When is it enough?
 

We have all heard of people who have been unemployed for years. This is amazing to me. (I’m referring to career professionals)

When does a person say enough, and grab a lawn mower or snow shovel and begin knocking on doors?

I dunno. I can tell you if I get furloughed the last thing in the world I am going to do is look for another substandard flying job.............

Furlough
 

What would you do? What would you consider to be a non-substandard flying job?

Skyhigh

I find this question comical. Everyone is like "but its so hard to get a job", it's really not, at the regional level on an F/O payscale the job is a joke, I could work at the Mall and make just as much with a better QOL. As far as a major airline guy who loses his job................I agree it may be difficult to find a job that matches that inmcome, but think how long it will take you to make that money again WITHIN AVIATION........

Skyhigh had it right years ago, this profession is a joke and those who "made it" are in reality just lucky..............

I'm done with it.

I'll fly to my hearts content on the side, but even my one stay in the regionals set me back about 2 years of solid professional development as a CPA. I don't have any regrets for having done it because it was a path I needed to see for myself, but I'm stoked about rejoining my original career path and opening my own practice after several years.

I'm inside of 2 months from being a CPA now.

Its hard to take a job while unemployment is paying. Working just reduces what the Govmint will give you for free. Currently where I am unemployment pays $30,165/yr.

...
 

You have to factor in taxes and what you made during the previous year in all jobs. Unemployment pays 80% of what you made so it's never the same from person to person. I applied for unemployment for a week, due to being in between jobs, and although I made decent money in my last gig (not aviation related), the job before was a ****ty paying line service job, which reduced the amount I could recieve. In the end, I opted not to go through the hassle for basically nothing and to recieve a check 14 days too late.

I'm glad to see others are finding prosperity outside of aviation. I personally also wanted to try it out and see how far I could get. Sometimes it's tough to think how far I would have got if I had opted out of this path, but it is what it is. Due to timing, or whatever, I didn't manage to make it into even a regional. Got as far as CFI and 135, and with the way the future is shaping up, I am glad I got to have a second chance at my old career and only fly/instruct on the side.

While I understand your point, this is a very shallow viewpoint of the mechanics that make the economy work. Its takes a person with a great degree of responsibility for the world outside of his immediate self to choose to join the workforce for the sake of the greater good despite the ability to receive what appears to be "free" money, but actually isn't.

It has been said that production is the basis of morale. Perhaps working isn't something to be completely avoided for as long as possible at the expense of those working, but perhaps something to be viewed as bettering yourself, building your earning potential in the future and adding beans to the community pot instead of taking them out.

When I look at the amount that the government takes in taxes every month, I don't feel bad at all for the months that I was on unemployment. I was just getting my money back.

tlove482; The above quote is exactly why your taxes are so high. If he was to lose his unemployment today I'll bet that he would be seriously looking for a looking for a job tomorrow.

I have been fortunate to have only been on unemployment for a short period while working seasonally in construction. Back then (late 70's) it did not pay enough to make you want to stay on it. You got your butt back to work or started to get hungry.

Do you really believe that what the gov't gives you is free? I am sorry if this offends and I know times are tough but they won't get any better sitting on the couch until the gov't paycheck runs out.

The reason why taxes are so is because big business is not paying any and someone needs to make uo the difference. Unemployment is chump change comparing to billions that go to corporations. (GM, AIG to name a few)

OMG! You have NO clue what you are saying. It is obvious you are merely reiterating what you've heard on TV with no thought of your own put into the mix.

"Big business" has been manipulated into the same thing as "Evil business". Where exactly this link was made eludes me. If a "big" business employs thousands of people, produces products that YOU and me consume to live a happier life, contributes its fair share of taxes per the letter of the internal revenue code, what is "evil" about that? Sure some - not businesses in general, because a corporation is just a few documents filed in a filing cabinet - individuals are greedy and make decisions in their best interest that hurt the collective good. Not much different than sucking unemployment for YOUR benefit when you don't have to - just a smaller scale.

Just because these businesses make more than you and I do not make them evil.

Furthermore, large businesses exist to earn income to be distributed to individuals. The fact that "big" businesses do not pay the majority share of taxes is not unexpected because much of the raw income (revenue) is deducted by the corporation and paid in the form of compensation to the individual to be taxed. An S corp pays no taxes anyway, and it is the duty of any corporate controller to minimize C corp taxes in every way possible to prevent double taxation (taxes corporately AND individually). Why pay twice? Ideally, a corporation would distribute all its income in the form of compensation and dividends and pay very few taxes, with the majority being paid by the individual recipient. The ideal is that all income (not to be confused with revenue as some often do) be taxed a single time. The side effect of this is that corporate effective income tax rates are substantially lower than the tables and are lower than that of individuals in most cases.

Its tough to listen to folks like you who just regurgitate nonsense in the face of NO understanding.

I just wanted to add that I'm not currently unemployed (As of 4:27pm 12/18/09 that is). But unemployment definitely decreases the need/drive to find a job. The trouble is, is getting rid of the benefit worth it? How many would lose their house/apt/car with a job loss?

Do not accuse me of cutting and pasting what I read on CNN or FOX. You have your point of view and I have mine. I lived in 4 different countries you have not. Your perspective is built from one point of view and mine is not. What you are doing, is regurgitating information that you got from your precious CPA courses. All you know is the "american way" and I have a little more than that. I love America mainly for its people that value diversity and freedom but you seem to get steamed up because I do not seem think exactly the way you do.

Where did I say that people that make money are evil? I just think that we should tax people that can afford to pay taxes and not the people that are the backbone of this country. When I lived in the States I worked for a guy that was/is worth billions and I can assure you that percentage of income wise he paid less in taxes than I did. I live in Sweden now and things a little different. The owner of IKEA pays 90% of income in taxes but yet his company is very successful. Two different approaches to taxation... .

I am guessing that only reason why you getting so offended is because you naively think that someday you will be a part of that top 2%. Maybe instead attacking you should defending the people in your income class. Good luck bro.

Unemployment Insurance
 

Maybe the problem is that unemployment insurance is a living wage to someone who is use to the regional wages? If pilots were paid better living on unemployment would be a disaster instead of a government sponsored year long vacation.

Skyhigh

Good point. However, according to some people on this forum, pilots should not complain about their low pay but rather defend the wealthy management that causes the problem in the first place...

Its funny, I tell the CAs I fly with this all the time. I tell them I hope they fire me or furlough me so I can finally get that dream job of running a hot dog cart.

How could I ever replace 24K/year with an education and military background!

There is never going to be a perfectly fair way to tax. Someone will always complain. Hell, a seniority list cannot even be merged without a similar response.

However, taxing someone more heavily as they succeed serves to dampen the motivation to succeed in the first place. As the progressive scale gets bigger, these same folks are able to maneuver within the system to end up with a lesser effective percentage, effectively flattening out the progressive nature of the tables.

The system you advocate is one in which the higher earners pay the heaviest taxes and those who are the "backbone" (as if the large businesses aren't part of that) as you say shouldn't have to pay as much. Honestly, that is about the way it is in reality - nearly 50% of lower ended wage earners pay nothing in federal taxes.

Your viewpoint is akin to communism which holds dear the mantra of "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". So far, communism is batting zero.

It might sound great if you are the little guy, but merely serves to stifle will to succeed on the macro scale.

I am not going to swing back on your having lived in other countries. So be it. However, you obviously have some major misunderstandings about how businesses work (in this country anyways), what motivates people to succeed, and the inherent balance in the current system. The system is a tool that can be played in many ways. Some choose not to play and will merely complain about it and others will see huge opportunities and go out and create the next Google, Apple, or Microsoft. The lowest common denominator could be construed to be the degree of motivation one has to use the system to succeed. This is what the whole idea of "The American Dream" is all about. Its not "The American Guarantee". Some paths don't lead to victory - so choose wisely in a flawed system that is still the best one on the face of the planet today.

You are entitled to your viewpoint, though. We all are.

Bryris hits the nail on the head!

I belong to the "lower ended wage earner" bracket. I pay nearly 30% of my income in federal tax.

I think we can all agree that business today differs greatly from business of the past. There are some exceptions of course, but when you look at big business, it seems many of the executive fat cats don't earn an honest living. For example, who said "with shared sacrifice, comes shared reward"? 9,000 (correct me if I'm wrong) people are still sacrificing, while one person is reaping the reward. What happened to honest good business where the consumer feels like he's gotten his monies worth. Today, it's how can business take advantage of the consumer, and the consumer not have recourse.

If a wealthy person can make an honest living, let them enjoy their success. If they make a living by pinning misfortunes on others, they should have to pay 100% of their income in taxes and go to federal pound them in the dumper prison.

Once again you are regurgitating information that you gathered from your textbooks....

I am not advocating communism here, last time I checked Sweden was not a Communist State. I was born and raised in a communist country and believe me it was not a place I would want go back to.
You mention that "taxing someone more heavily as they succeed serves to dampen the motivation to succeed in the first place" I have to disagree with that and here is a couple reasons why:
1. Countries like Japan and most of Europe tax their wealthiest at rate of 90% and yet somehow they manage to produce companies that compete and in many instances thrive with the rest of the world. Last time I checked Toyota was producing cars that were just as good as GM.
2. Until the the 80's USA was taxing Corporations in 70% range and somehow the country did not spiral into severe recession like it has today
(during the lowest tax rates in history)
3. Money is not the main motivator for success or fulfillment in life. After all, even you decided to work one of the lowest paid regional in the country because you loved flying more than a paycheck...

I like money as much the next guy and I am not suggesting 90% tax rates. I am however, saying than an extra 5% would not hurt someone that already has billions in their bank account. I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. I believe in free enterprise but it should not be an anarchy for majority of popultaion and socialism for the wealthiest. Corporations and business keeps the ball rolling but it does not mean that they can't contribute a little more to the people that help create that wealth because otherwise we will see the 1920's all over again.

1. The highest individual income tax rate in Japan is 50%. Although higher than the highest U.S. rate of 35%, Japan doesn’t have state-level income tax, which can be as high as 10% in some states. [Source: KPMG International Income Tax Survey, 2009.] The highest corporate tax rate is only 39.5% in Japan, which is barely higher than the highest corporate tax rate in the United States of 39.3%, and again, you have to add state taxes on top of that in the U.S. In fact, the Untied States and Japan have the highest corporate tax rates of all OECD countries, higher than Canada (20%) Germany (30%) Italy and the UK (both 28%). [Source: United States Treasury Statement for the Record of the Senate Committee on Finance Hearing on International Tax Reform, July 26, 2008.] Only a small number of European countries have a highest marginal individual tax rate above 50%, and again, none of them have state-level taxes.

2. The United States never had a corporate tax rate of 70% in the 1980s. The highest marginal corporate income tax was 46% prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986. [Source: United States Senate, Joint Economic Committee, "The Tax Reform Act of 1986: A Primer," September 17, 2003.]

3. Money is absolutely the main motivator for corporations and business owners who generate, either directly through their own employees and purchases, or indirectly through the taxes they pay, all of the economic output of the country.

I'm also having a hard time understanding why you would impugn "information you gathered from your textbooks." When your doctor diagnoses your illness, do you chastise him for "regurgitating information that you gathered from your textbooks"?

We don't tolerate B.S. in this forum. Does nobody remember Tony Montana?

I don't have enough time to completely refute this ridiculous claim, but I did visit website of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, FREEDGAR, and pulled data from the audited Annual Report on Form 10-K of a few frequently villified large corporations. (In each case the most recent filing, the date of which is indicated):

Halliburton (Filed with SEC 2/18/2009): Total income tax expense: $1.2 billion. Total pre-tax income: $3.2 billion. Average tax rate: 38%.
ExxonMobil (Filed with SEC 2/27/2009): Total income tax expense: $36.5 billion. Total pre-tax income: $81.8 billion. Average tax rate: 45%.
United HealthCare (Filed with SEC 2/11/2009): Total income tax expense: $1.6 billion. Total pre-tax income: $4.6 billion. Average tax rate: 36%.

Note: Amounts rounded to save typing time, percent calculations are mine.

I also found a letter from Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office, to the Honorable Kent Conrad, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, written May 18, 2007. Excerpt: "Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35%, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. The bulk of the revenue increase was associated with corporate income taxes."

Even more interesting, this excerpt from the same letter: "Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion."

So not only did federal revenues increase from 2003 to 2006, but the increase was IN EXCESS of what could be attributed solely to economic growth, and driven primarily by corporate income taxes.

"Money is absolutely the main motivator for corporations and business owners who generate, either directly through their own employees and purchases, or indirectly through the taxes they pay, all of the economic output of the country.


If money is absolutelly the main motivator, then how do you explain people that chose to become airline pilots?


I'm also having a hard time understanding why you would impugn "information you gathered from your textbooks." When your doctor diagnoses your illness, do you chastise him for "regurgitating information that you gathered from your textbooks"?

The reason why I keep chastizing him for "regurgitating" is simply becaue that is waht he acused me of doing in the first place.

I said that money was the absolute motivator for corporations and business owners, not individuals. I agree, individuals frequently do make career decisions based on things other than money. But airline pilots don't take the lower income for nothing... they take it in exchange for work that is (arguably) a lot more enjoyable that other jobs. I think it's fatuous to think that reducing the profit motive from an employer would have no impact, if the employer is giving increased sacrifice and getting nothing in return.

You were accused of not just regurgitating, but of regurgitating nonsense. I believe it has been shown in my previous posts that that accusation was correct.

WOW, I was gone for 2 days and surprised at the storm I created. RXS676 and Bryris have said it far better than I could have. Thank you!

I think SkyHigh is absolutly right.

However, what I believe my value is to my employer may be (and frequently is) not what my employer believes it to be.

Easy all the wannabes in training believe they will be at FDX, Southwest whatever as soon as they hit 1,000 TPIC. Furthermore, most do not understand that $60/flight hr translates into roughly $25/hr in 9 to 5er terms.:eek:

CUT THE TAXES!!!

Imagine what would happen if we all paid around 10% taxes instead of 20% and the corporations only had to pay say 18% instead of the 35% they pay. Why does the govt need that money? So they can send all the politicians to nice 5 star hotels and steak dinners while we struggle to live? That's a lot more money for business to utilize with out any kind of bailout or stimulus package.

Cut taxes, cut govt, and cut the throat of anyone who commits fraud.

Any taxes required from corporations, is simply passed on to the consumer.
Any money made by the corporation is simply used up in cost of tooling, supplies or expansion, or shown as a loss.

Joe Q. Public, pays taxes on his income and again while purchasing the new products…….that’s really how simple it is.

Point of order.. Rascal didnt not respond when presented with facts which dispute his numbers of 90% and 70% tax rates.....


here are some things about swedens tax system...sems to tax the little guys pretty hard at 31%... and it gets worse from there..... corporations... only 28% or so... then of course there is that 23% VAT.....


With so many social services in effect, and a virtual absence of poverty, Sweden's personal income taxes are the highest in the world. In 2002, personal income tax rates, the combination of state and local rates, were 31% on the first increment of taxable income up to 232,600 Krona (about $173,065); 51% on the next increment up to 374,000 Krona (about $278,000); and 56% on increments of income above 374,000 Krona. Personal deductions vary between 8,600 and 18,100 Krona ($6,364 and $13, 400). A health tax is levied at 1.5%. There is also a real estate tax.

In contrast, corporations are taxed relatively lightly in comparison with those in many other countries. The national income tax rate on corporations was 28% in 2002 (separate municipal income tax on corporations was abolished as of 1985), with no distinction between distributed and undistributed profits. Capital gains are taxed like other corporate income at 28%. The withholding tax on dividends is 30% and on royalties, 28%, but these rates are often reduced or eliminated in bilateral tax treaties. Interest income is not subject to withholding.

Tax liability is determined according to a firm's books so long as these are properly kept. Companies are allowed considerable discretion in determining their net income for any particular year; they can take advantage of the flexible rules governing the valuation of stocks and the depreciation of equipment and machinery. Swedish companies may set aside an investment reserve in boom years and use this reserve in years of slack production.

For decades, the Swedish ratio of indirect taxes to total tax revenue was one of the lowest in the world. During World War II and the early postwar years, however, a national sales tax was in effect. The national sales tax was replaced by a value-added tax (VAT) with a standard rate of 10% on 1 January 1969. The standard rate was increased to 17.65% 1971, to 20.63% in 1977, to 46% in 1980, to 21.51% in 1981, to 23.46% in 1983, to 25% in 1992, where it has since remained. Almost all goods and most services are subject to this tax. There are two reduced rates: 12%, applied to food, and 6%, applied to domestic passenger transport, newspapers, and, as of 1 January 2002, books and magazines. A zero VAT rate applies to printing services, ship and airplane building and repair, sea rescue services, prescription medicine, aircraft fuel, and gold supplied to the Central Bank.



Read more: Taxation - Sweden - Taxation - Sweden -