Trickle down economics and the airlines

[Dan Roman]

Lot of debate on this subject and I don't discount either viewpoint. But...trickle down seems to have failed. Yes it can create jobs, but it seems to me it has created much more CEO wealth and stockholder wealth than it has created new or better paying jobs.
Look in our industry. UAL employees have gotten totally hosed. But management has taken millions in bonus's and what was that 400 mil paid out to stockholders? All across corporate America CEO pay has sky rocketed and the middle class has fallen further and further behind. And of course our economy is in shambles now under the trickle down era.
Seems to me that trying to help the people under $250.000 a year is a pretty good idea.
I'm not rich enough to retire, but I'm doing fine. I don't need a tax break. If anything, the more people in the lower income brackets than I am (no I don't make more than 250) SHOULD be getting the help. The better they do, the more money people will have to spend on airline tickets. Everyone benefits and it's pretty sad that some people are trying to call that socialism. Tweaking the tax structure to benefit a much greater percentage of our population is so far from socialism it's absurd. It's the right thing to do or all of us.

 

[777forever]

Trickle down economics is a scam cover up for the true intention of greed.

When businesses cut jobs or wages following a downturn they are not giddy to increase costs as soon as they start making money.

McCain wants to help his corporate buddies get richer at the expense of the middle class, the true people that make the whole economy turn.

McSame, No Millionaire left behind, etc...the list goes on.

There's nothing wrong with being rich and achieving the American dream. But when you start using unethical tactics to take more away from those that work hard to pad your already fat pockets there is something very wrong with that.

United's managment is making MUCH more than CEOs at the most profitable airlines in the world like Singapore and Cathay. That is flat out wrong.

The US corporate system is completely corrupt and filled with greed. People in this country are getting sick of it. Its time for a change.

 

[Smarta$$]

Finally, some one gets it. Well said.

 

[JumpJetter]

....Tweaking the tax structure to benefit a much greater percentage of our population is so far from socialism it's absurd. It's the right thing to do or all of us.

But your candidate doesn't want to just "tweak" taxes on the lower end...he wants to eliminate them and in some cases, especially for those who don't pay INCOME taxes, offset their social security taxes with refunds! Now your side likes to call social security taxes "payroll taxes" to disguise what they really are, which is payments we all make to a socialized retirement. Why should they not have to pay those, or should I say be "rebated" those payments? How do you get a rebate, if you don't pay the 'bate'? Do you truly believe that to be fair?

How can you cut taxes on 95% of working Americans if 40% don't pay INCOME taxes....oh I see...the answer is ALL workers pay Social Security taxes.....errr....ahhhh....PAYroll taxes (sounds more palatable when you call them that). So let's off set those so that 40% of Americans don't pay ANYTHING for this democracy you and I enjoy. Is that fair?

Who pays taxes anyway?

Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

For Tax Year 2006
(AGI = Adjusted Gross Income)

Percentiles Ranked by AGI*******AGI Threshold on Percentiles *******Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% ******* $388,806 ******* 39.89

Top 5% *******$153,542 *******60.14

Top 10% *******$108,904 *******70.79

Top 25% ******* $64,702 *******86.27

Top 50% *******$31,987 ******* 97.01

Bottom 50% *******<$31,987 *******2.99

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service



...and while we are at it let me give you a very simple example of trickle down econ.

When gas prices went sky high, I cut my lawn guys who where costing me $80 bucks a month. Now that they are lower (lower taxes serve the same purpose) I'm considering hiring them back, thus a portion of the income my company pays me, is flowing through my household to another household. What is so difficult to understand here?

 

[Smacktard]

Lot of debate on this subject and I don't discount either viewpoint. But...trickle down seems to have failed. Yes it can create jobs, but it seems to me it has created much more CEO wealth and stockholder wealth than it has created new or better paying jobs.
Look in our industry. UAL employees have gotten totally hosed. But management has taken millions in bonus's and what was that 400 mil paid out to stockholders? All across corporate America CEO pay has sky rocketed and the middle class has fallen further and further behind. And of course our economy is in shambles now under the trickle down era.
Seems to me that trying to help the people under $250.000 a year is a pretty good idea.
I'm not rich enough to retire, but I'm doing fine. I don't need a tax break. If anything, the more people in the lower income brackets than I am (no I don't make more than 250) SHOULD be getting the help. The better they do, the more money people will have to spend on airline tickets. Everyone benefits and it's pretty sad that some people are trying to call that socialism. Tweaking the tax structure to benefit a much greater percentage of our population is so far from socialism it's absurd. It's the right thing to do or all of us.

Oh man, here we go again. The bottom 50% pay 3% of the tax revenue. The top 1% pay 40% of the revenue. Fine, take away from the rich and give to the poor. It has never worked in the history of humankind, but, for some reason, you think it will work again, good luck with that.

Name for me please one nation that has ever become a nation of corporations exploiting the masses and leaving untold millions dead or dying. I can name many nations where government exploit(ed) the masses and leaves/left untold hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, etc dead or dying.

Lower taxes do work, they have increased the government budget and revenues to the highest it has ever been, in the history of the planet. The problem is we grew government along with it and tried to put the poor, down trodden, nonproductive citizens in houses they could never afford and, imagine that, the whole thing collapsed.

So go on thinking it was a few greedy CEOs that caused this, and I'll continue to believe that the rich already carry the burden of the lower class and nothing will change. Except for the marginalization of the individual to be replaced with an inept, corrupt, government that will make this 10 times worse. Go Obama. Can't wait to see the jobs report in 2 years...

 

[Fox-Tree]

The one thing that Obama and his socialist "spread the wealth" group seems to forget is simple math.

A person making more than 250,000 doesn't need to be slapped twice by being put in a higher tax bracket. They already pay more because they make more and their taxes are a PERCENTAGE of what they make.

 

[Dan Roman]

...and while we are at it let me give you a very simple example of trickle down econ.

When gas prices went sky high, I cut my lawn guys who where costing me $80 bucks a month. Now that they are lower (lower taxes serve the same purpose) I'm considering hiring them back, thus a portion of the income my company pays me, is flowing through my household to another household. What is so difficult to understand here?

I thought I made it clear in my post that I did understand the concept. I'm just saying it doesn't seem to be working as advertised. What I'm saying is the concept of the middle class paying less in taxes means that more people will have money to buy tickets on SWA (or any other airline, but it looks like you fly for SWA). Also, if your family makes less than $250.000 per year you will pay less. Seems like a win win deal to me (and if your making more than 250 and worrying about whether or not you can afford to pay someone to mow your lawn than I guess it would be pretty hopeless argueing with you!)

 

[bgaviator]

Yes, trickle down economics is a scam that Republicans tout as their economic plan over and over again. It doesn't work. Companies that make more money will pay their executives more money...not even necessarily the shareholders more money. Even if they made a bigger profit, they will still find ways to cut costs, all while being able to pay themselves handsomly.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

The one thing that Obama and his socialist "spread the wealth" group seems to forget is simple math.

A person making more than 250,000 doesn't need to be slapped twice by being put in a higher tax bracket. They already pay more because they make more and their taxes are a PERCENTAGE of what they make.

WRONG! As another poster eloquantly put it.... you are not supposed to drink the water in the bong!


Ponder this....



Bob the Banker speaks out

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In an exclusive interview, Joe the Plumber's big brother reveals why Obama's plan to "spread the wealth" will turn America into a socialist hell. [/FONT]
By Gary Kamiya
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]
Oct. 21, 2008 | I'm Bob the Banker, and I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. If Barack Obama wins, he's going to take my hard-earned money and hand it over to a bunch of deadbeats and losers. He's going to turn the greatest country on earth into a socialist hell. Nothing less than our free-enterprise system is threatened. I'm angry! I'm really, really angry! And when you hear exactly how deeply Obama's far-left tax scheme is going to reach into my pocket, you'll be even angrier.


First of all, I'd like to give a big shout-out to my little brother Sam — or "Joe," as he seems to be calling himself now. If it weren't for Joe, America might never have realized that it was on the verge of installing Karl Marx II in the White House. As you probably know, Joe told Obama he was "getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year." Then he asked, "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" That's when V.I., I mean Barack, Obama said, "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."




Hello, Mr. Engels! These true-believing pinkos can only hide their true colors for so long. Sooner or later, they're gonna slip up and reveal their plan to declare class war. It's in their (Red) blood. Thank goodness that John McCain picked up on Obama's fatal mistake and is making it the centerpiece of his campaign. The best and brightest Republican pundits agree: Obama's colossal boo-boo could turn this whole race around.


I know, I know. The "elite" liberal media have been beating up on Joe, saying he isn't a plumber, isn't named Joe and isn't really going to buy any business. But you know what? Real Americans, not snooty liberals who swank around at Georgetown cocktail parties, don't care. They know that the point is that Joe wants to buy that plumbing business, and no Harvard-educated pinko should raise his taxes if he does. The American dream is aspirational!


Besides, Joe's story is irrelevant anyway. Because it just so happens that I make exactly the same amount of money as that plumbing business that Joe hopes to buy someday. Obama's tax plan will hit me right in the wallet.


I kept telling the McCain people this. I explained to them that I really am a small businessman who is angry that his taxes will go up under Obama. I told them they should make me their poster child, not Joe. I told them I wasn't on some kind of ego trip, I just wanted to help save America from socialism. But for some reason they didn't seem interested. They kept saying something about how they really needed someone who was named "Joe the Plumber." Go figure.


Anyway, let's get back to my story. I'm a typical middle-class American. I run a small family bank in Ohio. I'm no Master of the Universe, no hedge-fund manipulator. I have a couple of dozen employees. I work hard. I obey the laws. I have a family. But if Barack Trotsky Obama wins, I can kiss it all goodbye. I've done well for myself, but $280,000 a year doesn't go as far as it used to, even here in Akron.


The numbers don't lie. So here they are.*


So, as I said, I make $280,000 annually after business expenses. I'm married and filing jointly. Under Obama, my itemized deductions would actually increase slightly — I'd get $49,420 in itemized deductions, while under McCain I'd get $48,975. But my personal exemptions would increase slightly under McCain — he'd give me $6,911, whereas I'd only get $6,132 from Obama.




That leaves my taxable income at $213, 766 under Obama, $213,433 under McCain. Now we have to factor in the bracket cutoff, which for 2009 is $208,850. Anything below that figure for married couples filing jointly is taxed at the fourth tier, 28 percent. Any income above it, until you get up to near $400,000, is taxed at the fifth tier. And this is where the raving income-redistribution scheme of Barack Robespierre Obama kicks in.


As you can see, my taxable income is about $5,000 higher than the cutoff. McCain is going to tax that $5,000 at the current rate, which is 33 percent. But Obama's crazed plan calls for raising that rate to — get ready for it — 35 percent.


And here's what this means. Under McCain, my total tax bill would be $48,254. Under Obama, it would be $48,511.


That's a difference of $257. I'll say it again: Two hundred and fifty-seven dollars.


That's not two hundred and fifty-seven dollars I, or America, can afford.


Things are tough right now. Average working Americans like me are really struggling. They're angry. And when they see the effects of Obama's spread-the-wealth lunacy on an average angry struggling American like me, they'll be even more angry, average, and struggling.


Let me lay it out for you. Right now, I take home about $19,000 a month after the government skims off its share. And I don't have to tell you that $19,000 a month isn't what it used to be.


Take my Jaguar. Do you have any idea how much it costs just to have that thing tuned up? It's like a BMW repair bill on steroids. We're talking $500 just to open the hood.




The hard times are taking a toll on my family life, too. My wife has had to completely cut out having her colors done, and her personal shopper is threatening to walk if we keep cutting back on her hours. We're tightening our belts, but you can only tighten so far before there's no more room to pull.


Then there's food prices. All across America, families are angry and struggling as they try just to get by. We're in the same boat. It's getting harder and harder just to put food on the table. We're only eating filet mignon twice a week, and under Obama's crazed far-left regime, we may have to completely give up Maine lobster and Macanudo cigars.


And those are just a few examples. I could go on and on. The point is, under Obama Big Government is going to take $21.40 out of my pocket every month — money I could use to start another business, help the economy grow, or watch a couple of softcore porn movies on demand.


But this wild socialism will not stand. This isn't like the un-American, Commie-loving World War II years, when the top marginal tax rate was between 88 and 94 percent, and the hardworking executives who drive our economy made seven times less than they do now. These days, thank God, no one buys that pinko stuff about "sacrifice to fight a common enemy."


These are tough times. The economy is collapsing, the stock market is devastated, home foreclosures are soaring, unemployment is up, healthcare is unaffordable and the entire world banking system is in danger of failing. And at this moment of crisis, Americans know that one thing and one thing only can save our great country: an obsessively ideological anti-tax crusade that will allow me to mow the grounds of my estate five times, not four times, a month. After all, what's good for my lawn is good for America.


Just stay off of it.


*Author's note: All figures about the comparative tax bills under Obama and McCain come from an interview with Gerald Prante, an economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

[/FONT]

 

[Soverytired]

Yippie, another stupid political debate! I blame the Leprechauns for everything!

I mean, seriously? Didn't anyone notice that all the hack political crap threads were removed?

Isn't this an aviation forum?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Name for me please one nation that has ever become a nation of corporations exploiting the masses and leaving untold millions dead or dying. I can name many nations where government exploit(ed) the masses and leaves/left untold hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, etc dead or dying. ...

Chile in the 70s

China....now.

Iraq... the US Occupied

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine



The problem with your post is you seperate gov't from the economic polices that implement them.....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Maybe I don't get it.. but the way I see the two parties is this: McCain wan't to cut out the fat the govenment spends on stupid hidden bills within bills.. Believe's that if you cut corporate taxes then they will want to earn more income, and to this they will hire more people, buy more equipment etc to make the shareholders money..

After Halliburton got all those lucrative no bid contracts from the Bush Admin for Iraq and Katrina...

How did they thank the US tax payers for the all the money?



They moved their Corporate HQ to Dubai.


McCain's stump speeches say he is for the middle class but what does his record say? It is because he says 'my friends' that makes it so convincing?

 

[Soverytired]

Just remember this:

Obama has never run anything except his mouth.

 

[BOX OFFICE]

Just remember this:

Obama has never run anything except his mouth.

That's a stupid statement. I guess spending 10 years walking the streets of the ghettos of Chicago helping disparate people take control of their lives (by getting jobs and religion, not government assistance) doesn't count?

Nooo. Never run anything. What have you done for your country besides sell your soul to Mesa Mr So Very Tired?

 

[maxblast72]

Lot of debate on this subject and I don't discount either viewpoint. But...trickle down seems to have failed.

I don't really know if you can consider the last 10 years trickle down. Bill Clinton and crew thought it was a great idea to try to get everyone into houses whether they really should have been or not. Was it not then the CEO of Fannae Mae that pocketed $10's of millions while they watched lower income people get in way over their heads?

I don't think it as simple as trickle down not working. Trickle up by giving someone something they didn't earn by hard work didn't work so well either.

 

[Smacktard]

Chile in the 70s

China....now.

Iraq... the US Occupied

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine



The problem with your post is you seperate gov't from the economic polices that implement them.....

Not quite. In Chile, Pinochet was a Marxist. He did not rise to power thru a rise in corporate control of the country. China is a Socialist Republic, state run corporations came after the fact as the Communist form of government took place in the 50's. The communists rose to power and built state run corporations to exert further power on the masses. And Iraq, well not sure yet, but nothing close to a country run by corporations.

The original post suggested that CEOs and the rich were making money off the backs of the rest of us and that trickledown economics have failed. The tenet of trickledown economics is that tax breaks to the rich and corporations will eventually work their way down. The Republicans are the party of trickle down economics, the Democrats are the party of higher taxes and redistribution of wealth, ie socialism.

It wasn't a stretch to then ask for the two types of government that best embody these principals, Socialism versus a corporate Plutocracy. In nearly EVERY case in history, socialism has been marked with corruption, genocide, control of the masses. There aren't many, if any, examples of a corporate Plutocracy.

So the point was; the CEOs and evil wealthy that control our major corporations seldom get so powerful that they control society and rule government, but socialist policies have failed throughout the history of mankind. We are on the verge of losing what this country was built on; the effort of the individual, all in the name of the collective good. I think what has worked against the trickledown economic policies are the brief lapses we have made into social engineering, ie The Community Reinvestment Act. Why go down the road we know will not work?

 

[Dan Roman]

I don't think it as simple as trickle down not working. Trickle up by giving someone something they didn't earn by hard work didn't work so well either.

Your right that it isn't simple. We could go back and forth all day cherry picking whatever we think supports any position you want to take. Talking about money is especially emotional for some.
I just think it's a good idea to try and spur the economy by putting more money in the pockets of the consumers and not trying to make a few very rich and hope they will create jobs. There is a LOT of greed and self serving behavior in the upper income brackets. The whole world is paying for it.

 

[JumpJetter]

The whole world is paying for it.

Dude, THE WHOLE WORLD IS PAYING FOR PEOPLE WHO BORROWED MORE THAN THEY COULD AFFORD AND DEFAULTED ON IT. Not rich CEOs stealing from the poor. Do you really believe that?

 

[Dan Roman]

OK I'll give you that one! You are right. BUT.... there is enough blame to go around in a lot of places. I am pissed off about the bailout and the fact that it rewards the people who screwed up. Both those that over extended themselves and Corporate America with the blessing of our Govt.
That said I think the bailout probably had to happen.
I still like the concept that the working class of the country should drive the economy and not the people making millions.
Just like SWA. They are successful because the middle class (employees) was rewarded and fueled their success, not because Herb was paid more than other CEO's. As a Result, Herb still got rich because SWA's workers fueled their success. Bot he did not get his millions at the expense of the employee's ala UAL, AMR etc. It trickled up, not down

 

[N1kawotg]

Food for thought. As pilots- we are unionized for better QOL and pay. We fight hard for even the smallest raise like COLA, yet to my disbelief some pilots on this board that fight so hard for a buck raise are willing to vote for an instant pay cut-I'm not talking those making over 250,000. Obama is going to raise capital gains tax- whether you make a dollar or over 250,000. So as you fight for a better contract year after year- people on this board are willing to vote for a decrease in purchasing power that will wipe the raises and savings worked so hard for? Am I missing something?