WOW Collapses. NAI next?
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,153
Most of the tax breaks come from State and local governments. For example United Airlines gets a $20 million annual tax break on fuel purchases from the State of New Jersey alone. In 2012 the State of New York subsidized airlines to the tune of $227 million in tax breaks. These are separate from the AATF you mention.
Speaking of the AATF, sorry, but that goes against you too. International flights are charged at $18.30 (FY 2018) per person, per segment, and provide about $3.9 Billion of the $15 Billion in revenue collected. According to the DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2018 foreign carriers accounted for 52.4% of international passenger traffic to and from the U.S. and about 12.1% of total passengers in the U.S. air transportation system. Foreign airlines paid approximately $2.04 Billion of the $15 Billion raised by the AATF. So foreign carriers are contributing 13.6% of the funds for the AATF, but only carrying 12.1% of the passengers taxed by the fund, meaning foreign carriers are getting hit harder by the AATF than U.S. carriers are. Looks like U.S. airlines are getting subsidized by foreign carriers...
Regarding federal taxes, airlines have benefited greatly from the recent federal tax reform. In January 2018 Southwest airlines alone reported a $1.4 Billion benefit from federal tax reform. JetBlue reported $504 million in tax savings in Q4 2017. United's tax bill in Q4 2017 fell 95.9%.
Speaking of the AATF, sorry, but that goes against you too. International flights are charged at $18.30 (FY 2018) per person, per segment, and provide about $3.9 Billion of the $15 Billion in revenue collected. According to the DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2018 foreign carriers accounted for 52.4% of international passenger traffic to and from the U.S. and about 12.1% of total passengers in the U.S. air transportation system. Foreign airlines paid approximately $2.04 Billion of the $15 Billion raised by the AATF. So foreign carriers are contributing 13.6% of the funds for the AATF, but only carrying 12.1% of the passengers taxed by the fund, meaning foreign carriers are getting hit harder by the AATF than U.S. carriers are. Looks like U.S. airlines are getting subsidized by foreign carriers...
Regarding federal taxes, airlines have benefited greatly from the recent federal tax reform. In January 2018 Southwest airlines alone reported a $1.4 Billion benefit from federal tax reform. JetBlue reported $504 million in tax savings in Q4 2017. United's tax bill in Q4 2017 fell 95.9%.
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.
#42
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.
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.
Your "real world" needs a broader perspective.
#44
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.
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
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?
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?
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 350
#47
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.
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.
#48
You might want to look into the Airport and Aviation Trust Fund, which gets its money from aviation taxes and funds all of those 'subsidies'. Most of the money that goes into the AATF is from taxes on airline passenger tickets.
Air travel is one of the most heavily taxed purchases one can make in the US.
The AATF also funds more than 80% of the FAA budget.
In FY2017, the AATF collected more than $15B in taxes.
But sure, stick with that 'subsidy' narrative.
Air travel is one of the most heavily taxed purchases one can make in the US.
The AATF also funds more than 80% of the FAA budget.
In FY2017, the AATF collected more than $15B in taxes.
But sure, stick with that 'subsidy' narrative.
EVERYTHING related to transportation, worldwide, is heavily subsidized, including trucking, rail, seaports, etc., etc.
#49
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,457
US did pretty much nothing for Finland (Sweden and Norway didn't really take part) during Winter- and Continuation wars.
That's real.
#50
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?
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?
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post