BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Mar 2021, 19:41

Username Protected wrote:

From attending a TBMOPA convention, I know the TBM owners either love or hate theirs.

The pros are ease of access to the cockpit and being able to close the cabin door from the outside, instead of feeling like you are twerking for your passengers.

The big downside, though, is that it apparently gets pretty cold. A lot of folks have either custom or makeshift covers for the pilot door to help keep things warm. There's also a small weight penalty.

Patrick,

Put me in the love camp. I had a completely unmodified door. Never cold, even in the coldest air of the year. Had issues with door seals. Well, lots of issues with door seals. Never had an issue with payload. Personally, I wouldn't buy one without the pilot door.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Mar 2021, 00:43

Username Protected wrote:

the 3 guys who own Globals personally would have to go Falcon shopping and I’m sure they’d cry bloody murder all the way down.

No, they will go country shopping for one not so punishing of success and leave the USA.

And take their enterprises that employ thousands with them, including the people who make and service Globals.

If we tax wealth heavily, do you think SpaceX would exist? Or would be in the USA?

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Mar 2021, 00:44

Username Protected wrote:

No, that would defeat the purpose, but it does mean no one (or few people) are poor, which means they can educate themselves and contribute skilled labor to the economy. Reduces crime and and all kinds of other problems as well. I only think this works if we have a high level of wealth disparity, such as the increasingly absurd numbers we see in the USA.

I really hate when people feel the need to inject their political beliefs in a conversation. It's completely unnecessary and likely to piss off 50% of the people. I have lots more to say about taking from the rich to give to the poor but I will follow my own advice. Lets talk about airplanes, okay?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Mar 2021, 05:16

Username Protected wrote:

No matter what the Cirrus SF50 is called, it's a single-engine turbine plane without a propeller, which makes it more desirable to me than a single engine turbine plane with a propeller.

Exactly.

That's why they were delivering 5 brand new ones to customers at the Cirrus training center in Knoxville the week I was there in October.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Mar 2021, 09:44

Username Protected wrote:

we agree giving everything to one person is a bad idea.

Nobody "gave" everything to one person.

Most of the hyper wealthy earned it by having millions of people electing to buy their company products. This is exactly how we want the system to work.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Mar 2021, 11:37

Username Protected wrote:

we agree giving everything to one person is a bad idea.

Nobody "gave" everything to one person.

Most of the hyper wealthy earned it by having millions of people electing to buy their company products. This is exactly how we want the system to work.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2021, 04:33

Username Protected wrote:

Nobody "gave" everything to one person.

Most of the hyper wealthy earned it by having millions of people electing to buy their company products. This is exactly how we want the system to work.

Mike C.

It’s simply amazing that you have to state this. Especially hear. Thank you.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2021, 11:36

Username Protected wrote:

Except it’s not correct. For every Sam Walton there are dozens of Alice Waltons, etc. The best single predictor of wealth is how much money your parents have.

And I was speaking hypothetically. We can agree concentration of wealth is bad for economies (so much so it’s a key metric of what defines a developed country or third world country, it’s called the Gini index). Feudalism is bad and communism is bad. Somewhere in between lies the answer. As a society we’re still struggling with this, but it’s a fact that the United States has markedly increasing wealth disparity. The marginal tax rate in the United States in 1951 was 91%. If anyone tried to suggest that today they’d be labeled a socialist and laughed out of the room. People would claim it would destroy the economy.

I’ve found people get very emotional over the idea that people with money largely got there by luck, or at least that is a key ingredient, because it means hard work won’t get people there and that idea is infuriating. Elon Musk is very likely not the smartest person at SpaceX, and he is very likely not the hardest working (especially given he has two full time jobs), but he’s the only one that sold a yellow pages business in the 90s and had unlimited risk tolerance to roll the dice twice more on PayPal and Tesla, both companies started by other people. On paper, his income last year was $140,000,000,000 (from one of his jobs). When would it be unfair? If it was 14 trillion?

Perhaps you should look up Carrado Gini. First of all, he was a statistician, not an economist. Secondly, he was a huge supporter of Mussolini and Hitler and Fascists in general (I mean Fascists in the political/economic sense, not in the modern usage where it means "people who disagree with me"). This is not an economic forum, and I think that we should get back to airplane talk, but I'll close with a little math: both X/0 and infinity/a large number = infinity. The ratio tells you absolutely nothing about the numerator or denominator.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2021, 12:09

Username Protected wrote:

Except it’s not correct. For every Sam Walton there are dozens of Alice Waltons, etc.

Except that is not correct.

Top 10 richest people in USA (as of July 2020 per Forbes):

1. Jeff Bezos - $179 billion
2. Bill Gates - $111 billion
3. Mark Zuckerberg - $85 billion
4. Warren Buffet - $73.5 billion
5. Larry Ellison - $72 billion
6. Steve Ballmer - $69 billion
7. Elon Musk - $68 billion
8. Larry Page - $67.5 billion
9. Sergey Brin - $65.7 billion
10. Alice Walton - $62.3 billion

I don't see a "dozens" to 1 ratio from "old" to "new" money. Of the above, only 1 is "old" money, the top 9 are self made.

The VAST majority of the wealth above is virtual. It isn't actually "money", it is perceived worth on paper mostly of the stock they hold in their enterprises. All of that wealth wasn't "taken" from someone, it is derived almost entirely from the opinion of others what their companies are worth. A huge number of people collectively decided what Jeff Bezos is worth, not himself, and he's not sitting on a $179B pile of gold he stole from everybody. It is a complete myth that Jeff Bezos "took" something, he instead "created" something that others find valuable.

You imagine some sort of evil imbalance of wealth, but in reality, the wealth is virtual and you can't "take it" and give it to the poor because it does not truly exist. As soon as you "take it", it disappears, it is just perception, a mirage.

If everybody in the above list decided to "cash out", sell all their holdings, they would devalue their holding so much as to make them worthless. There just isn't enough hard wealth to buy it all. If that is attempted, all the little investors who have that stock are losing wealth. Indeed, a wealth tax, forcing the above to pay actual real money based on perceived wealth, will cause them to have to sell stock, which will lower their stock price, which will take wealth from the little investors. The little investors are ultimately the ones who pay the wealth tax.

I think it is amazing and wonderful that the wealthiest humans on the planet are those who created things used by just about everybody else. You do not have to go too far back in human history to find the wealthiest humans on the planet were those who oppressed and stole their way to wealth.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2021, 12:41

But, but....feelings. It feels like they have too much and I feel like I have too little. It just doesn't feel fair.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2021, 13:16

Username Protected wrote:

No, that would defeat the purpose, but it does mean no one (or few people) are poor, which means they can educate themselves and contribute skilled labor to the economy. Reduces crime and and all kinds of other problems as well. I only think this works if we have a high level of wealth disparity, such as the increasingly absurd numbers we see in the USA.

The number of successful people who can afford to fly a Bonanza would go way up, the 3 guys who own Globals personally would have to go Falcon shopping and I’m sure they’d cry bloody murder all the way down.

To the privileged, equality feels like oppression. Redistributing the money and resources people didn't work for themselves would make the world a better place for sure.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2021, 13:24

" quote :The marginal tax rate in the United States in 1951 was 91%. If anyone tried to suggest that today they’d be labeled a socialist and laughed out of the room. People would claim it would destroy the economy.

[/quote]

LOL I always love this argument. The "effective tax rate" (you now, the one people ACTUALLY pay not the top tax rate) was 27% in 1951 which is pretty much what it is today. No one paid 91% then just like very few pay 39% today. In 1951 the amount of DEDUCTIONS you could take off of your income was 10 - 20s as many as you can today. THATS the difference.

Once again you are engage in hyperbole.

People working in their own selfish self interests create markets that benefit society far more than any governmental steal and redistiubute program ever has. Name me one successful socialist/marxist nation.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2021, 14:39

It would be nice to talk about airplanes.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2021, 14:53

Cirrus really did something interesting with the VisionJet. V-tail, single-engine, parachute, auto land, all great ideas and pretty successful in sales too. One pilot at my home airfield uses his to fly tons of Angel Flights. Lucky to be his passenger.

I was kind of hoping that Piper would try its single-engine jet design but it never came to fruition.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2021, 16:13

Username Protected wrote:

Cirrus really did something interesting with the VisionJet. V-tail, single-engine, parachute, auto land, all great ideas and pretty successful in sales too. One pilot at my home airfield uses his to fly tons of Angel Flights. Lucky to be his passenger.

I was kind of hoping that Piper would try its single-engine jet design but it never came to fruition.

It sorta did. I'm told the wing ended up on the M600 (or at least some of the design). My old business partner who owns one told me that...not sure how much of it actually was used.

CirrusJet Vs EclipseJet comparo