For anyone to be demonized, someone has to convince you that they are somehow less human than you. When something is less human then you, then you feel better about fighting against them, killing them, or taking things from them. I learend this first-hand when I was in the military. There in the Army soldiers were trained either by proxy or directly that the people we were warring against were horribly nasty people who’s sole mission in life was to kill you because you were American. Sure, there are people who simply hate people to hate people but there are many others who will fight against you simply because they are “protecting their turf” – you have killed their family, bombed their cities and historic areas, and your government is invading and taking over their government. They don’t hate you, they hate what you are doing.
Killing another human being is something that isn’t really in our nature as a coherent and conscious being. We have to be trained to tricked into doing this. One of the easiest way of doing this is to call them names. In the Army, we wern’t killing people, we were killing terrorist. Likewise, the opposition called us desert pigs. You see, it is easy to kill a terrorist or a desert pig – it is difficult to kill a Doug, Charlie, Mohammed, or Aban.
The same goes for any group that you want to demonize and justify causing some sort of harm to them. Enter politics. For some time now there has been a class warfare system going on. With Marxist beliefs on the rise – people are finding new ways to demonize groups so that the general population feels better about restricting or taxing them more. After all, if our government simply says that we are going to now tax your neighbor Jim more because he drives a Porsche and you drive a ford, then that is personal to you because you know Jim as a good guy. However, if we say that we are going to tax people who fly to work on private-jets, then we can now demonize them because we make them seem less human – in this case, less of a practical human being.
It is no secret that the magic number Obama has chosen as being too rich is $250,000/year. Anyone with any know-how knows that $250,000 a year, while is a nice amount, is not really “rich.” Many of these “rich” people simply “make” that much because they own a small business. But Obama can’t say that we are going to tax small business owners so instead he says that we are going to tax private-jet owners.
Obama is pushing the emotional buttons of Americans and saying, “Democrats are for kids and Republicans are for fat-cats with private jets.” This is class warfare – rich versus poor. Bourgeoisie vs Proletariat. Obama has his welfare state and many people are depending on it; however, the coffer is drying up and he needs to refill it. to refill it he has to take from somone and his number is $250k or more and to justify this he is saying that all people that make over $250k are jet-owners.
When are we going to realize that we can’t tax people simply because they have more than us? It is like going back to the playground when I was 3… Johnny has a new toy, I want it, so I cry until someone takes his toy and gives it to me. In this case, Johnny makes over $250k, I want it to pay for social programs, so I cry and vote for people who will take it and give it to me.
Here is a related article.
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.”
(Courtesy of JetSuite Air)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.