Maybe a reson to vote Dem.

[Smarta$$]

agreed.

 

[Soverytired]

Agreed. Your previous post made it seem as though you were saying that your 401(k) itself was being taxed for cap gains. Just wanted to clarify.

I'm not a fan of corporate taxes. I think they're useless, as corporations will simply pass on the cost of the increased taxes to the consumer. If I had my way, corporate taxes would be completely eliminated. However, I love cap gains taxes. The rate needs to be jacked back up to where it was under the Clinton administration. Low cap gains taxes have allowed men like Warren Buffet to pay less in taxes as a percentage of total income than their secretaries who make $50k/yr. We should raise cap gains and dividend taxes, and shift to a more progressive income tax, shifting more of the tax burden onto the wealthy.

Mostly agree.

Warren Buffet is a jackass. He's constantly talking about how guys like him need to pay more taxes . . .then proceeds to lock all his personal assets up in foundations that are tax-free protected.

 

[PCL_128]

Mostly agree.

Warren Buffet is a jackass. He's constantly talking about how guys like him need to pay more taxes . . .then proceeds to lock all his personal assets up in foundations that are tax-free protected.

Warren Buffet is a jackass? The biggest charitable contributor in history? Sorry, beg to differ. Buffet plays by the rules. If you design a system that benefits the rich guy by allowing him to shelter his money from taxes, then he's going to use it to his benefit. Don't blame Buffet for a system that favors the wealthy, especially since he's a vocal opponent of said system.

 

[Soverytired]

Very, Very, Very well said. I don't know why people don't understand this.

I don't disagree with pilots voting for any party or platform.

I don't have a problem with pilots voting primarily because of a candidates' stance on unions.

However, I'm very hard pressed to find anyone here who can cite a single union issue that is being pursued that will strengthen the airline economy as a whole. The silence here is deafening when one asks what ALPA is even pursing in terms of regulatory actions . . . few seem to even know the obvious ones; blind faith is for children and zealots.

Ultimately it comes down to this: ALPA and unions are nice, and important and necessary. However, having airlines actually stay in business is even more important (job security, right?). There are dozens of possible aids to airlines the government can encourage/force, but no candidate, party, or union is discussing them.

If you believe that encouraging strong airline heath is a more legitimate voting criteria than blind faith and support in unions, then you might understand pilots backing parties or candidates on things other than "labor politics."

Pro-labor, pro-business . . . either way, I'd like to hear exactly what laws and government actions should take place in order to save airlines. What candidate or party is proposing them? What union is discussing them?

 

[Soverytired]

Warren Buffet is a jackass? The biggest charitable contributor in history? Sorry, beg to differ. Buffet plays by the rules. If you design a system that benefits the rich guy by allowing him to shelter his money from taxes, then he's going to use it to his benefit. Don't blame Buffet for a system that favors the wealthy, especially since he's a vocal opponent of said system.

Perhaps hypocrite is a bit strong then? To use the law to your advantage is certainly what a smart person does.

To advocate higher taxes then put your money in untouchable trust funds (even though I agree that his affiliation with the Gates Foundation and their goals and methods are mostly above reproach) is a bit two-faced. In fact, the last time I checked all the money that went into that foundation was conditional based on it remaining in a tax-free status.

"Do as I say, not as I do" isn't a great way to inspire sweeping policy change.

 

[PCL_128]

Soverytired, you must have missed that Congressman Oberstar and Senator Rockefeller have been talking of holding hearings specifically to address possible re-regulation of the airline industry. Do you think they dreamed this up on their own? ALPA works behind the scenes. When you see a lawmaker make a statement in defense of our profession, it's a good bet that ALPA was behind the scenes talking to him first. When you see a reporter grill an airline exec, most likely ALPA "helped" that reporter with some research for those questions. When hearings are suggested on things like airline safety and re-regulation, you can bet that ALPA had a hand in it.

 

[PCL_128]

Perhaps hypocrite is a bit strong then? To use the law to your advantage is certainly what a smart person does.

To advocate higher taxes then put your money in untouchable trust funds (even though I agree that his affiliation with the Gates Foundation and their goals and methods are mostly above reproach) is a bit two-faced. In fact, the last time I checked all the money that went into that foundation was conditional based on it remaining in a tax-free status.

"Do as I say, not as I do" isn't a great way to inspire sweeping policy change.

I don't really see any hypocrisy in what he's doing. He's not going to single-handily save the world by not sheltering his own wealth from taxes. The entire system needs to change, and he's trying to get it changed. Until it is changed, I see nothing wrong with him working the current system. He didn't become the second richest man in the world, allowing himself to be the biggest charitable contributor in the world, by not being smart with how he shelters his money. He wants a system that is fair across the board. He doesn't want to try to be a one-man army that only contributes his own billions to the federal coffers.

 

[Smarta$$]

I don't disagree with pilots voting for any party or platform.

I don't have a problem with pilots voting primarily because of a candidates' stance on unions.

However, I'm very hard pressed to find anyone here who can cite a single union issue that is being pursued that will strengthen the airline economy as a whole. The silence here is deafening when one asks what ALPA is even pursing in terms of regulatory actions . . . few seem to even know the obvious ones; blind faith is for children and zealots.

Ultimately it comes down to this: ALPA and unions are nice, and important and necessary. However, having airlines actually stay in business is even more important (job security, right?). There are dozens of possible aids to airlines the government can encourage/force, but no candidate, party, or union is discussing them.

If you believe that encouraging strong airline heath is a more legitimate voting criteria than blind faith and support in unions, then you might understand pilots backing parties or candidates on things other than "labor politics."

Pro-labor, pro-business . . . either way, I'd like to hear exactly what laws and government actions should take place in order to save airlines. What candidate or party is proposing them? What union is discussing them?

We are only having this discussion about airline survival now that fuel prices are at out of control prices. However, during all the times that the airlines were making money or paying HUGE bonuses to executives, the employees were left with pay cuts. Because they had an administration that gave all the leverage to the executives and took leverage from employees.

Labor friendly administrations can't force airlines to be profitable (unless regulated), but they can give us a seat at the table during the good times and help us not suffer so dramatically in the bad times.

The difference is who will benefit in good times. I am ready for my turn, my CEO has had his.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

We are only having this discussion about airline survival now that fuel prices are at out of control prices. However, during all the times that the airlines were making money or paying HUGE bonuses to executives, the employees were left with pay cuts. Because they had an administration that gave all the leverage to the executives and took leverage from employees.

Labor friendly administrations can't force airlines to be profitable (unless regulated), but they can give us a seat at the table during the good times and help us not suffer so dramatically in the bad times.

The difference is who will benefit in good times. I am ready for my turn, my CEO has had his.

It is all about being represented...

The current laws, policy and culture in this country favor corporate America. The intent is to have your voice heard. Is that unamerican? Give those who have all the power and wealth....more just seems unreasonable...

Fuel prices out of control..... who should pay for it? Your CEO thinks pilots and the rest of labor should. Why should he work harder at being a CEO when he can use fear and force pilots to give up their pay...when it won't matter... the point....

The laws, policies and culture in our country help and allow him to do so.....

I want representation in Congress and from POTUS that doesn't allow my CEO to do so....

 

[Soverytired]

If your position is that the entire airline industry needs massive federal subsidizes and re-regulation, then I agree . .the Dems are probably the party most likely to favor this route.

I personally think this would lead to very high prices for the consumer, a loss of between 1/3 and 1/2 of all pilot jobs, and the elimination and/or shrinkage of quite a few carriers. However, for those lucky pilots who are "in" and survive the shakeout, it would probably lead to greater job security.

That said, two elected officials offhandedly mentioning maybe having hearings in the sometime-future to totally upset the apple cart by massive federal intervention in the private market isn't something I'd hang my vote on. For me, there are more important issues and certainly much better ways to deal with the airline economy that are both far less intrusive and much cheaper for the taxpayer and the flying public.

Nor am I impressed with the "ALPA behind the scenes" train of thought. This means they can claim credit for everything . . . while never being held accountable for anything. ALPA has an official regulatory agenda, and that is what they must be judged on. Their record of accomplishments in the past decade has been less than impressive (duty time, lost on the age 65 rule, etc.) I know it's been a tough environment for them, but they should be judged on results, not empty promises.

However . . . if your #1 voting criteria is airline re-regulation to "save" the airlines, then I agree you're choosing the correct party.

Soverytired, you must have missed that Congressman Oberstar and Senator Rockefeller have been talking of holding hearings specifically to address possible re-regulation of the airline industry. Do you think they dreamed this up on their own? ALPA works behind the scenes. When you see a lawmaker make a statement in defense of our profession, it's a good bet that ALPA was behind the scenes talking to him first. When you see a reporter grill an airline exec, most likely ALPA "helped" that reporter with some research for those questions. When hearings are suggested on things like airline safety and re-regulation, you can bet that ALPA had a hand in it.