Even Less Gloom?

I thought he was complaining about construction of new hotels at
taxpayer's expense?

He's complaining about that too. (and IMHO, government should not in
general be =doing= business). However, tax abatements to encourage
business to move here (or there) end up with the business sucking the
government teat, and me feeding it. It's just the same.

In reality, we all suck the government teat (ever use a library?) and
the government sucks our teats (1040 anyone?) so the distinction between
one kind of taxpayer expense and another, which may be more cleverly
hidden in the tax code, is rather moot.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Perhaps I could become the "flying tutor" and get the government to pay
for some spectacular cross country trips.

reducing your tax liability isn't at all the same as having the government
pay.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

reducing your tax liability isn't at all the same
as having the government pay.

What's the difference? It works out the same.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Jun 25, 7:09 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

That's not the point he's making (that it's _strictly_ union caused).

Matt, I have lurked on this list on and off for years and I have read
a few of your posts. You seem to like to berate and flame the airline
guys alot. I dont know why you have this chip on your shoulder,maybe
you were turned down by an airline, or maybe you like to think you
know more than airline guys. Judging by your post, I would
respectfully submit that you havent spent much time, if any, at the
controlls of an airliner.




Maybe because they're typically a bunch of thugs who do generate a few
bennies at a obscene cost?

I have never been approached by a thug. ALPA stresses professionalism.
If the non union pilots benifit, why shouldnt they help out?




How many have ALPA rejected in terms of "full employment"?

Is this your beef?

Look at
the recent crap that went on at Jet Blue (Duty time violations). That
would have never happened at an ALPA carrier.

Absolute BS.

75 years ago (When flying the line was really dangerous) ALPA realized
that the best contract in the world was meaningless if you werent
around to enjoy it. So they formed a safety department and they have
had a hand in every safety inovation and procedure and accident
investigation for the past 75 years. A couple of recent examples where
the FAA overhauled certain rules and procedures (Based on ALPA input)
are LASHO and the Whitlow Ruling. Could you be more specific with your
"Absolute BS" statement. At what union carrier (ALPA, APA, IPA CPA)
were the pilots specifically told by managment that they would be
requiered to ignore flight time/duty time regs?

If you are paying a
little extra for a ticket, you can rest assured the added level of
safety is worth it. Now how does the consumer lose here?

By assuming the unions are interested primarily in safety.

Matt, read the above paragragh again.



Ah, the old "Blame labor for management follies". A quick look at
recent airline bankruptcies will put this one to bed.

Oh, like United?

???????

Respectfully, K B

Jose wrote:
reducing your tax liability isn't at all the same
as having the government pay.

What's the difference? It works out the same.

There is an upper limit on how much you can gain by way of tax reductions,
but an absurdly higher limit on what you can gain by way of government
handouts.

Recently, Jose posted:

In reality, we all suck the government teat (ever use a library?) and
the government sucks our teats (1040 anyone?) so the distinction
between one kind of taxpayer expense and another, which may be more
cleverly hidden in the tax code, is rather moot.

One of the primary reasons to have a government is to provide for the
common good. Libraries fall under that category, just as do other items of
our physical infrastructure. Hotels do not fall under that category, nor
do farm subsidies for crops not being grown or bridges to nowhere. Let's
not get confused, here.

Neil

There is an upper limit on how much you can gain by way of tax reductions,
but an absurdly higher limit on what you can gain by way of government
handouts.

So, it's just a matter of quantity? If I suck only a little bit, then
it doesn't matter how I do it.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

One of the primary reasons to have a government is to provide for the
common good. Libraries fall under that category, just as do other items of
our physical infrastructure. Hotels do not fall under that category, nor
do farm subsidies for crops not being grown or bridges to nowhere. Let's
not get confused, here.

I agree with the basic premise, but reasonable arguments can be made
that the other items =do= fall under that category. I may not
necessarily agree with them, but there isn't a sharp line between direct
and indirect providing for the common good (nor is there agreement what
the common "good" is). It can be argued that aiding commerce is a
"common good", and for that we give tax breaks to encourage businesses
to relocate here so that the added business they bring, and the
multplier effect, end up raising more revenue than we give up directly.
The argument (for or against) is equally valid for airports as it is
for trains and hotels.

And if one of the things that makes our nation great is abundant food,
then preventing the collapse of the =system= (by letting prices fall too
low) does arguably fall under that category too.

Tax deductions =do= constitute "sucking on the government teat", since
the line between use and abuse is so fuzzy.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"K Baum" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 25, 7:09 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

That's not the point he's making (that it's _strictly_ union caused).

Matt, I have lurked on this list on and off for years and I have read
a few of your posts. You seem to like to berate and flame the airline
guys alot.

Really? Of the top of my head I can't remember discussing airline folks AT
ALL.


I dont know why you have this chip on your shoulder,maybe
you were turned down by an airline, or maybe you like to think you
know more than airline guys. Judging by your post, I would
respectfully submit that you havent spent much time, if any, at the
controlls of an airliner.

Never even considered working for airlines...or even flying commercially.

Oh, like United?

Rest of your pompous, FOS "guesstimate" snipped

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Recently, Jose posted:

One of the primary reasons to have a government is to provide for the
common good. Libraries fall under that category, just as do other
items of our physical infrastructure. Hotels do not fall under that
category, nor do farm subsidies for crops not being grown or bridges
to nowhere. Let's not get confused, here.

I agree with the basic premise, but reasonable arguments can be made
that the other items =do= fall under that category. I may not
necessarily agree with them, but there isn't a sharp line between
direct and indirect providing for the common good (nor is there
agreement what the common "good" is).

I agree that the general public is confused about "the common good", and
that politicians have long played on this situation to abuse us with pork.
But, the line is visible if not sharp, should one choose to see it.

It can be argued that aiding
commerce is a "common good", and for that we give tax breaks to
encourage businesses to relocate here so that the added business they
bring, and the multplier effect, end up raising more revenue than we
give up directly.

In the proper application, there is no public tax money *spent* on such
aids. That is quite different from using public money to build things that
are then privately owned.

The argument (for or against) is equally valid
for airports as it is for trains and hotels.

Airports are general and available to the public, just as are roads and
publicly owned transportation systems serve the common good. Have you ever
seen a publicly owned hotel, and if so, how does that work?

And if one of the things that makes our nation great is abundant food,
then preventing the collapse of the =system= (by letting prices fall
too low) does arguably fall under that category too.

Farmers compete in the market just as any other business. If they can't
make money growing one crop, they should grow some other crop. Paying them
to not grow crops is an undeserved handout in a free market economy.

Tax deductions =do= constitute "sucking on the government teat", since
the line between use and abuse is so fuzzy.

A tax deduction is a reduction in liability; you get to keep your money
rather than receive a handout. If one is an advocate of a flat tax system
then it might seem as though there isn't much difference, but one of the
few ways a flat tax could work would be to reduce the tax liability
further than the amount of deductions one is entitled to under the current
system.

Neil