$$ed off and revolt or something happens to reset the system. Controls are put in place, and the process starts all over again where the history is forgotten and the controls are slowly removed so as not to "impede progress" (Glass-Steagall ayone?). This has been the cycle throughout human history.

If we don't solve the corruption problem, we stand to lose everything. So my question to you is, what is your solution to eliminate or greatly reduce the corruption?

the big question i see is when you make decisions as a business owner how do you make decisions.
do you ask what is in it for me?
or do you ask what is in it for us?

I found that by running my company using the second question I did very well and I had a happy group of employees that worked hard for everyone to do well.

Corruption always exists. The degree to which it is noticeable, and the percentage that exists, is probably due to what stage the bureaucracy is at. The corruption factor per stage of lifecycle may be a universal and unchangeable constant. If so, the only way to change is revolution (bureaucratic reset), preferably without the guillotine.

What stage of the cycle do you think the US is at (keeping in mind item II 3 c here - https://www.beechtalk.com/btc/tos/)?



From - https://www.businessinsider.com/the-lif ... cy-2010-12

** Edited to add more recent link referencing this diagram - https://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb22/in ... s2-22.html