Delta cancels upcoming interviews

[Tweaker]

The 20's - I'm not even going to bother with, like comparing apples to oranges. In 1915 5% of the population payed taxes, in 1920 it was 20%. Only the super rich were even taxed to it isn't an apt comparison. - Cale

Less than 50% of people still pay taxes today, after all the manipulations and perversions of the tax code (special interests). If you have a decent job, you are "super rich" and get to support the other half of America that does not.

Though I am a financial conservative, I agree that lower tax rates does not equate to increased tax revenue. There is increased productivity, but only 30% of the difference vs. the cuts. I, and most others of my ilk, probably still don't care, and think there is a ton of fat that can be cut from the other side of the equation.

Spending is the problem, and that is why much larger tax cuts are very much appropriate. I agree with you about the effect of the cuts, but I very much doubt you will have success in arguing against spending cuts. As far as who is guilty of the increased spending...nearly every politician in the last 100 years. The federal .gov has become a Leviathon and it will be our undoing.

 

[jetflier]

The 20's - I'm not even going to bother with, like comparing apples to oranges. In 1915 5% of the population payed taxes, in 1920 it was 20%. Only the super rich were even taxed to it isn't an apt comparison. - Cale

Less than 50% of people still pay taxes today, after all the manipulations and perversions of the tax code (special interests). If you have a decent job, you are "super rich" and get to support the other half of America that does not.

Though I am a financial conservative, I agree that lower tax rates does not equate to increased tax revenue. There is increased productivity, but only 30% of the difference vs. the cuts. I, and most others of my ilk, probably still don't care, and think there is a ton of fat that can be cut from the other side of the equation.



Spending is the problem, and that is why much larger tax cuts are very much appropriate. I agree with you about the effect of the cuts, but I very much doubt you will have success in arguing against spending cuts. As far as who is guilty of the increased spending...nearly every politician in the last 100 years. The federal .gov has become a Leviathon and it will be our undoing.

Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams

 

[michael707767]

Conservatives often like to point out the Laffer curve, which I'm sure your familiar with. It is important to recognize that the curve shows a single peak of effective tax rates, anything higher OR LOWER than that reduces revenues. The second part is often left out. There is strong arguments to be made that a 70-90 percent tax rate is too high. It is. However there is a bottom too of the correct rate and I think we are way under it now.

You make excellent points if you want to support a government position that their job is take as much money from the public as possible. No doubt, tax rates can go higher before it diminishes tax revenue or hurts the economy. That's not the point. Government should stop spending money and their goal should be to lower taxes and allow the public to keep as much of their money as possible.

The problem with an administration like the Obama administration is if they increase tax revenues, they will just spend it.....and then some. I would be in favor of higher taxes if I truly thought they would limit spending and use the increase in taxes to pay down debt. But that's not what will happen, and you know it.

 

[cale42]

You make excellent points if you want to support a government position that their job is take as much money from the public as possible. No doubt, tax rates can go higher before it diminishes tax revenue or hurts the economy. That's not the point. Government should stop spending money and their goal should be to lower taxes and allow the public to keep as much of their money as possible.

The problem with an administration like the Obama administration is if they increase tax revenues, they will just spend it.....and then some. I would be in favor of higher taxes if I truly thought they would limit spending and use the increase in taxes to pay down debt. But that's not what will happen, and you know it.

I agree with your second point, that bringing the debt under control has to be the first and foremost issue for the federal government, in order to achieve long term stability, they must live within their means so to speak.

As to bigger government, if you go back to my first post you'll see that I do in fact support it. I'll attempt to lay out my arguement of why that is in fact the fiscally conservative approach. As pilots we often lose sight of the fact that we fall in the upper echelons in society. Even RJ captains end to be in the top 20% of wage earners and lots of guys make more than that, we also generally are in the top tier in terms of education and social status. So it is often hard to grasp even as our industry reams us how much we really do have.

With that in mind we have to understand that while if our tax rates go down you and I will spend more, save more, boost our retirement savings and so on. For 80% of the population though these things simply won't happen. Much of our society has no retirement savings other than social security, they will never have health insurance outside of their employers or Medicare/Medicaid. They need the government to provide basic services. You cut these things and they just fall to the next level of government service, welfare and walking into a hospital when they have any problems and just ignoring the bill.

There is only two solutions to this. First cut them off altogether. No hospital visits without insurance, repeal the hippocratic oath for all US doctors. Get rid of welfare. So when this happens people basically get too old and die because they have no money for basic services and can't work any longer. If your really ballsy enough to say let every individual who can't work and has no savings die on the streets, then you can really cut government spending. But for those of us who aren't the next cheapest option is a European style system that keeps people out of those situations. With single payer health care you always can see a doctor and don't tie up the ER. Many EU countries basically have government pensions for all of their workers, knowing that neither the employer or the employee will have the funds. Do these things result in more government spending. Sure they do. However I contend that it is still less government spending that the cobbled together approach we have. Go all or nothing, flat out support the bottom half of your population or let them die. Anything in between is inefficient and wasteful, yet it is exactly what we have.

So to Tweakers point as well, there is my arguement for more spending. It will actually lead to smaller, cheaper government down the road, we will have a few massive all encompassing programs rather than this half baked approach we currently have that is a drain on society.

cale

 

[michael707767]

With that in mind we have to understand that while if our tax rates go down you and I will spend more, save more, boost our retirement savings and so on. For 80% of the population though these things simply won't happen. Much of our society has no retirement savings other than social security, they will never have health insurance outside of their employers or Medicare/Medicaid. They need the government to provide basic services. ....... First cut them off altogether. .........So to Tweakers point as well, there is my arguement for more spending. It will actually lead to smaller, cheaper government down the road, we will have a few massive all encompassing programs rather than this half baked approach we currently have that is a drain on society.

First of all, it is not my responsibility to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves. Nor do I believe it is the governments job to take care of them. Sink or swim on their own. If those are their only choices my bet is the vast, vast majority would get off their asses and do something to improve their situation.

As to your point of all encompassing programs actually leading to smaller government, I disagree. I need only look at the financial situation in many European countries to see that.

If given the choice of having the goverment take care of them, most people will make that choice. Even though they will never live a very good life, they would rather sit at home drawing welfare that going out and working to improve their lives. Or you end up with government workers who make way too much for what they do and have benefits packages that are far better than private industry. Government will not ever produce workers as efficient as private industry. Add to that, while goverment workers pay taxes, their income comes from tax revenue. It's a closed loop. Private industry is where real tax revenue comes from.

I believe their are basically two types of people.......moochers and producers. Once a society hits the point where moochers outweigh producers, that society is doomed. Some Europeans countries are at that point, with predictable results. Our country is on the verge of hitting that point, and I think the results will be just as predictable.

I believe my generation will be the last generation that can say their economic situation is better than their parents. It makes me sad to think about my childrens future.

 

[densoo]

The problem with an administration like the Obama administration is if they increase tax revenues, they will just spend it.....and then some.

And the problem with the other administration is they cut tax revenues, and still spent it..."and then some." And by "it" I mean a trillion dollars and counting in a war fought in the wrong country, and "then some" for another trillion dollars gone in a financial meltdown and who knows what other disasters result from the deregulation from 2001 to 2008. Finance? Done. Coal mining? Done. Oil industry? Done. What next? Food supply? Drugs? And trickle down from tax cuts? I feel the love.

If they had treated pilots like they treated every other industry, the commuting jumpseater would be acceptable to sign off on a line check, you'd sign your own sim evaluation, and we'd wave at TSA as we walked around the body scanner as we shouted out "Yo, I'm good!"

 

[cale42]

Michael, how can you look around you every day and really say that. I'm not talking about the folks that never go out and do anything, I'm talking about the fact that private industry has destroyed workers rights and compensation to a point where the government is forced to subsidize. These aren't "moochers" as you put it, they are people busting their humps doing the best they can.

Lets take the example of aviation alone.

Flight attendants - Work the same schedules we do and start at about 18K a year, at most regionals top out in the mid 20K's a year. If they are trying to support a family thats poverty line.

Gate Agents - Most make in the range of 10/hr and work 50 hr weeks. $500/wk, thats about $26,500 a year. Right on the poverty line.

Ramp - Probably makes 8/hr average. Figure a 50 hr week thats $20,800/yr. Definitely below the poverty line.

Catering - Probaby about 8/hr so $20,800 again, well below the poverty line.

Fueler- Little more responsibility, probably closer to 10/hr, back up to $26,500 year.

TSA - Probably the best job in aviation outside of pilot or ATC, they probably average $35K/yr. Above the poverty line, but not exactly a comfortable living.

So.. that is 85% of the people that make the aviation industry go round. They all work hard. But in your example they are just moochers, because I guarantee you at those kinds of wages they aren't saving for retirement, they aren't able to purchase health insurance if they lose their job. They have zero savings because it takes every dime to put food on the table so when they are out of a job they can't buy food.

Even if we take them all to be moochers and figure they all could "get off their asses" as you put it and get a college degree and get a good job, how do you propose we run an airline with no flight attendants, gate agents, rampers, caterers, or fuelers? Because I want to work for that company, they'll make money hand over fist.

The simple reality is your golden private sector has destroyed the average American worker and they are now forced to rely on government aid.

 

[jonjuan]

Because it's so much better in Cuba. How many people flee Miami and try to float over there?

 

[GogglesPisano]

Because it's so much better in Cuba. How many people flee Miami and try to float over there?

Hint for the day: You don't have to choose between two extremes.

 

[TurboAWD]

I am somewhat of a financial conservative.

However, I think anyone who believes the Republicans are financial conservatives is nuts. They spend just as much as the Democrats, only in different places.

Both of them do it (spend) to help get re-elected.

Nobody is running the country, they are just running for office.