Ah, NY/NJ - a couple of high tax states I was referring to. The tax breaks you mention are merely a small portion of the taxes paid to those states by airlines.
NY even had to offer a $3B tax/grant package to AMZN to entice them to move there. But NY socialists, seeing less money in state coffers, chased away AMZN.

You speak of taxes on international passengers to the US, but fail to mention that foreign countries also have entry/exit taxes/fees on passengers to/from the US, many of which are higher than US fees/taxes (see UK for an example) so that's not a one sided item. Those taxes/fees paid to foreign governments are included in the price of a ticket on an American carrier and are opaque to the customer.

As for federal taxes, I'm glad to see that tax rates have been reduced. The federal government is far too large and needs to be downsized. The US government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

From some of your previous posts, I know you like government handouts but I vehemently oppose them. It produces a slothful society, as can be seen in GDP growth (or lack thereof) as countries move toward/away from mass government handouts.

I am a believer in the Nordic model. The World Bank would disagree with your statement. From 1960 through 2016 the average GDP growth rate among the Nordic countries (with the exception of Denmark) exceeds that of the United States. The Nordic countries historically have lower rates of unemployment too. Yep, pretty slothful...

Your "real world" needs a broader perspective.

Thats hilarious.

Nordic model? You mean the one wher the US subsidized and protected those nations military defense at a cost of trillions for half a century?

Get real.

You want to get real, then let's get real. First of all please provide a source for your claims of "Trillions" spent on the defense of the five Nordic countries, two of which are non-NATO, and one of which has a robust defense industry which makes top end fourth generation fighter aircraft and has developed some of the most advanced non-nuclear submarines in service today.

I will not contest the argument that the U.S. has spent a lot of money in the defense of the Nordic countries over the past 70 years. But don't pretend that it has been in the "Trillions" or even remotely close. Do not overlook the Billions of dollars the Nordic countries have also invested in the U.S. military industrial complex by purchasing F-16s, F/A-18s, F-35s and C-130s (Denmark's F-35 order alone was $3 Billion - https://www.f35.com/news/detail/dani...5-fighter-jets) when they could very well have invested that money with Sweden or other European countries. Also do not overlook the massive benefit U.S. corporations have received from the U.S. influence in the Nordic countries and Europe itself.

Lastly, please provide some sort of proof that the Nordic model would not be possible without the United States providing "Trillions" in military defense to the Nordic countries. Some conservative U.S. think tanks have tried to make the connection between the two, but beyond making the claim, they have not provided any data or other evidence that the two are somehow connected, or that the Nordic model would not be possible without U.S. military aid.

Absent the US military industrial complex....those nordic countries would all be speaking Russian.

Or maybe German.

Thats real.

Hey....they cuda made those 130s f18s and all the other hardware in house. Of course that would have cost billions to acconmplish. All that money diverted from what was otherwise directrd to developing the non military econmy.

They bought the stuff from US....because it was cheaper to do so. And because the hardware dovetailed to the common defense cartel...nato. Also ovetwhelmingly paid for by the US.

In the military i trained nordic country pilots.....so it was apparently more cost effective to have US not only develop and build their hardware...but also train the personnel? :)

Yep. Mod-please lock the thread now that the discussion is finished.

I was reading here about a US pilot and his white-collar employed wife and 3 kids who are moving from the US to Denmark.

They will have MUCH MORE disposable income living and working in Denmark, than they have now living and working in the US. AND, they will have better quality health care. AND, their three kids will graduate from university with ZERO debt, vs the high debt they would have acquired from their US university programs.

Jet fuel (as is gasoline) is heavily subsidized. ATC is heavily subsidized. Airports are heavily subsidized. Aircraft actually cost about TWICE what airlines pay to buy the aircraft from Boeing/Airbus. The roads that bring in airline passengers and crew are heavily subsidized.

EVERYTHING related to transportation, worldwide, is heavily subsidized, including trucking, rail, seaports, etc., etc.

You need to go back to school and retake some history classes.
US did pretty much nothing for Finland (Sweden and Norway didn't really take part) during Winter- and Continuation wars.

That's real.

You seem to ignore the Swedes in your equation. They are a non-aligned country and have developed and built top of the line fighter aircraft in house, as well as top end submarines, and yet still have the ability to have a successful "Nordic Model". The other Nordic countries could very well have purchased Gripen's, Typhoon's, or Rafael's, all of which are NATO developed or NATO compatible.

As for speaking German without the help of the United States...most historians would disagree with you. While there is no doubt the United States played a crucial role in ultimately winning the war in Europe, most historians will tell you that the tide had already turned against Germany by the time the U.S. entered the war in December 1941. The Battle of Moscow in October 1941 through January 1942 is widely considered to be the turning point of the war, with the Soviet counteroffensive starting on December 5 often pointed to as the single most important event, when even German generals began to concede that Germany would ultimately lose the war.