Airlines Reduce Taxes but Raise Rates

[HoosierGuy]

Once again more evidance that large corporations are predatory and destructive.

This story is a week or so old but when Congress was battling over the debt ceiling the FAA got cut along with the authority to impose some taxes on airlines. That means airlines do not have to pass those taxes on to you when you buy a ticket. But did that reduce the airline tickets? NO! The airlines went ahead and raised their rates.

Now when you buy a ticket it should be $40 or so cheaper because of no taxes. Not so. You Your $250 ticket with taxes is still going to cost $250 because the airline companies are pocketing the money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/airlines-raise-fares-as-federal-taxes-expire.html

On Friday, Congress failed to approve the extension of a bill to keep the Federal Aviation Administration running. Among other things, that meant the agency no longer had the authority to impose the various federal taxes that airlines add to the price of each ticket.

So as of 12:01 a.m. Saturday, the federal government began losing an estimated $25 million a day in tax revenue.

But did airlines simply pass on this savings to customers?

No, they did not.

Jim Hightower | Airline pickpockets strike again

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, we all know how insanely profitable airlines have been of late . . .

If you think someone's charging you too much--don't buy from them.

If you think suppliers are colluding--report them to the antitrust division of your local AG's office.

Or, you could just tell yourself that they're using that money to keep the otherwise unsustainable benefits packages of their (unionized) employees afloat for that much longer. Doesn't that make you feel better?

[Jennarator]

Grrrr!!! My son will never get to fly in a plane, that is his one real wish!

[Guest]

Jerks.

[john doe]

What this country really needs is nationalized industries, and a dictator to run the country. Nothing could ever go wrong with that idea. Just think how much safer and stable we would be if the government would set prices and eliminate competition. I can't imagine how much better off we would be.

[HoosierGuy]

What this country really needs is nationalized industries, and a dictator to run the country. Nothing could ever go wrong with that idea. Just think how much safer and stable we would be if the government would set prices and eliminate competition. I can't imagine how much better off we would be.

You are being radical on purpose to make me and other progressive look radical. We are not saying nationalize everything. The subject is the airlines ripping the American public off.

Once again large business has no shame.

[sixpacktr]

I suggest you look at all of the taxes and fees that the airlines pay to the various airports and yes, to Uncle Sam, and see how 'profitable' they are. We are taxed to death in this country, and not one company has ever paid a single penny in taxes. Why? Because they pass those costs along to the consumer. So when all the lib dolts shout we need to tax businesses more in order to 'get them', all they are saying is 'tax everyman more'.

That is the problem right now. We have too many that don't understand how businesses operate and think that they can tax them or regulate them to be 'fair'.

I'm not a fan of businesses, to be honest with you. They chew people up and spit them out too much in my opinion. Once they have milked the last drop of blood from the turnip, they cut you lose without so much as a thank you. But they are operating out of fear right now. Who knows what the clown in the WH is going to do next.

Want to reduce rates in the airline industry? DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW. Instead of $100/barrel (or more) oil, we'd get back down to $30 or $40/barrel. Which would reduce their costs tremendously. But no, that would be too logical. Let's keep paying terrorist regimes for the life blood of our economy...

[NeuroTypical]

Meh. We're flying Amtrak for the fam vaycay this year.

[bytor2112]

You are being radical on purpose to make me and other progressive look radical. We are not saying nationalize everything. The subject is the airlines ripping the American public off.

Once again large business has no shame.

So, why not rail against......the movie industry? I paid $28 bucks for three to see Captain America. Had we bought soda and pop corn,,,,easily $50 bucks. What about milk? Egad? Or beef?

FYI......publicly traded corporations are owned and accountable to the share holders. Businesses begin and exist to make a profit. Don't like the product or service offered....shop elsewhere.

[bytor2112]

On Friday, Congress failed to approve the extension of a bill to keep the Federal Aviation Administration running. Among other things, that meant the agency no longer had the authority to impose the various federal taxes that airlines add to the price of each ticket.

So as of 12:01 a.m. Saturday, the federal government began losing an estimated $25 million a day in tax revenue.

But did airlines simply pass on this savings to customers?

No, they did not.

My first thought is....haha. But, seriously how obscene...$25 million dollars a day???? What a colossal rip off as usual by the government. I'm sure the airlines are betting on a past due bill from the gubment in the not so distant future. I am always astonished at how some folks are aghast at business earning a profit (not sure the airlines are) and seem unphased by "$25 million dollars a day".....from the worthless, wasteful,out of touch , elitists that are in the White house and on Capital Hill.

Edited August 5, 2011 by bytor2112

[john doe]

You are being radical on purpose to make me and other progressive look radical. We are not saying nationalize everything. The subject is the airlines ripping the American public off.

Once again large business has no shame.

I don't have to do anything more than to look at your posting history to make you look radical. You think government controls and regulation are the solution to every problem. Progress stops when someone adds the letters 'ive' to it. I can't think of anything good that has come from a Progressive who fully implemented their ideas.

[HoosierGuy]

Facts are facts. Those airline companies are rotten. And no, you can't leave businesses to regulate themselves. If you do we will have more problems like the salmonella outbreak.

I wonder if the airlines are taking the extra money they are making and putting it into safety. I doubt it.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Facts are facts. Those airline companies are rotten. And no, you can't leave businesses to regulate themselves. If you do we will have more problems like the salmonella outbreak.

I wonder if the airlines are taking the extra money they are making and putting it into safety. I doubt it.

I find it amusing that you immediately follow up the emboldened with the underlined opinion as though it was exemplary of the emboldened.

[FunkyTown]

I don't have to do anything more than to look at your posting history to make you look radical. You think government controls and regulation are the solution to every problem. Progress stops when someone adds the letters 'ive' to it. I can't think of anything good that has come from a Progressive who fully implemented their ideas.

To John Doe:

Augh. I started writing in this and then stopped. I wanted to make sure my ideas were phrased correctly:

Definition of Progressive:

pro·gres·sive/prəˈgresiv/

Noun: A person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

Definition of Liberal:

lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/

Adjective: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

When the Founding Fathers pushed for a non-Monarchy? That was both Progressive and Liberal. I'd say that was a good thing. You can look throughout history - Martin Luther, Joseph Smith - All of them questioned traditional values and implemented social reform.

Heck - If you're pushing away from the Alexander Hamilton view of the US and want to move more towards Thomas Jefferson's Agrarian view of the US, then you're technically a liberal and progressive as Alexander Hamilton's ideas are what the US has been following for a very long time. You are the one moving to a progressive stance, looking to solve the current crisis by changing things.

Hoosier? Airplane companies have been selling tickets at losses. The travel industry is cut-throat and several companies have gone bust in the past few years as they viciously fight to get people to travel through them during a time when few are travelling.

It's a miracle they haven't raised prices more, but because travel is way down compared to times of plenty, they have to reduce prices to get anyone.

Don't begrudge them not lowering their prices. Many of these companies will fold over the next year, just like SkyEurope and Air Liberte did. Their prices are currently unsustainable due to high fuel costs, but low demand is pushing them to lower their prices to let people travel.

[PrinceofLight2000]

To John Doe:

Augh. I started writing in this and then stopped. I wanted to make sure my ideas were phrased correctly:

Definition of Progressive:

pro·gres·sive/prəˈgresiv/

Noun: A person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

Definition of Liberal:

lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/

Adjective: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

When the Founding Fathers pushed for a non-Monarchy? That was both Progressive and Liberal. I'd say that was a good thing. You can look throughout history - Martin Luther, Joseph Smith - All of them questioned traditional values and implemented social reform.

Heck - If you're pushing away from the Alexander Hamilton view of the US and want to move more towards Thomas Jefferson's Agrarian view of the US, then you're technically a liberal and progressive as Alexander Hamilton's ideas are what the US has been following for a very long time. You are the one moving to a progressive stance, looking to solve the current crisis by changing things.

What a red herring this is.

Edited August 5, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[john doe]

To John Doe:

Augh. I started writing in this and then stopped. I wanted to make sure my ideas were phrased correctly:

Definition of Progressive:

pro·gres·sive/prəˈgresiv/

Noun: A person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

From Wikipedia: (not my favorite source of info, but it will suffice here)

Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.

Definition of Liberal:

lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/

Adjective: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

That bolded part probably fits in many instances. The problem is, as a Canadian living in the UK, you really don't understand American Liberals or its politics very well, even though you like to think you do. Using a dictionary definition to describe those movements doesn't translate very well to how they behave politically.

When the Founding Fathers pushed for a non-Monarchy? That was both Progressive and Liberal. I'd say that was a good thing. You can look throughout history - Martin Luther, Joseph Smith - All of them questioned traditional values and implemented social reform.

Heck - If you're pushing away from the Alexander Hamilton view of the US and want to move more towards Thomas Jefferson's Agrarian view of the US, then you're technically a liberal and progressive as Alexander Hamilton's ideas are what the US has been following for a very long time. You are the one moving to a progressive stance, looking to solve the current crisis by changing things.

It may surprise you to note that American Politics and attitudes have changed dramatically in the last 220 years. We have swung from the ideas that we should fight for our liberty to having people who claim to espouse those same values trying to enslave us by force of the government.

Hoosier? Airplane companies have been selling tickets at losses. The travel industry is cut-throat and several companies have gone bust in the past few years as they viciously fight to get people to travel through them during a time when few are travelling.

It's a miracle they haven't raised prices more, but because travel is way down compared to times of plenty, they have to reduce prices to get anyone.

Don't begrudge them not lowering their prices. Many of these companies will fold over the next year, just like SkyEurope and Air Liberte did. Their prices are currently unsustainable due to high fuel costs, but low demand is pushing them to lower their prices to let people travel.

I agree.

[FunkyTown]

That bolded part probably fits in many instances. The problem is, as a Canadian living in the UK, you really don't understand American Liberals or its politics very well, even though you like to think you do. Using a dictionary definition to describe those movements doesn't translate very well to how they behave politically.

It may surprise you to note that American Politics and attitudes have changed dramatically in the last 220 years. We have swung from the ideas that we should fight for our liberty to having people who claim to espouse those same values trying to enslave us by force of the government.

The bolded part is an ad hominem attack and irrelevant in logical discourse, though the part after I would agree to.

The problem is that very few people can agree to what a 'Liberal' or a 'Progressive' is in modern American political thought. There is a balkanization of politics that has made 'My side good, their side bad!'.

I'm reminded of Animal Farm's 'Two Legs bad, four legs good!' chants.

What I see in the US:

A lawyer in New York is probably a Democrat, and looks down upon the business owner in Utah, who is probably a Republican.

The farmer in Utah is a Republican who looks down on the black welder in Florida, who is probably a Democrat(Say what you want - Racial politics play a huge role. Overwhelmingly, African Americans tend to vote Democrat - Source:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_african_americans_are_democrat_vs_republican )

What is shocking to me is that I have heard the arguments. From both sides.

It has almost overwhelmingly come down to people yelling 'Liberal! Socialist! Left wing commie!' and 'Right wing Nutjob!' over and over again.

The labels you're referring to - 'Liberal' and 'Progressive' are nothing more than a bludgeon, while 'Conservative' is just as useless. For examples, look at the last Presidential Election, where every potential Republican candidate was 'The most consistently Conservative candidate'.

Don't get me wrong - I disagreed with Hoosier and I said why, but I didn't do it by calling him a Socialist or a Liberal. I did it by pointing out why I felt he was incorrect. That's very different than saying 'You just don't understand, Canadian' or 'Political ideals have changed'.

In discussions, the majority of humanity do not want actual change(Which is difficult) but rather simply want to be right. This is why so little actual dialogue goes on - Dialogue which could save the nation.

Would you rather walk away with a feeling of being superior to your opponent, or would you rather educate them and provide a real chance for improvement?

[FunkyTown]

What a red herring this is.

Explain how? Be specific.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Explain how? Be specific.

You didn't address the actual point JD made and instead decided to nit-pick semantics. "Progressive", "liberal", "quasi-socialist", "x", "y", "pizza"... you can call it whatever you like as it really doesn't matter, but the viewpoint is set in stone. That's why I agree that progressivism is a misnomer. It suggests open-mindedness and willingness to adopt new ideas, but for most "progressives" those ideas are set in stone. As JD outlined above, progressivism in terms of American politics has a very solid, static platform. There is no true progressive worldview or morality, it might change from time to time but each time new rules are carved into stone. Even claiming to have a progressive worldview isn't de facto progressive because the possibility for progression to cease is closed. There is no such thing as true non-conformity.

EDIT: If you think party and ideological labels serve no other purpose than as a bludgeon then I think you are being very naively shallow in your thinking and should probably read up on the party/ideological platforms behind those labels.

Edited August 6, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[john doe]

The bolded part is an ad hominem attack and irrelevant in logical discourse, though the part after I would agree to.

No, it's a statement of fact. As a Canadian living in the UK, you don't know the politics of the US. Unless you are living under the thumbs of these people, you can't know. You can try to understand by reading the papers and watching television news, but you don't know until you are under the rule of that regime. You might be able to pick up some stuff intellectually, but unless you live it, and see it, and experience it daily, you don't know it. All you really know is what's fed to you by the media, who are often wrong.

The labels you're referring to - 'Liberal' and 'Progressive' are nothing more than a bludgeon, while 'Conservative' is just as useless. For examples, look at the last Presidential Election, where every potential Republican candidate was 'The most consistently Conservative candidate'.

For your information, and you can check this by going back to the posts, Hoosier was the one who brought up his Progressivism. He's the one who swung that bludgeon.

I'm really not sure why you think a farmer in Utah (which I'm not one)would look down on a welder in Florida, no matter their color. And this goes back to our misunderstanding. You really don't know what we think, all you know is what you're being fed by news reporters.

As for your assertion that not enough actual discussion occurs, you are right. Why do you think we have to close any thread invoking the name of Glenn Beck? It's because people have already made up their mind about whether he is right or wrong without even knowing what he said, or its context.

[bytor2112]

I think the problem is thus: Those who represent themselves as conservative aren't really very conservative and those that vote Democrat are not nearly as liberal in their views as President Obama and Bernie Sanders. They tend to be single issue voters.

Both camps, ideology and party, play in the sand box that has been created by past big government idealists. Personally, I am libertarian and small, small government in my preferences. Though I have never lived in a time when the government has truly been small. States rights and state governance is the ideal and NOT an all intrusive, cradle to the grave entitlement mentality that pervades our political thinking and both political parties are guilty of it.

[FunkyTown]

You didn't address the actual point JD made and instead decided to nit-pick semantics. "Progressive", "liberal", "quasi-socialist", "x", "y", "pizza"... you can call it whatever you like as it really doesn't matter, but the viewpoint is set in stone. That's why I agree that progressivism is a misnomer. It suggests open-mindedness and willingness to adopt new ideas, but for most "progressives" those ideas are set in stone. As JD outlined above, progressivism in terms of American politics has a very solid, static platform. There is no true progressive worldview or morality, it might change from time to time but each time new rules are carved into stone. Even claiming to have a progressive worldview isn't de facto progressive because the possibility for progression to cease is closed. There is no such thing as true non-conformity.

EDIT: If you think party and ideological labels serve no other purpose than as a bludgeon then I think you are being very naively shallow in your thinking and should probably read up on the party/ideological platforms behind those labels.

The actual 'Point' JD made? He said he had never seen Progressives do anything good. That was the point of his post, so I'd say I addressed that fairly succinctly. If you'd like, I could step by step go through my old post and quote each individual line that addressed that very point if you'd like and how it references it? I am assuming that's unnecessary, but feel free to correct me on this and ask me to quote my own post for counterpoints to what JD said.

And JD: I'm sorry.

Really. Not a hint of sarcasm in that. The US is in dire straits: China is talking about dumping US Dollars as their reserve currency, as is Nigeria. They're pushing for the Yuan as the world reserve currency, citing its stability, and even Great Britain has admitted the possibility - One of the US's most staunch allies.

That would cause a huge devaluing of the American currency. The stock market has crashed and anyone who has investments most likely is seeing them dry up and die. Retirement seems further away and poverty is a very real problem for millions of once-middle class Americans as jobs dry up and unemployment reaches critical lows. And it only seems to get worse.

And you know whose fault it is?

Barack Obama's.

He was the guy in charge when it all went down, so people want to blame him. That's fine. He has the job, he gets his neck on the chopping block.

But:

When you turn this in to a left-wing versus right-wing argument, you create a simplistic view of the situation. Do you know who is in the best situation right now economically to profit from this?

China.

Communist China. Whose government controls the economy far more rigidly than the US, and where corruption is a major part of the GDP.

We've discussed on this very board China's armed forces writing a thesis on how it would defeat a technologically superior foe in combat: Hack the infrastructure, introduce war weariness and break their economy so the spirit couldn't handle another war. They flooded their reserve currency with US dollars, purchased US debt and they are very close to a perfect storm: If the US is lost as a global reserve currency, they could simply dump US debt and cause horrendous damage.

All that done by Socialists.

You haven't been held at gunpoint. You haven't been dragged to concentration camps. Obama is not Stalin and the left are not evil. If you want to turn things around, what you need to do is stop playing the blame game. Come up with a well-thought out proposal. Address all the concerns all sides have. Make sure the potential positives and potential negatives are all laid out properly and educate the other side on how this will work..

Yelling out 'Socialist!' doesn't help things and isn't even really accurate.

[john doe]

Hmmmm, I don't remember yelling out 'Socialist!'. All I did was take Hoosierguy's silly idea out to its logical ends, where he wants to go. As I pointed out earlier, he was the one who brought up his Progressivism, not me. And I stand by my observation that I can't think of one good thing that has come out of a Progressive idea that has been allowed to be fully implemented. Can you?

[FunkyTown]

Hmmmm, I don't remember yelling out 'Socialist!'. All I did was take Hoosierguy's silly idea out to its logical ends, where he wants to go. As I pointed out earlier, he was the one who brought up his Progressivism, not me. And I stand by my observation that I can't think of one good thing that has come out of a Progressive idea that has been allowed to be fully implemented. Can you?

Can I go based on Wiki's definition of Progressivism in the United States? I'm concerned that I'm going to mention some things and you're going to just keep saying they're not part of Progressivism until I run out of examples.

Progressivism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[bytor2112]

Barack Obama's.

He was the guy in charge when it all went down, so people want to blame him. That's fine. He has the job, he gets his neck on the chopping block.

Certainly President Obama didn't cause the economic meltdown, that too many years and different administrations to do that, BUT, he IS responsible for deepening the crisis and making so much worse.