American Airlines - Last one standing

"SF3aviatrix" wrote in message
...

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


No, he's remembering Southern Airways.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:kIlWe.20637$ck6.2771@trndny05...

Yep, that's it.


I don't think so. I think it's this one:

http://www.southernairways.org/image...%20DC-3atl.jpg

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:kIlWe.20637$ck6.2771@trndny05...

Yep, that's it.


I don't think so. I think it's this one:

http://www.southernairways.org/image...%20DC-3atl.jpg

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:kIlWe.20637$ck6.2771@trndny05...

Yep, that's it.


I don't think so. I think it's this one:

http://www.southernairways.org/image...%20DC-3atl.jpg

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:kIlWe.20637$ck6.2771@trndny05...

Yep, that's it.

I don't think so. I think it's this one:

Nope. I distinctly remember the circular sort of Aztec symbol. And it was
definitely Southwestern.

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.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:eJqWe.6030$sa6.5327@trndny06...

Nope. I distinctly remember the circular sort of Aztec symbol. And it was
definitely Southwestern.


Southwest Airways routes definitely did not extend to Atlanta. Southwest
ceased using DC-3s around 1955 and in 1958 changed it's name to Pacific Air
Lines, so I don't see how you could have seen Southwest Airways DC-3s
serving Hartsfield in the late 70s.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:A2pWe.331656$x96.76629@attbi_s72...
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.

....snip...

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!



That is exactly how it *is* "relevant". Your example has added 12USD of
taxes to the consumer. If that 12USD was not collected from the consumer,
the equivalent would have to be collected from the workers. You have
changed the distribution of the taxation load.

You may argue that is good place to shift the load, others may argue that is
bad.

Also, your example is strictly consumer taxation, not taxation on corporate
profit. Corporate taxes may or may not be passed down to the consumer. The
corporation's reduced after-tax profit may be offset instead by slower
expansion. Or, in a "competitive market", the corporation well may have to
reduce dividends to keep prices down and maintain market share. That's
where the big debate occurs....

And especially, corporate taxation addresses the issue of profits leaving
the country.

My whole point was not the right or wrong of how the balance should be
distributed between workers, consumers, shareholders, and corporate
expansion.

My point was that adding or reducing corporate taxes changes this balance
and is *not* a simple pass-through always to the consumer...as you suggested
in your original post. Instead, corporate taxation is a re-distribution of
the taxation load away from the worker.


And of course, as you suggest. it *isn't* simple. Governments have
interesting ways of "decreasing" (or "increasing") taxes for some sector,
whether labour, corporate, or consumer.... only to institute other
benefits/costs that may totally negate or even reverse that action.

So it may be interesting to see the actually amount of dollars which the
government gets from each of those 3 sectors, if reliable numbers could be
found, somewhere. One particular budget-analysis think tank, will have us
believe that the overall share of government revenue from corporations (in
2003) was lower than any year since 1930, except for 1983. And was 1/3
lower in 2003 than even 2000.

Again, we can argue that this is good, or this is bad, that is not the
point. But that share of government revenue has been shifted to somebody
else. *That* is the point. Corporate taxation re-distributes the tax
burden.

Bleep, bleep, and more bleep. All monies paid by corporations as taxes
come out of the consumers pocket. Period.

All this crap about shifting burdens is political double talk about
bribing voters with the voter's own money. You sound like Senator Kerry
explaining how the flat tax would allow the high income folks to escape
their fair share when in fact it would have cost his wife $750,000 in
additional taxes.

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:A2pWe.331656$x96.76629@attbi_s72...
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.

...snip...

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!



That is exactly how it *is* "relevant". Your example has added 12USD
of taxes to the consumer. If that 12USD was not collected from the
consumer, the equivalent would have to be collected from the workers.
You have changed the distribution of the taxation load.

You may argue that is good place to shift the load, others may argue
that is bad.

Also, your example is strictly consumer taxation, not taxation on
corporate profit. Corporate taxes may or may not be passed down to
the consumer. The corporation's reduced after-tax profit may be
offset instead by slower expansion. Or, in a "competitive market",
the corporation well may have to reduce dividends to keep prices down
and maintain market share. That's where the big debate occurs....

And especially, corporate taxation addresses the issue of profits
leaving the country.

My whole point was not the right or wrong of how the balance should be
distributed between workers, consumers, shareholders, and corporate
expansion.

My point was that adding or reducing corporate taxes changes this
balance and is *not* a simple pass-through always to the consumer...as
you suggested in your original post. Instead, corporate taxation is a
re-distribution of the taxation load away from the worker.


And of course, as you suggest. it *isn't* simple. Governments have
interesting ways of "decreasing" (or "increasing") taxes for some
sector, whether labour, corporate, or consumer.... only to institute
other benefits/costs that may totally negate or even reverse that
action.

So it may be interesting to see the actually amount of dollars which
the government gets from each of those 3 sectors, if reliable numbers
could be found, somewhere. One particular budget-analysis think tank,
will have us believe that the overall share of government revenue from
corporations (in 2003) was lower than any year since 1930, except for
1983. And was 1/3 lower in 2003 than even 2000.

Again, we can argue that this is good, or this is bad, that is not the
point. But that share of government revenue has been shifted to
somebody else. *That* is the point. Corporate taxation
re-distributes the tax burden.

On 2005-09-16, Icebound wrote:

That is exactly how it *is* "relevant". Your example has added 12USD of
taxes to the consumer. If that 12USD was not collected from the consumer,
the equivalent would have to be collected from the workers. You have
changed the distribution of the taxation load.

Your thesis presumes workers are not consumers.

I operate a one man business. Is this a corporation? Yes, Do I/we pay
taxes? Yes. Do I work? Yes. Do I consume? Yes.

Governments know that if all your taxes (income, property, consumption,
excise, et al) were bundled on a single bill that there *would* be a
tax revolt. Decentralization of collection is key to maximum
extraction.

Your presumption that "...would have to be collected..." presumes
society is better off with government consuming substantial fractions of
the workers production. Silly.

Why does the government bother classifying airlines? Other than some
Commerce department financial kind of thing, there is no reason for
any classifications.

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 121...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote
None of what I posted in anyway said that SW was a major in 1979 and
the part you quoted above was in response to a statement that if an
airline didn't have international routes it isn't a major and that's
just silly.

Definitions have changed from time to time, but currently, the US
Government defines "Major", "National", "Large Regional", and
"Medium Regional" air carriers. The difference is solely based on
annual revenue except in the case of the "Medium Regional" where
there is a cutoff of 30 seat a/c as I recall. There are other
definitions such as Domestic/Flag and Scheduled/Supplemental.

Bob Moore