Does anyone seem to understand the fact that there are some very poor rich people out there who are not even wealthy enough to be able to afford a corporate jet? DOES ANYONE? Conservative tabloid The Wall Street Journal is not convinced that even the President of the United States knows this, so they typed out some important journalism that was titled, “Obama Calls People Making $250,000 a Year ‘Jet Owners.’” That’ll show him! Just more of the WSJ‘s typical Pulitzer-prize winning reporting, a job well done. EXCEPT THAT Obama never actually said this, at all, ever. Someone eventually noticed this and now the blog post is just titled with a dumb tip: “Note to Obama: $250,000-a-Year Earners Can’t Afford Jets.” Uh, thanks? Obama will try to remember not to close the tax loopholes on these peoples’ imaginary jets.
What is the point of the WSJ blog post? There isn’t one. Here it is trying to make the point that probably the taxes on corporate jets aren’t actually even so bad, but, uh, everyone should remember that not all rich people can afford private air travel:
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.
Does everyone feel better at math now? Thanks for that, WSJ. We’ll try to keep those unfortunate poor rich people in mind. NEVER FORGET, etc. [WSJ.com]Related