LJ45
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2005
- Posts
- 1,080
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Obama and Corporate Jets
- Thread starter pilotgolfer
- Start date
- Watchers 15
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
LJ45
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2005
- Posts
- 1,080
From AIN:
President Obama Resumes Attack on Business Aircraft
In a resumption of his attacks on business aviation, President Obama yesterday called for an end to “tax breaks” for corporate jet owners. The outcry from general aviation quickly followed the White House press conference during which Obama lumped corporate aircraft in with millionaires, billionaires, oil companies and hedge-fund managers as targets for closing “loopholes in the tax code.” NBAA said the President repeatedly denigrated business airplane owners and operators, apparently to make a case that current tax “depreciation schedules” for GA airplanes are too short and should be lengthened. “Nine months ago, this President extolled the virtues of shortening depreciation schedules to stimulate jobs,” said NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen. “Now he seems to want to reverse course and push ahead with punitive treatment for general aviation, an industry that creates jobs, helps companies succeed and serves communities all around America.” Leaders of other GA organizations also weighed in. Matt Zuccaro, president of the Helicopter Association International, stressed that while all the current rhetoric appears to be directed toward “corporate jets,” any change to the depreciation schedule would apply to pistons, turboprops and rotorcraft. “Democrats now see elimination of tax breaks and a change in the depreciation schedule for general aviation aircraft as politically attractive,” Zuccaro said in a “Call to Action” to HAI members.
President Obama Resumes Attack on Business Aircraft
In a resumption of his attacks on business aviation, President Obama yesterday called for an end to “tax breaks” for corporate jet owners. The outcry from general aviation quickly followed the White House press conference during which Obama lumped corporate aircraft in with millionaires, billionaires, oil companies and hedge-fund managers as targets for closing “loopholes in the tax code.” NBAA said the President repeatedly denigrated business airplane owners and operators, apparently to make a case that current tax “depreciation schedules” for GA airplanes are too short and should be lengthened. “Nine months ago, this President extolled the virtues of shortening depreciation schedules to stimulate jobs,” said NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen. “Now he seems to want to reverse course and push ahead with punitive treatment for general aviation, an industry that creates jobs, helps companies succeed and serves communities all around America.” Leaders of other GA organizations also weighed in. Matt Zuccaro, president of the Helicopter Association International, stressed that while all the current rhetoric appears to be directed toward “corporate jets,” any change to the depreciation schedule would apply to pistons, turboprops and rotorcraft. “Democrats now see elimination of tax breaks and a change in the depreciation schedule for general aviation aircraft as politically attractive,” Zuccaro said in a “Call to Action” to HAI members.
cynic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,541
Please enlighten me and tell me how you have determined that I’m stupid. Is it because I dare go against your beliefs? Oh, please use some big words so we all know how smart you are.uke:
Because you embrace and subscribe to narratives which are not well thought out and were provided to you by your TV. Because you have no clear point; you simply recite idiotic bullet points you have heard on TV or possibly from a radio DJ.
A lack of independent thought is indicative of stupidity.
An inability to hold many complex ideas in your head simaltanousely and then interrelate them is indicative of stupidity.
An unwillingness to thoroughly think through an idea is indicative of stupidity.
As a result I assert one fact in this thread; that you are stupid.
LJ45
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2005
- Posts
- 1,080
What is stupid? Nothing I said has been disproven. You judge me, yet you don’t know me, you jump to conclusion and speak in a manner that you would not do if you met me in public. Now sir, that is stupid. I’m done with you and your disrespect. Hope you have a great life, come back to me when you grow up.
Last edited:
AA717driver
A simpler time...
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2003
- Posts
- 4,908
cynic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,541
I've gone down that road already. I posted links to studies on the laffer curve as well as information on marginal and effective tax rates. The fact that you think small changes to personal or corporate tax rates will do anything to the economy shows there is no point in discussing tax rates.
Personal rates could be hiked as high as 50%, assuming a progressive rate for income in the top 5% for individuals and it would not have much impact on the economy at all. Conversely, such a hike would not effectively 'spread' the wealth around either.
This is just a location to yell at morons and you are quite correct; I cannot do it in public.
Personal rates could be hiked as high as 50%, assuming a progressive rate for income in the top 5% for individuals and it would not have much impact on the economy at all. Conversely, such a hike would not effectively 'spread' the wealth around either.
This is just a location to yell at morons and you are quite correct; I cannot do it in public.
Bary Hussein is just showing his true colors. He hates capitalism. This fraud is not only not a leader, he's a disgrace. He opened his pie hole 2 years ago and dumped all over businessmen/women and their use of corporate jets, this is a trend. Meanwhile his wife's recent Africa jaunt cost us at least 500K.
You asked if you were stupid. After reading your post, yes, you are. If lowering taxes works so well, why are we in this mess now? No, don't tell me, Obama has come in and in less than 2 years he destroyed the economy by lower the job loss from 700k a month to a net gain for well over a year now. Right?
Clinton did not lower taxes. He raised them on the rich, and promised the middle class a tax cut. Since you don't know, I will inform you that after he took office, Clinton got on tv and told the middle class he could not give them the promised tax cut because the Bush admin had not been honest about the true size of the deficit, so their tax cut was going now to pay off the deficit. How are you talking about this subject and you don't know the most basic of these facts? Go read a newspaper and stop repeating what you hear Rush say, as Rush relies on the stupid to believe him, but the kicker is that he banks on people being just dumb enough to repeat what he says, so now here we are with you doing just that.
Clinton did not lower taxes. He raised them on the rich, and promised the middle class a tax cut. Since you don't know, I will inform you that after he took office, Clinton got on tv and told the middle class he could not give them the promised tax cut because the Bush admin had not been honest about the true size of the deficit, so their tax cut was going now to pay off the deficit. How are you talking about this subject and you don't know the most basic of these facts? Go read a newspaper and stop repeating what you hear Rush say, as Rush relies on the stupid to believe him, but the kicker is that he banks on people being just dumb enough to repeat what he says, so now here we are with you doing just that.
ditchpilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2005
- Posts
- 193
Godfather
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Posts
- 383
How Reagan's Tax Cuts Saved Clinton and Gore
August 2001 -- "US Presidents are commonly thought to influence the economy only during, or shortly after, their actual terms in office. Not true. Entitlement programs instituted by FDR and LBJ still profoundly affect our economy today. And Ronald Reagan's historic tax cuts of 1981 are still largely in effect and are still pumping huge amounts of additional money into the economy. However, Bill Clinton and Al Gore got most of the credit during their administration for the continuing economic boom unleashed by the Reagan tax cuts. That undeserved credit may have gotten Clinton re-elected and saved him from being removed from office. It almost got Gore elected too.
When Reagan took office in 1981, the US economy was in shambles. We have difficulty remembering how bad the economy was under Carter, but it was described in terms of the "misery index," and the word "stagflation" was coined to refer to the double-whammy of economic stagnation combined with runaway inflation. The automotive industry was on the verge of collapse under the pressure from Japanese competition and an oil crisis. The American way of life itself seemed to be in serious jeapordy. It wasn't the Great Depression, but it was as close as we've come to it since.
The top tax rate was 70% when Reagan took office. He got it cut in half to 35%. At the same time, he eliminated many tax shelters that the rich routinely relied on to avoid paying taxes altogether, forcing them to invest in the free market and actually pay taxes. Shortly after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy took off for an unprecedented period of peacetime growth. The misery index plummeted as unemployment fell, inflation slowed, and interest rates dropped, leading to a seven-year boom that the liberal media cynically dubbed "the decade of greed."
Eight years later George Bush swept into office on Reagan's coattails and a pledge of "no new taxes." Although he tried to keep his pledge, Bush ultimately succumbed to unrelenting pressure by the Democratically controlled Congress to increase taxes. Not surprisingly, the economy went into a mild recession, though nothing like the recession of a decade earlier. Unemployment was well below what it had been under Carter, and inflation was completely under control. Nevertheless, the liberal media shamelessly dubbed it the "worst economic period of the last fifty years."
The media hype succeeded at getting their man, Bill Clinton, elected. Although barely reported, the Bush recession had actually ended before Clinton even took office, with a vibrant 3.9% annual growth rate in the last quarter of Bush's administration. In other words, the second phase of the great Reagan economic boom had already begun before Clinton even moved to Washington. But of course that didn't stop the liberal media from giving Clinton credit for it and dubbing it the "decade of prosperity."
How can we be sure the economic boom presided over by Clinton was actually due to Reagan? It's simple. Even though Clinton increased tax rates, the top rate after his tax hikes was still less than 40%, down a full 30% from the 70% rate before Reagan's tax cuts. In terms of the money left after taxes, that's a huge jump from (100-70=) 30% to (100-40=) 60% -- a doubling of the amount of money that continues, year after year, to go into the private economy rather than the federal budget. It hardly takes an economist to understand the huge effect on economic growth of doubling after-tax income.
Clinton also got credit for eliminating the federal deficit, of course. It is no coincidence, however, that the deficit didn't start coming down until the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. As for the touted "Reagan deficits," the indisputable fact is that revenues grew tremendously during Reagan's two terms -- but spending by the Democratically controlled Congress grew even faster, at an astronomical rate. And contrary to the liberal media spin, the lion's share of the growth of the federal budget under Reagan was not on defense, but rather on social entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare.
Contrary to Democratic demogogery about "tax cuts for the rich," incidentally, the rich actually paid higher taxes after Reagan's tax cuts. How could that be? Simple. Along with cutting tax rates, Reagan also eliminated many tax shelters and loopholes. Before Reagan, the rich avoided paying taxes by investing in windmills and other boondoggles blessed by the federal government (the "targeted" tax cuts that Al Gore wanted to reinstate). After Reagan, the rich shifted their investments to the free market, greatly stimulating the private economy and causing the information technology boom.
There's more to the story, of course, but everything else is really secondary. In fairness, Clinton actually did a few things himself to help the economy, such as opening up free trade and keeping the Federal Reserve Board under competent leadership. On the other hand, if Clinton had not been restrained by the Republicans, who took control of Congress in the middle of his first term, he would have raised taxes even more than he did, and his wife would have nationalized the health care industry.
When Clinton was impeached, his party argued that he should be given a pass because he was doing a good job managing the economy. Without the huge economic boost from Reagan's tax cuts, Clinton might well have been removed from office, or might have failed to win re-election. Gore would have suffered a humiliating defeat in the election to succeed him, or might have failed to even win the nomination. But don't hold your breath waiting for the liberal media to start reporting the truth. If America wants the Reagan economic boom to continue, they need to figure out for themselves what caused it in the first place."
The above excerpt was from an August 2001 article written by Samuel T. Francis of the Washington Post
OK, maybe I didn't get it all right but yes Clinton did raise tax rates but the rates were still lower than what Reagan's rates were in comparison.
-It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. --Mark Twain
August 2001 -- "US Presidents are commonly thought to influence the economy only during, or shortly after, their actual terms in office. Not true. Entitlement programs instituted by FDR and LBJ still profoundly affect our economy today. And Ronald Reagan's historic tax cuts of 1981 are still largely in effect and are still pumping huge amounts of additional money into the economy. However, Bill Clinton and Al Gore got most of the credit during their administration for the continuing economic boom unleashed by the Reagan tax cuts. That undeserved credit may have gotten Clinton re-elected and saved him from being removed from office. It almost got Gore elected too.
When Reagan took office in 1981, the US economy was in shambles. We have difficulty remembering how bad the economy was under Carter, but it was described in terms of the "misery index," and the word "stagflation" was coined to refer to the double-whammy of economic stagnation combined with runaway inflation. The automotive industry was on the verge of collapse under the pressure from Japanese competition and an oil crisis. The American way of life itself seemed to be in serious jeapordy. It wasn't the Great Depression, but it was as close as we've come to it since.
The top tax rate was 70% when Reagan took office. He got it cut in half to 35%. At the same time, he eliminated many tax shelters that the rich routinely relied on to avoid paying taxes altogether, forcing them to invest in the free market and actually pay taxes. Shortly after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy took off for an unprecedented period of peacetime growth. The misery index plummeted as unemployment fell, inflation slowed, and interest rates dropped, leading to a seven-year boom that the liberal media cynically dubbed "the decade of greed."
Eight years later George Bush swept into office on Reagan's coattails and a pledge of "no new taxes." Although he tried to keep his pledge, Bush ultimately succumbed to unrelenting pressure by the Democratically controlled Congress to increase taxes. Not surprisingly, the economy went into a mild recession, though nothing like the recession of a decade earlier. Unemployment was well below what it had been under Carter, and inflation was completely under control. Nevertheless, the liberal media shamelessly dubbed it the "worst economic period of the last fifty years."
The media hype succeeded at getting their man, Bill Clinton, elected. Although barely reported, the Bush recession had actually ended before Clinton even took office, with a vibrant 3.9% annual growth rate in the last quarter of Bush's administration. In other words, the second phase of the great Reagan economic boom had already begun before Clinton even moved to Washington. But of course that didn't stop the liberal media from giving Clinton credit for it and dubbing it the "decade of prosperity."
How can we be sure the economic boom presided over by Clinton was actually due to Reagan? It's simple. Even though Clinton increased tax rates, the top rate after his tax hikes was still less than 40%, down a full 30% from the 70% rate before Reagan's tax cuts. In terms of the money left after taxes, that's a huge jump from (100-70=) 30% to (100-40=) 60% -- a doubling of the amount of money that continues, year after year, to go into the private economy rather than the federal budget. It hardly takes an economist to understand the huge effect on economic growth of doubling after-tax income.
Clinton also got credit for eliminating the federal deficit, of course. It is no coincidence, however, that the deficit didn't start coming down until the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. As for the touted "Reagan deficits," the indisputable fact is that revenues grew tremendously during Reagan's two terms -- but spending by the Democratically controlled Congress grew even faster, at an astronomical rate. And contrary to the liberal media spin, the lion's share of the growth of the federal budget under Reagan was not on defense, but rather on social entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare.
Contrary to Democratic demogogery about "tax cuts for the rich," incidentally, the rich actually paid higher taxes after Reagan's tax cuts. How could that be? Simple. Along with cutting tax rates, Reagan also eliminated many tax shelters and loopholes. Before Reagan, the rich avoided paying taxes by investing in windmills and other boondoggles blessed by the federal government (the "targeted" tax cuts that Al Gore wanted to reinstate). After Reagan, the rich shifted their investments to the free market, greatly stimulating the private economy and causing the information technology boom.
There's more to the story, of course, but everything else is really secondary. In fairness, Clinton actually did a few things himself to help the economy, such as opening up free trade and keeping the Federal Reserve Board under competent leadership. On the other hand, if Clinton had not been restrained by the Republicans, who took control of Congress in the middle of his first term, he would have raised taxes even more than he did, and his wife would have nationalized the health care industry.
When Clinton was impeached, his party argued that he should be given a pass because he was doing a good job managing the economy. Without the huge economic boost from Reagan's tax cuts, Clinton might well have been removed from office, or might have failed to win re-election. Gore would have suffered a humiliating defeat in the election to succeed him, or might have failed to even win the nomination. But don't hold your breath waiting for the liberal media to start reporting the truth. If America wants the Reagan economic boom to continue, they need to figure out for themselves what caused it in the first place."
The above excerpt was from an August 2001 article written by Samuel T. Francis of the Washington Post
OK, maybe I didn't get it all right but yes Clinton did raise tax rates but the rates were still lower than what Reagan's rates were in comparison.
-It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. --Mark Twain
Last edited:
Please enlighten me and tell me how you have determined that I’m stupid. Is it because I dare go against your beliefs? Oh, please use some big words so we all know how smart you are.
No, no, no!
If he sends big words, we won't be able to understand him.
CapnVegetto
The Prince of all Saiyans
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2005
- Posts
- 1,981
Sad thing is that you are all wrong.
There is only ONE way to stimulate an economy. One way.
It is to INCREASE DEMAND.
If you cut taxes on the rich, they aren't simply going to just throw that money back into business just because the government tells them to. There has to be a way for them to make a profit on that money that they invest. There has to be DEMAND.
Crude Example: Whirlpool makes dishwashers. If Whirlpool can't make enough dishwashers to meet demand, they spend money to buy land, build a structure, buy parts to make dishwashers, hire workers to put them together, hire managers to run the plant, buy trucks to ship them, hire more marketers to market them, etc. They're not going to invest the $500 mil or so it costs to do this unless they feel that there is a reasonable expectation to get a return of more than they put in. Simple economics. You can't just simply cut taxes on the rich and expect this to happen. They aren't rich because they throw their money away. They are rich because they are smart with their money and have made it grow.
So how do you increase demand? There's only one way to do it. You have to give people the means to increase demand. Put more money in peoples' pockets. How do you do that? Tax cuts, Bush stimulus checks, whatever. But it has to be across the board.
I personally think the biggest screwup with TARP was that the money was given to huge banks directly. Why not give the money to the people on the condition that it is only used to pay off unsecured debt? Set up a government program or something to ration out the money. Everybody wins. The banks end up getting the money anyway, which saves their asses, and the population sheds debt so they now have more money in their pockets to spend, increasing demand, fixing the economy. What was TARP worth? $600 billion? What was the stimulus worth? $800 billion? Use a combination of hardcore payroll tax cuts for business owners, tax cuts for EVERYBODY, (not just middle class or rich or poor), and a seperate fund for helping people shed unsecured debt. Demand increases, the economy gets better.
At least that's what I think.
There is only ONE way to stimulate an economy. One way.
It is to INCREASE DEMAND.
If you cut taxes on the rich, they aren't simply going to just throw that money back into business just because the government tells them to. There has to be a way for them to make a profit on that money that they invest. There has to be DEMAND.
Crude Example: Whirlpool makes dishwashers. If Whirlpool can't make enough dishwashers to meet demand, they spend money to buy land, build a structure, buy parts to make dishwashers, hire workers to put them together, hire managers to run the plant, buy trucks to ship them, hire more marketers to market them, etc. They're not going to invest the $500 mil or so it costs to do this unless they feel that there is a reasonable expectation to get a return of more than they put in. Simple economics. You can't just simply cut taxes on the rich and expect this to happen. They aren't rich because they throw their money away. They are rich because they are smart with their money and have made it grow.
So how do you increase demand? There's only one way to do it. You have to give people the means to increase demand. Put more money in peoples' pockets. How do you do that? Tax cuts, Bush stimulus checks, whatever. But it has to be across the board.
I personally think the biggest screwup with TARP was that the money was given to huge banks directly. Why not give the money to the people on the condition that it is only used to pay off unsecured debt? Set up a government program or something to ration out the money. Everybody wins. The banks end up getting the money anyway, which saves their asses, and the population sheds debt so they now have more money in their pockets to spend, increasing demand, fixing the economy. What was TARP worth? $600 billion? What was the stimulus worth? $800 billion? Use a combination of hardcore payroll tax cuts for business owners, tax cuts for EVERYBODY, (not just middle class or rich or poor), and a seperate fund for helping people shed unsecured debt. Demand increases, the economy gets better.
At least that's what I think.
ttflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Posts
- 131
I agree with most of what you said. TARP is another story. As much as I hate it, the entire banking system was insolvent at the time and the government HAD to give them that money so they could cover their losses. The reasons are criminal, but it was what it was... Also, most of them have paid it back, plus interest, so we as citizens are not out all that much...
As to the $800 BILLION stimulus, it was wasted. It did no lasting good at all. Why? Because both parties used the money to try and buy votes instead of help the economy. Had the government instead divided that money up among the people, they could have sent almost $3,000 to every man, women, child, illegal alien, and probably a bunch of dead people... Had they sent it out as "debit" cards with an expiration (say one year) so people HAD to spend it (not pay off debit or save), the economy would have shot through the roof and BHO would be coasting into his second term right now. But they are all too dumb for that...
The real answer to this whole mess is TERM LIMITS... Nothing more complicated then that.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
