pvjin wrote:

The future prospects of living on government welfare forever or working at Mcdonald's even though I have a master's degree don't exactly make me hopeful of my future in Finland.

May I ask what is your Master's degree in?

WildcatYXU wrote:

pvjin wrote:

The future prospects of living on government welfare forever or working at Mcdonald's even though I have a master's degree don't exactly make me hopeful of my future in Finland.

May I ask what is your Master's degree in?

Right now I'm studying history, but since I realized how bad the employment situation truly is for teachers in this country I've started working on changing my major to something with much more chances in private sector. Too bad as I like history, but what can you do when the government policy is to pay universities money for all graduates no matter their chances of employment, leading to oversupply.

WildcatYXU wrote:

May I ask what is your Master's degree in?

DING!!

pvjin wrote:

Right now I'm studying history, but since I realized how bad the employment situation truly is for teachers in this country I've started working on changing my major to something with much more chances in private sector. Too bad as I like history, but what can you do when the government policy is to pay universities money for all graduates no matter their chances of employment, leading to oversupply.

As it happens, I used to work for a guy with a degree in history. Not directly for him, but I supported the product line he was selling. He never got into teaching despite being a son of university teachers. He's selling medical equipment. So perhaps changing your major is a good idea.

That said, you could be even in worse situation. At least you don't have a tuition to pay. Here in Canada is possible to rack up some serious debt while not gaining any marketable skills.

Wacker1000 wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Read today of a 70 year old Australian children's book author being questioned for 2 hours at LAX by authorities, she has visited the U.S. 116 times. She complained to the Australian Embassy in the U.S and the U.S Embassy in Australia, she got an official apology from the Embassy, but the damage is done and she won't be going back. Or Muhammad Ali's son in Fort Lauderdale being question for 2 hours because he was muslim and they wanted to know where he got his name from !!

Is "2 hours" the magic number everyone uses when complaining about being "detained"? So they were spoken with for two hours and they got offended? Not beaten? Not arrested? Not jailed? No waterboarding?

Maybe it's what happens in that two hours - or less. You don't need to be beaten or arrested (or waterboarded - LOL) and it doesn't take two hours.

I used to cross into East Germany back in the days of the wall, and five minutes of the silent treatment - three men in uniform just staring at me - was all it took to be disturbing and I'm fairly resilient.

So I can imagine how my mother, say, might feel if treated the same way as this old (70-ish) Australian woman, a celebrated author of children's books trying to enter the US for her 117th visit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... re-country

"Mem Fox on being detained by US immigration: 'In that moment I loathed America'

I was pulled out of line in the immigration queue at Los Angeles airport as I came in to the USA. Not because I was Mem Fox the writer – nobody knew that – I was just a normal person like anybody else. They thought I was working in the States and that I had come in on the wrong visa.

I was receiving an honorarium for delivering an opening keynote at a literacy conference, and because my expenses were being paid, they said: “You need to answer further questions.” So I was taken into this holding room with about 20 other people and kept there for an hour and 40 minutes, and for 15 minutes I was interrogated.

The way I was interviewed was monstrous. He was less than half my age – I don’t look 70 but I don’t look 60 either, I’m an older woman – and I was standing the whole time. The belligerence and violence of it was really terrifying. I had to hold the heel of my right hand to my heart to stop it beating so hard.

In that moment I loathed America. I loathed the entire country. And it was my 117th visit to the country so I know that most people are very generous and warm-hearted. They have been wonderful to me over the years. I got over that hatred within a day or two. But this is not the way to win friends, to do this to someone who is Australian when we have supported them in every damn war.

You can say no big deal, she was allowed in, and yes, she was. You can say they were just doing their job, and I won't argue. Or i suppose you could say that she was just an old leftie - is she? - and deserved everything she got, but their attitude changed dramatically when they found out that one of her books was one of Australia's official presents to Prince George when he was born.

My point is simply that it doesn't take two hours to make someone feel like crap abut themselves, and if this is how the US treats it's loyal allies these days, I cannot imagine how they are treating non-celebs from countries less obviously affectionate to the US.

mariner

seb146 wrote:

And in the United States, companies do not pay wages or benefits like they do in Germany. They pay as little as possible, both to their workers and to the government. Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Target, etc. use infrastructure much more than those who work for them, yet those companies get rebates and refunds every year from the government and pay no taxes because their profits are all held off shore.

Here are the Federal income taxes paid during recent years by the corporations that you named.

Corporation.......................2013....................2014......................2015......................2016...............Annual Report Source

McDonald's...............$2,618,000,000......$2,614,000,000......$2,027,000,000....................................http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/content/ ... Report.pdf
Target.......................$1,427,000,000......$1,204,000,000......$1,602,000,000....................................https://corporate.target.com/_media/Tar ... Report.pdf
Wal-Mart...............................................$8,105,000,000......$7,985,000,000.......$6,558,000,000......http://stock.walmart.com/files/doc_fina ... rt-PDF.pdf

Please note that much of the taxes paid by individual McDonald's restaurants are paid by franchisees on their profits after paying franchise fees to McDonald's corporate.

Please try to leave religious garbage out of discussions, and do try to post links to factual information in support of your claims.

Thank you.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

And in the United States, companies do not pay wages or benefits like they do in Germany. They pay as little as possible, both to their workers and to the government. Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Target, etc. use infrastructure much more than those who work for them, yet those companies get rebates and refunds every year from the government and pay no taxes because their profits are all held off shore.

Here are the Federal income taxes paid during recent years by the corporations that you named.

Corporation.......................2013....................2014......................2015......................2016...............Annual Report Source

McDonald's...............$2,618,000,000......$2,614,000,000......$2,027,000,000....................................http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/content/ ... Report.pdf
Target.......................$1,427,000,000......$1,204,000,000......$1,602,000,000....................................https://corporate.target.com/_media/Tar ... Report.pdf
Wal-Mart...............................................$8,105,000,000......$7,985,000,000.......$6,558,000,000......http://stock.walmart.com/files/doc_fina ... rt-PDF.pdf

Please note that much of the taxes paid by individual McDonald's restaurants are paid by franchisees on their profits after paying franchise fees to McDonald's corporate.

Please try to leave religious garbage out of discussions, and do try to post links to factual information in support of your claims.

Thank you.

And how much of a refund did those companies get from governments? I can add up all the taxes I pay for a year and say "because I pay X in taxes, I am a huge supporter of the American tax system." That may be an accurate statement, but, not knowing how much in rebates and refunds I actually receive, that statement is not true.

And, yes, religion has everything to do with it since Republicans insist they are the party of Christianity and God.

BobPatterson wrote:

Here are the Federal income taxes paid during recent years by the corporations that you named.

Corporation.......................2013....................2014......................2015......................2016...............Annual Report Source

McDonald's...............$2,618,000,000......$2,614,000,000......$2,027,000,000....................................http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/content/ ... Report.pdf
Target.......................$1,427,000,000......$1,204,000,000......$1,602,000,000....................................https://corporate.target.com/_media/Tar ... Report.pdf
Wal-Mart...............................................$8,105,000,000......$7,985,000,000.......$6,558,000,000......http://stock.walmart.com/files/doc_fina ... rt-PDF.pdf

Please note that much of the taxes paid by individual McDonald's restaurants are paid by franchisees on their profits after paying franchise fees to McDonald's corporate.

Please try to leave religious garbage out of discussions, and do try to post links to factual information in support of your claims.

Thank you.

So if we take McDonald's in 2013, they paid 2.6 billion on 8.2 billion gross profit. That's a 31% tax on the profits before they are given to the shareholders - which sounds fine to me. I'll save myself some math and assume that that is representative for all three Corps for all four years.

seb146 wrote:

Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Target, etc. ...............pay no taxes because their profits are all held off shore.

The three corporations mentioned pay $ billions in Federal taxes each year.

Corporation..................2013.....................2014.....................2015....................2016................Annual Reports Sources

McDonald's.........$2,618,000,000......$2,614,000,000.......$2,027,000,000..................................http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/content/ ... Report.pdf
Target.................$1,427,000,000......$1,204,000,000.......$1,602,000,000..................................https://corporate.target.com/_media/Tar ... Report.pdf
Wal-Mart.........................................$8,105,000,000.......$7,985,000,000.......$6,558,000,000.....http://stock.walmart.com/files/doc_fina ... rt-PDF.pdf

At one time Target owned stores in Canada and paid taxes there also. Both McDonald's and Wal-Mart pay taxes in many countries where they have retail outlets.

In addition to the USA taxes paid by McDonald's, a very large number of their outlets are franchises, and the individual franchisees pay taxes on their earnings.

salttee wrote:

So if we take McDonald's in 2013, they paid 2.6 billion on 8.2 billion gross profit. That's a 31% tax on the profits before they are given to the shareholders - which sounds fine to me. I'll save myself some math and assume that that is representative for all three Corps for all four years.

Yup, that would be reasonable, but that is Microeconomics. Looking at Welfare or Foodstamps for their employees is also microeconomics. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... f0d0392073

But in a "work or starve" (exageration by me) situation a low minimum wage and/or exceptions for it are either a legal subsidy or simple slavery through the backdoor. That is also how Forbes got it wrong, if the welfare system was good and reliable enough that a worker wouldn´t have to except each and every low paid job he comes across, wages would raise in many of those jobs. And ones better paid low skill jobs are available in numbers, other areas will follow. That is btw. why countries without minimum wage can have a decent wage structure as long employment doesn´t slump over a longer period of time.

And that is way McDonalds employees in Germany get paid better than in the US, despite costs of living being lower here.

Although, low wages won´t make any tourists stay at home....

best regards
Thomas

seb146 wrote:

And how much of a refund did those companies get from governments? I can add up all the taxes I pay for a year and say "because I pay X in taxes, I am a huge supporter of the American tax system." That may be an accurate statement, but, not knowing how much in rebates and refunds I actually receive, that statement is not true.

Why do you think they get a refund after paying taxes, unless they filed an amended return due to errors having been made? If that happened the amended return would replace the first one and the annual report would have to be modified. Investors must be made aware of the precise financial condition of the company.

You might be thinking of a situation where a company operated at a loss in one year and is entitled to take a credit for that loss against profits in a future year. If that actually happened there would be a note explaining that fact in the future year tax return and annual report. That would be little different than legitimately showing a credit for depreciation.

The important thing here is that you made claims that were factually incorrect. They were grossly misleading.

The right examples are of course the GAFA.

Wacker1000 wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Read today of a 70 year old Australian children's book author being questioned for 2 hours at LAX by authorities, she has visited the U.S. 116 times. She complained to the Australian Embassy in the U.S and the U.S Embassy in Australia, she got an official apology from the Embassy, but the damage is done and she won't be going back. Or Muhammad Ali's son in Fort Lauderdale being question for 2 hours because he was muslim and they wanted to know where he got his name from !!

Is "2 hours" the magic number everyone uses when complaining about being "detained"? So they were spoken with for two hours and they got offended? Not beaten? Not arrested? Not jailed? No waterboarding? I've stood in line nearly that long after a morning arrival and wasn't happy about being delayed getting to the hotel to shower. Next time I'll throw a hissy fit so I get media coverage.

jupiter2 wrote:

Come on, it's becoming a joke.......but then again it's probably just fake news.

Its a joke what people choose to whine and complain over.

Next time, we'll have to make sure they waterboard you - because they obviously didn't do their jobs properly, if I understand your sensational outburst correctly.


I have another possible suggestion for the slump, some people are probably just not interested in spending their money on unnecessary things like holidays overseas, eating out, etc. They are just paying down debt as quickly as possible (credit cards, mortgages, etc). Some politicians are to blame for this phenomenon with their penchant for talking up an economic storm in order to scaremonger their way into government. And then, unfortunately, the economic storm actually hits the hapless new government, entirely not what they planned to happen.

I'm one of those, I'm not spending on holidays much at all. I'm just doing my one trip this year overseas with a friend, we are both taking our bikes and will do a race overseas. Better do it now while I'm not too old, and have some decent fitness.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

And how much of a refund did those companies get from governments? I can add up all the taxes I pay for a year and say "because I pay X in taxes, I am a huge supporter of the American tax system." That may be an accurate statement, but, not knowing how much in rebates and refunds I actually receive, that statement is not true.

Why do you think they get a refund after paying taxes, unless they filed an amended return due to errors having been made? If that happened the amended return would replace the first one and the annual report would have to be modified. Investors must be made aware of the precise financial condition of the company.

You might be thinking of a situation where a company operated at a loss in one year and is entitled to take a credit for that loss against profits in a future year. If that actually happened there would be a note explaining that fact in the future year tax return and annual report. That would be little different than legitimately showing a credit for depreciation.

The important thing here is that you made claims that were factually incorrect. They were grossly misleading.

I get a refund without filing an amended return. Corporations do, too. The difference is, they have a team of accountants and lawyers so their refunds and rebates total more than their income.

http://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax- ... tax-rates/

seb146 wrote:

I get a refund without filing an amended return.

So do my wife and I. We (and probably you) have more taxes deducted from our income than is necessary, and we receive our over-payments as a refund after we file our tax returns. For us this is ALWAYS true for both Federal and State taxes.

We are receiving no gifts from government, merely getting back what is ours.

If the situation I have just described is not true in your case, please post a detailed explanation in your reply.

I do not have any reason to question the "facts" in the link you posted. What I do question is your understanding of those facts. Without understanding, you really know nothing. Try to understand WHY some (many) businesses had terrible years and lost huge sums of money beginning in 2008. Boeing should be an easy case for you to study.

BobPatterson wrote:

and lost huge sums of money beginning in 2008. Boeing should be an easy case for you to study.

So, when you spend more money than you earn in one year, will the government also support you by subsidizing your losses?

best regards
Thomass

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

and lost huge sums of money beginning in 2008. Boeing should be an easy case for you to study.

So, when you spend more money than you earn in one year, will the government also support you by subsidizing your losses?

best regards
Thomass

You may need to rephrase your question so that it is not ambiguous to me. I'm not sure just what you mean.

The United States does not make a gift to companies that lose money, if that is what you are asking. There is no tax owed on a net loss year.

Our tax laws permit (under certain conditions) bringing that loss forward into ensuing years, offsetting current profits to the extent of the prior loss.

It is, in effect, a way of smoothing out the ups and downs in business cycles. Of course, if there are no future profits the business eventually goes bust.

BobPatterson wrote:

Our tax laws permit (under certain conditions) bringing that loss forward into ensuing years, offsetting current profits to the extent of the prior loss..

That is exactly the quesion.

Lets say in 2016 you have been unemployed and had to make a living on your savings alone (=losses). Can you deduct that in whole from future profits (income).

Can you also, like companies do, deduct all your living expenses, at least those you had to maintain your ability to work (healthcare, food, car to get to work, housing etc) and only pay taxes on your "Profit" (=what is left after expanses)?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Our tax laws permit (under certain conditions) bringing that loss forward into ensuing years, offsetting current profits to the extent of the prior loss..

That is exactly the question.

Lets say in 2016 you have been unemployed and had to make a living on your savings alone (=losses). Can you deduct that in whole from future profits (income).

Can you also, like companies do, deduct all your living expenses, at least those you had to maintain your ability to work (healthcare, food, car to get to work, housing etc) and only pay taxes on your "Profit" (=what is left after expanses)?

best regards
Thomas

You are confusing (or failing to recognize) two different kinds of entities. Individual persons and business organizations. They are very different things and they are taxed differently according to tax laws, rules and regulations.

If I were to be unemployed for a sufficient length of time I would not be dependent entirely on savings (if I even had any, many do not). But I would qualify for various schemes of public assistance such as unemployment benefits, food stamps (maybe), housing allowance (possibly), medical treatment at public health clinics (might depend on locality), and other forms of charity from food banks and other agencies organized to help those in need. This is by no means a complete list for Americans, and the benefits do vary from state to state and even from city to city.

Businesses are organized with the primary goal of generating profits. They are taxed on the annual profits. the hoped-for balance after deducting all legitimate expenses such as payroll, cost of materials, etc., etc.

For a number of years my brother and I operated what is known as a sub-chapter S corporation. For accounting purposes it was run pretty much as any other business except that, at the end of the year, the profits were distributed to the two of us and we individually paid all the taxes as individuals. The sub-chapter S corporation filed forms accounting for every penny of the business operation, but it paid no (income) taxes. We could bring losses (if any) forward to affect the next year's accounting. It was possible to do this only for a very few years (report annual losses) before the corporation would have to be dissolved.

There are other kinds of corporations permitted by law. They are taxed according to law. Tax laws are not identical for all types of businesses, and they are very different from tax laws that apply to individuals or families.

If individuals/families were, tax-wise, treated as businesses, you would almost certainly not appreciate the degree of intrusion into your personal affairs, where every single expenditure must be recorded and justified at audit.

If you don't like the current state of affairs, write your representatives to the Federal, State, County and City Governments, attend Tea Party meetings, join a lobby, stand up and holler!

Cheers

cpd wrote:

Wacker1000 wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Read today of a 70 year old Australian children's book author being questioned for 2 hours at LAX by authorities, she has visited the U.S. 116 times. She complained to the Australian Embassy in the U.S and the U.S Embassy in Australia, she got an official apology from the Embassy, but the damage is done and she won't be going back. Or Muhammad Ali's son in Fort Lauderdale being question for 2 hours because he was muslim and they wanted to know where he got his name from !!

Is "2 hours" the magic number everyone uses when complaining about being "detained"? So they were spoken with for two hours and they got offended? Not beaten? Not arrested? Not jailed? No waterboarding? I've stood in line nearly that long after a morning arrival and wasn't happy about being delayed getting to the hotel to shower. Next time I'll throw a hissy fit so I get media coverage.

jupiter2 wrote:

Come on, it's becoming a joke.......but then again it's probably just fake news.

Its a joke what people choose to whine and complain over.

Next time, we'll have to make sure they waterboard you - because they obviously didn't do their jobs properly, if I understand your sensational outburst correctly.

Sensational outburst? I've never ran to the media crying because someone at the border was doing their job.

BobPatterson wrote:

You are confusing (or failing to recognize) two different kinds of entities. Individual persons and business organizations. They are very different things and they are taxed differently according to tax laws, rules and regulations.

I am not confusing that, that is exactly the point i am making. The Tax rate for cooperations has to be drastically higher than for people, since cooperation only pay taxes on profits, while most other people pay them on income.

And since "Citizens United", cooperations are people. So, they should be taxed like people ......

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

You are confusing (or failing to recognize) two different kinds of entities. Individual persons and business organizations. They are very different things and they are taxed differently according to tax laws, rules and regulations.

I am not confusing that, that is exactly the point i am making. The Tax rate for cooperations has to be drastically higher than for people, since cooperation only pay taxes on profits, while most other people pay them on income.

And since "Citizens United", cooperations are people. So, they should be taxed like people ......

best regards
Thomas

Well, if you are an American (I can't speak about other countries) you are dead wrong.

In BOTH cases, corporations/businesses and individuals/couples, taxes are paid on NET income. That is, income AFTER allowable deductions.

If you and I, as individuals, have gross income of $50,000 during a calendar year, our Net Federal Taxable Income is far less than that. One of us might be entitled to larger deductions depending on number of dependents and other factors.

So far as I know, no one, individual or business, pays tax on gross income/revenues. Nor should they for many good reasons.

BTW, are you retired? If you are not, and if you lived in Maryland, you would pay much more in State taxes than I do if our gross incomes were the same.

http://www.msn.com/en-my/news/other/tru ... ar-AAnJ7ld

By BETH J. HARPAZ, AP Travel Editor
3 days ago
"NEW YORK — The U.S. Travel Association on Thursday said the Trump administration's immigration policies are hurting tourism.
The nonprofit industry organization said in a statement that there are "mounting signs" of "a broad chilling effect on demand for international travel to the United States."

BobPatterson wrote:

In BOTH cases, corporations/businesses and individuals/couples, taxes are paid on NET income. That is, income AFTER allowable deductions..

Exactly my point again. You should have written allowable in capital letters, not after. A company deducts everything it need to keep running before being taxed, a private person is far away from that. Because if they could, they could deduct food, rent/house payments, clothing etc. in full. They can´t..

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

In BOTH cases, corporations/businesses and individuals/couples, taxes are paid on NET income. That is, income AFTER allowable deductions..

Exactly my point again. You should have written allowable in capital letters, not after. A company deducts everything it need to keep running before being taxed, a private person is far away from that. Because if they could, they could deduct food, rent/house payments, clothing etc. in full. They can´t..

best regards
Thomas

Pardon me for suggesting that you are being deliberately unrealistic.

Let's suppose that your wife shops at Wal-Mart and Target while my wife prefers Macy's and Nordstrum. Some purchases might be:

Winter Coat: you = $75 me = $225

Shoes: you = $24.95 me = $69.95

Sheets: you = $13.99 me = $19.95

We can compare our expenditures throughout our budget. You spend $3.95 lb. for hamburger, we spend $6.49 lb for lean ground round.

Bread? You buy store brand while I buy an artisan brand that actually tastes good.

You decide to fly first class while we fly coach.

Do we both get identical deductions based on our identical incomes, or as a percentage of income? Or do we get to deduct whatever we want based on whatever we buy?

I realize we are getting very far away from the topic of this thread.

Apologies.

BobPatterson wrote:

Winter Coat: you = $75 me = $225

Shoes: you = $24.95 me = $69.95

Sheets: you = $13.99 me = $19.95

We can compare our expenditures throughout our budget. You spend $3.95 lb. for hamburger, we spend $6.49 lb for lean ground round.

Bread? You buy store brand while I buy an artisan brand that actually tastes good.

You decide to fly first class while we fly coach.

Just as companies have a broad range of company cars, travel and hotel allowances, more of less fancy office buildings, catering and so on... Just as that has to stay within reasonable limits, there wouldn't be any problem to apply similar logic to citizens.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Winter Coat: you = $75 me = $225

Shoes: you = $24.95 me = $69.95

Sheets: you = $13.99 me = $19.95

We can compare our expenditures throughout our budget. You spend $3.95 lb. for hamburger, we spend $6.49 lb for lean ground round.

Bread? You buy store brand while I buy an artisan brand that actually tastes good.

You decide to fly first class while we fly coach.

Just as companies have a broad range of company cars, travel and hotel allowances, more of less fancy office buildings, catering and so on... Just as that has to stay within reasonable limits, there wouldn't be any problem to apply similar logic to citizens.

Best regards
Thomas

Well, Thomas, I get the sense that I am preaching to a closed mind. So this will be my last post on this sub-topic in this thread.

Please feel free to list all the countries in the world that employ your favored system for taxing individual incomes.

There is an interesting story in today's Washington Post telling about reductions in staffing at the I.R.S. and that, with a remaining staff of about 30,000 auditors/enforcers (info gleaned elsewhere) they are only able to conduct about 1,000,000 annual audits of 147,000,000 tax returns.

You are proposing a comparatively complex change in the tax system that would require a massive growth in tax preparation experts and I.R.S. auditors (many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of them). The cost would be enormous.

You mention cars and buildings, in the case of businesses. You fail to recognize, however, that those are capital assets, and they cannot be automatically subtracted from current income. They are long-term investments that are placed on depreciation schedules and amortized over a significant number of years.

Under your new system for taxing individuals, this would include big-ticket items such as major appliances, home repairs and additions, etc., etc.

No, you can't get a free ride (pun intended) when buying a Cadillac vs. my buying a Chevrolet. Nor can you get to write off a McMansion vs. my more modest tract home.

Today, no one cares what cars or homes we buy. They are purchased with after-tax dollars.

Long may that system live.

Cheers

What does the US tax system have to do with the effect Trump has on travel???

BobPatterson wrote:

Please feel free to list all the countries in the world that employ your favored system for taxing individual incomes.

None does, that does however not make it in any way fair, nor is there any logical reason to tax companies better than people. And in the US companies have been declared people......

best regards
Thomas

agill wrote:

What does the US tax system have to do with the effect Trump has on travel???

The effect varies depending upon the taxes, fees, duties that are increased, modified or abolished, and especially with changes to exchange rates.

The discussion about personal vs. business taxing policies was admittedly off-topic.

Actual numbers are starting to come out. Here are MCO for January 2017.:

-Domestic traffic climbed 5.88 percent with 3,164,397 total travelers at MCO
-International traffic declined 8.5 percent in January with 451,906 passengers
-Overall passenger volume increased 3.84 percent with 3,616,303 total travelers
-On a rolling 12-month basis MCO now breaks the 42 million annual passenger mark with a 7.29 percent increase, representing 42,057,023 travelers

https://orlandoairports.net/press/2017/03/08/orlando-international-airport-begins-2017-positive-traffic-note/

The new politics of immigration seem certain to shrink international tourism to the U.S.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol ... 5c0050953d

"An expert interviewed by the Times figured that the number of tourists nationally would drop by over 6 million people by 2018. If you applied that drop to the 2015 numbers and figured that every tourist spent about the same amount, that’s a decrease of $15 billion in revenue."

Well, one airline is feeling the effects of the "Trump Slump". Guess which airline it is?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/emirates-a ... 1489050037

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Well, one airline is feeling the effects of the "Trump Slump". Guess which airline it is?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/emirates-a ... 1489050037

This is not exactly new news:

"Mr. Clark said it was too early to judge the impact of the revised travel ban. The new guidance had greater specificity and appeared to have less of an impact on bookings as that seen in January.

"Mr. Clark said the travel ban was one of several difficulties faced by the airline. Conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Libya also have dented demand."

Source: http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/emi ... srcref=rss

Wait for full March data.

‘Trump Slump’ Could Mean Well Over $10 Billion Per Year in Lost Tourism Revenues

Money magazine

"Not long ago, travel organizations were forecasting that foreign traveler visitation would be on the upswing. But they’ve been forced to come up with new—lower—projections in light of the Trump effect."

jbpdx wrote:

‘Trump Slump’ Could Mean Well Over $10 Billion Per Year in Lost Tourism Revenues

Money magazine

"Not long ago, travel organizations were forecasting that foreign traveler visitation would be on the upswing. But they’ve been forced to come up with new—lower—projections in light of the Trump effect."

This is pretty much a rehash of "reports" that have already been posted in this thread.

Time/Money online: http://time.com/money/4687114/trump-slu ... on-travel/

Nothing really new in it, including the caveats.

ZuluTime wrote:

I may be in a minority of one here, but as a UK resident who has travelled to the US very extensively in recent years, I will do everything I can to avoid the USA for as long as Trump is President. If I have a work requirement that takes me there, I'll reluctantly have to go, but I will do all that I can to ensure meetings are in non-US venues. On that basis, it's not "fake news" because at least one overseas individual has clearly stated an intention not to travel to the USA. Whether there are thousands or millions of others like me, I cannot say - but I can express my own intentions.

Please don't come to America. We don't want or need your money or ideas. Pathetic Euroweenies not welcome.

When the news starts coming in of the actual financial hit to the airlines I'll be sure to post in the civil aviation forum. Should be in a couple months.

seb146 wrote:

I grew up in ultra-conservative eastern Oregon. My family still lives there. I currently live in California. Usually I am cautious about going to visit my family but, now, I am really dreading it for my personal safety. I believe many people making summer plans from Europe are feeling the same. Dark skinned people who speak English with an accent probably will not feel comfortable or welcome in a vast swath of the United States. Just my two cents...

Wow you must have some screwed up family? I guess you are a product of that upbringing and would seem to show.

BravoOne wrote:

Please don't come to America. We don't want or need your money or ideas. Pathetic Euroweenies not welcome.

And, in a different response:

Wow you must have some screwed up family? I guess you are a product of that upbringing and would seem to show.

One problem of having legitimate Civil Aviation topics moved to Non-Aviation is that it permits nonsensical rantings such as those alluded to here.

BravoOne, please stop using the world "we" as if you speak for Americans. You do not.

The vast majority of Americans welcome tourists (and their money) and legal immigrants, and are especially welcoming of ideas (whether agreed with or not).

These forums are about ideas and diversity of opinions.

Grow up.

BravoOne wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I grew up in ultra-conservative eastern Oregon. My family still lives there. I currently live in California. Usually I am cautious about going to visit my family but, now, I am really dreading it for my personal safety. I believe many people making summer plans from Europe are feeling the same. Dark skinned people who speak English with an accent probably will not feel comfortable or welcome in a vast swath of the United States. Just my two cents...

Wow you must have some screwed up family? I guess you are a product of that upbringing and would seem to show.

Not my family. That area is a product of a constant stream of "hate Democrats at all costs." In rural Oregon, rural Washington, and much of Idaho, the attitude is "all Californians are 'liberals' out to destroy America and hate us 'patriots.'" Because of how emboldened racists and the right has become when it comes to lashing out at anyone, I am really dreading this trip. I am thankful I am a middle aged white male who can play straight!

We have great friends in the US and have booked to visit this Summer. Whether or not we-that is my family not the Royal We - agree, like or are worried about Trump we certainly are not being put off travelling by him or his policies. I understand that being white Caucasians there perhaps should be fewer problems than some others might have but we're certainly not going to have a visit spoiled by D.T.This, I feel, would simply be giving in to a situation we may or may not have a strong opinion about.

mcogator wrote:

I don't see how the ME3 will survive this without making dramatic cuts in the US market. I can imagine it's tough out for people from India to visit the US, as most Americans think they're Muslim, when the majority are not.

Since I've posted this it seems like ppl attacking Indians thinking they are Arab and/or Muslim is becoming more common. First Kansas, then Seattle, then South Carolina. Someone in Port St Lucie tried to set a gas station on fire because he thought the owners were Arab/Muslim:

http://www.wptv.com/news/region-st-lucie-county/man-tries-to-set-fire-to-convenience-store-st-lucie-county-sheriffs-office-says

“The man, identified as Richard Lloyd, was read his Miranda Rights and then told deputies that he pushed the dumpster to the front of the building, tore down signs posted to the outside of the store and lit the contents of the dumpster on fire to ‘run the Arabs out of our country,’” Mascara said. “It’s unfortunate that Mr. Lloyd made the assumption that the store owners were Muslim when, in fact, they are of Indian descent,”

BTW, there is something odd about that statement from the sheriff as well. Instead of condemning the act, he states its unfortunate they weren't in fact Arab/Muslims, even though Indians can be Muslim too.

Well do sheriffs need an education to get the job ?

As for the loss in revenue for the tourism industry, it might not seem that much, but in terms of jobs, it's not like 10 billions lost by Wall Street financiers that might mean a couple traders get the shaft, it could mean thousands of jobs.

IPFreely wrote:

crownvic wrote:

Good riddance...If you are from the country just north of the USA learn how to tip and dont be so cheap. You will fit right in with the same folks who you are so dying to visit across the Atlantic, they're just as tight too.

I would agree....but all of these people posting that they will not travel to the US are about as believable as all the so-called celebrities who announced they were giving up their citizenship and moving to other countries. Unfortunately they are all still here. And these posters will unfortunately come, too, while reveling in stories like "my best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw someone with a passport unfairly asked questions at an airport".

I think a lot of the people trying to dismiss this story don't realise that it's all a question of perception and PR, not individual cases or today's latest Twitter proclamation.

People ALL OVER THE WORLD are getting the feeling that the US is not a nice place and they won't be welcome. That includes "white folks" who are just uncomfortable with what's going on even if they don't expect themselves to get the full interrogation on arrival. The US is not looking as attractive as other travel destinations, and if things don't turn around then that could translate into fewer tourists (and less international business in the long run - even aside from all the other protectionist crap we're hearing).

ltbewr wrote:

Beyond if being of the Islamic faith, I would also be concerned about traveling to the USA if a GLTBQ, Hispanic/Latino or Chinese person considering the attitudes and polices of President Trump*', most Republicans and their supporters as to such persons for well known reasons.

You can add Indian to that list. There were a number of stories recently of (non-Islamic) Indian travellers being harassed as potential terrorists since they "looked Muslim"...

Edit: ah, now I see that that very topic came up just above my post. Oh well...

New article from Salon:

Comin’ to America no more: the “Trump Slump” in travel is costing the U.S. billions

"Well, that didn’t take long. People around the world have taken a look at Donald Trump and decided his America is not a place they want to visit. The result has been labeled the “Trump Slump,” a drop in international tourism that’s predicted to cost the United States more than $7 billion. Experts across the travel industry have sounded the alarm that the Trump presidency, already destructive on so many fronts, may also do serious financial damage to the country’s $250 billion tourism sector."

http://www.salon.com/2017/03/31/trumps- ... s_partner/

We should start seeing the evidence in airport traffic numbers soon.