American Airlines - Last one standing

On 2005-09-15, sfb wrote:
Airlines and all businesses do not play taxes. They collect them from
passengers and customers who are the government's cash cow.

All U.S. for profit businesses are subject to income, property and
various use and consumption taxes *in addition* to involuntary servitude
as tax and information collector for local, state and federal
government.

On 2005-09-15, nobody wrote:

Congress isn't the one constantly bailing out airlines. The banks are
the ones doing that...

Congress has been spending billions in taxpayer dollars on airline
bailouts for at least 15 years; both cash and loan guarentees. Perhaps
more congressmen ride on airlines than live behind levees

All U.S. for profit businesses are subject to income, property and
various use and consumption taxes *in addition* to involuntary servitude
as tax and information collector for local, state and federal
government.

Yes, but I suspect the O.P. was making the point that businesses pay no
"real" tax, in that every tax they pay is passed along to consumers.

Which is why the Left's diversionary arguments about "making the
corporations pay more" always rings so hollow to my ears, BTW.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bob Moore wrote:

"sfb" wrote in news:NJfWe.25196$8h6.14300@trnddc09:


Southwest, which starting flying in 1971, didn't fly outside Texas
until after deregulation in 1978 when they started service to New
Orleans in 1979.


That's right. Both Southwest and Air Florida (where I served as Director
of Operations) started as INTRASTATE air carriers, not INTERSTATE.
They were both regulated by state authority instead of the CAB/Dept of
Transportation.
We had quite a rush to certificate Air Florida prior to October 1972 at
which time the Florida Public Service Commission intended to implement
route and fare regulations similar to those in effect by the CAB for
Interstate Air Carriers. We grandfathered a lot of stuff on Sep 29, just
before the Oct 1 cutoff date. :-)
Many in the airline industry do not remember that Air Florida was started
with an ex-PanAm B-707-331, N705PA, and after one year, exchanged it for
three ex-Eastern L-188 Electras.

Bob Moore
Air Florida 1972-73
Chief Pilot, Director of Operations


Has everyone forgotten PSA?

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:6j6We.21953$Zv6.4968@trndny03...

I worked on the Hartsfield Airport expansion project in the late 70s.
Southwest was the only carrier I saw flying DC-3 passenger planes into
Atlanta (there were a few cargo carriers using them). I thought it was
cool - they looked like new planes.


I don't think so. Southwest Airlines never operated the DC-3, and didn't
serve it's first city outside Texas until 1979 (New Orleans).

SF3aviatrix wrote:

Those two companies are not the same. The present day Southwest
Airlines has only flown Boeing 737s. Southwest Airways was the DC-3
operator you remember:

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/PRPhotos/DouglasDC-3.htm

Yep, that's it.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Maule Driver wrote:

I just watched a ridiculous airline commercial where 'the boss'
is looking for 'Bob' who he saw earlier this morning. The office staff
tells him that 'Bob' doesn't really work here but flew back home to
Chicago an hour ago. Just like he does several times a week to supply
the 'software' for the office. What planet were they on when they came
up with that one?

Maybe the same one on which a friend of mine lives. Her home is near Morristown,
NJ. Every Monday, she drives to work in Piscataway. That evening, she hops a
plane to her other job in Birmingham. Friday evening, she flies back home.
United loves her. No, she's not typical.

More typical are the people who hop shuttle flights between cities several times
a week. Quite a few BellSouth employees and contractors shuttle back and forth
between B'ham and Atlanta for meetings. I know other people here who spend a lot
of time flying down to DC during the week.

And if you think it's unlikely that someone would make a trip just to supply the
software, we did a lot of that at Telcordia. It's cheaper in the long run to fly
over a skilled installer than to ship a tape or several CDs and have the
customer botch up the installation of a large system.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:reeWe.330700$x96.16375@attbi_s72...
All U.S. for profit businesses are subject to income, property and
various use and consumption taxes *in addition* to involuntary servitude
as tax and information collector for local, state and federal
government.

Yes, but I suspect the O.P. was making the point that businesses pay no
"real" tax, in that every tax they pay is passed along to consumers.

Which is why the Left's diversionary arguments about "making the
corporations pay more" always rings so hollow to my ears, BTW.
--

The issue is not a simple zero-sum pass-through as you suggest. There *is*
some balance to be struck.

The tax burden is shared by the workers (payroll income tax), the
shareholders (dividend income tax), and the consumers (sales taxes and/or
passed-through corporate tax).

In the cases where all three of these entities are the same person, you may
very well be correct: who cares whether the State gets its money from you
as dividend income, or as salary income, or as a sales tax on the end
product.

But on the other hand, the shareholder is not usually also the worker.
Where corporations have millions of shareholders, a great many shareholders
may even be outside the country. Hence taxing corporate profits before
distribution, probably guarantees a better chance of getting at the money
before it leaves the country, whether it is going to legitimate
shareholders, into dodgy tax havens, or being siphoned illegally by the
executive.

The left's argument is, of course, that the tax pendulum has swung too far
to the worker (payroll income tax), and away from the corporate shareholder
and executive. So taxing the corporations would "put more money in the
consumer's pocket" (workers being consumers). Of course the right suggests
this is nonsense, because in their mind, it is the shareholders that are the
consumers.

Neither is wrong, and the question becomes: What is the correct balance?
I am sure both sides can put up "today's" financial numbers and projections
to suggest that *they* are the ones paying too much and that any a reduction
of *their* tax will have huge benefits for the overall economy of the
nation.

Each may be right, or not... but the issue is not a simple zero-sum
pass-through as you suggest.

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:reeWe.330700$x96.16375@attbi_s72...
....

The left's argument is, of course, that the tax pendulum has swung too far
to the worker (payroll income tax), and away from the corporate
shareholder and executive. So taxing the corporations would "put more
money in the consumer's pocket" (workers being consumers). Of course the
right suggests this is nonsense, because in their mind, it is the
shareholders that are the consumers.



"Taxing the corporations" is meant to mean: taxing the corporations more
(less shareholder income), and the workers less (more worker income).

But on the other hand, the shareholder is not usually also the worker.
Where corporations have millions of shareholders, a great many
shareholders may even be outside the country. Hence taxing corporate
profits before distribution, probably guarantees a better chance of
getting at the money before it leaves the country, whether it is going to
legitimate shareholders, into dodgy tax havens, or being siphoned
illegally by the executive.

That's nice, but irrelevant.

Whatever widget (or service) the shareholder's corporation is selling must
be priced proportionately higher in order to pay Mr. Shareholder his
dividend. If you tax Mr. Shareholder's dividend more, he's now making
less -- and the corporation will be compelled to increase profitability, so
that it can pay Mr. Shareholder his expected dividend.

Guess who pays for this increased profitability, in the form of a price
increase? You, me, and every other consumer.

This is obviously a grossly over-simplified example, but there really is NO
free lunch with taxes. Every single tax on business is a tax on the
consumer, in the long run -- and don't let any politician fool you into
thinking otherwise.

Example: Here in Iowa City, there is a 5% state sales tax, and a 7%
hotel/motel tax, added to the price of every, single hotel room. When we
advertise our hotel, we sure don't quote the "with tax" rate (hell, *we*
don't get any of that money), but when you check in -- golly! -- your $99.95
suite now costs $111.95!

Everyone thinks this is a 12% tax on the hotels -- but it ain't. It's just
another way for the politicians to stick it to Joe & Lois Sixpack -- and,
best of all (from the local politico's end) -- most of the people paying it
don't get to vote here! There are therefore NO repercussions against the
tax instigators at all.

And so it is with the airlines. Tax them, and you tax *us*.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"