• This site moved from forums.flightinfo.com to flightinfo.com. Please update your bookmarks.

ALPA endorses Clinton

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
And when he retires, that top executive won't get any more money OUT of the SS program than that pilot making 60K a year. If he puts more in, then the executive should get more out. But not according to Democrats. Sorry, just another example of wealth distribution, just this time future tense.
It's a safety net, not a retirement account.
 

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
PLC, the guy who wants to reward the unproductive, so more people see being unproductive as a career choice. At the same time punish those who have made it to encourage them to hide their money in tax free investments and overseas. History has shown that increasing the rates on the upper income brakets reduce tax revenue from the upper income brakets. Are you jealous that they have made it and you see being as airline pilot as some lower level of achievement?
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
PLC, the guy who wants to reward the unproductive, so more people see being unproductive as a career choice.
First, the name's spelled "PCL," not "PLC." Dyslexic much?

Anyway, are you implying that those who aren't rich are "unproductive?" Does someone have to have millions of dollars to be a "productive" member of society? By that standard, you're not very productive. But you are management, so we knew that anyway.
At the same time punish those who have made it to encourage them to hide their money in tax free investments and overseas.
Getting someone to pay the same share of their income that the "little people" do isn't punishment.
History has shown that increasing the rates on the upper income brakets reduce tax revenue from the upper income brakets.
Even Arthur Laffer, the man who invented the Laffer Curve, which is the basis for your assumption, has admitted that he doesn't believe are current rates are at the peak of the curve. In a recent interview, he stated that we're probably on the low side of the curve and could raise rates to achieve higher tax income.
Are you jealous that they have made it and you see being as airline pilot as some lower level of achievement?
No, I'd much rather be an air line pilot than a rich, scum-sucking, piece of sh-- management d0uche anyday.
 

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
Doesn't seem that way

No, I'd much rather be an air line pilot than a rich, scum-sucking, piece of sh-- management d0uche anyday.
But are you happy? I don't see a lot of positive vibes in your posts. PLC I get that mixed up with Platoon Leaders Class, that doesn't seem to fit either.
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
But are you happy? I don't see a lot of positive vibes in your posts.
There's a difference between being happy and settling for less than you should. I'm very happy with my job. But I'm not going to settle for what we currently have, because we can do much better, and we deserve much better.
 

Rez O. Lewshun

Save the Profession
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Posts
13,422
Total Time
X>X
Why are those who don't make ultra rich money advocating for those who do.....

You are not rich. You probably won't be.... Why do you insist on paying a higher percentage of your tax but you defend those who make millions more than you to pay less?


Wanna be's?
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
Bingo!!!
 

atrdriver

Living in Paradise
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Posts
9,271
Total Time
5000+
You want to talk about the dollar amount that they contribute, when the real measure should be the percentage of their own income that they contribute. An upper-class income earner shouldn't be able to pay only 20% of his income while the middle-class family that's struggling to get by has to pay 25%.
Percentages don't pay bills, dollars do. My ex wife used to pay a negative percentage, because she didn't make enough money to pay taxes, and she got a refund because of the earned income credit. There are thousands, if not millions just like that. Their percentage doesn't pay for a thing that government spends money on.
 

atrdriver

Living in Paradise
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Posts
9,271
Total Time
5000+
It's a safety net, not a retirement account.
No, it SHOULD be a safety net. How many millions in this country use it as a retirement account? And should those who planned ahead and don't need that SS money be penalized for their forethought?
 

atrdriver

Living in Paradise
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Posts
9,271
Total Time
5000+
Why are those who don't make ultra rich money advocating for those who do.....

You are not rich. You probably won't be.... Why do you insist on paying a higher percentage of your tax but you defend those who make millions more than you to pay less?


Wanna be's?
According to the Clintons I was "rich", because I made more than 88K. I sure didn't feel rich, but according to the government I was.
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
No, it SHOULD be a safety net. How many millions in this country use it as a retirement account?
And that's up to them. If they want to live a very basic life in retirement that they can afford on just SS income, then that's their choice. The point of a safety net is making sure that no one is stuck living on the streets in retirement, because they just become an even bigger burden on society in that case.
And should those who planned ahead and don't need that SS money be penalized for their forethought?
They get the same safety net that everyone else gets. That's not a "penalty."
 

atrdriver

Living in Paradise
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Posts
9,271
Total Time
5000+
And that's up to them. If they want to live a very basic life in retirement that they can afford on just SS income, then that's their choice. The point of a safety net is making sure that no one is stuck living on the streets in retirement, because they just become an even bigger burden on society in that case. They get the same safety net that everyone else gets. That's not a "penalty."
Yes it is a penalty in your scheme. They pay in vastly more money, they should get an equivalent amount back. In your wonderful world of percentages, if a rich guy pays 500% of what a poor guy does into SS, he should get 500% more back in retirement than a poor guy. But he doesn't, he gets just the same amount. That is called wealth redistribution, and it is not what this country was founded on.
 

bpapaDC8

The buck stops here
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Posts
187
Total Time
>14k
Great thread....
 

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
Not true

Yes it is a penalty in your scheme. They pay in vastly more money, they should get an equivalent amount back. In your wonderful world of percentages, if a rich guy pays 500% of what a poor guy does into SS, he should get 500% more back in retirement than a poor guy. But he doesn't, he gets just the same amount. That is called wealth redistribution, and it is not what this country was founded on.
Not true if you do not exceed the yearly cap for SS contribution you will have prorated SS payout. My SS will be about 150% more than my wifes.
 
Top