Mica trying to fast-track Age 65 - 12/6/07

[SuperFLUF]

And,...how about those who can't...what about them????

Who "can't" retire?

If you have spent a career in this industry and you can't retire something is wrong with your planning. Its your mistake not mine.

No financial planner in their right mind would have recommended betting "all in" on a pension. Pensions have been in trouble long before the post 9/11 concessions. If you didn't have a financial planner then you took the responsibility for planning you retirement on your own shoulders, gambled and lost. Not such a wise move to save the money and do it yourself, eh?

Just like its not right for the taxpayers to bail out those who gambled on variable interest rate mortgages, its not right for those junior to you to have money taken from them against their will to pay for your lost gamble on retirement.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Neocon "are the enemy of America just like Jihadist terrorist"?

Dude, you are so out of context of what I am discussing you don't even make sense.

First of all a NEOCON is bad word. NECONS are the hawks who have put us into a war in Iraq that 70% of America thinks is not a right.

Second, I never made a comparison of a NEOCON to a NEO Nazi. I fully understand there is no connection between the two groups.

Third, I fully stand by my statement that the Neocons are just as bad for America as a Jihadist. The reduction of our civil liberties in the name of security and safety is a much larger threat than a bomb going off in some public location. The elimination of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is everything America is suppose to be about. Not being safe a Walmart buying your Chinese goods. It nice to be safe at Walmart but should not take president over what America is about.

And fourth, I fully understand the differences between and can define:
Fascism
Socialism
Capitalism
Communism

I also understand the different forms of each of the three above systems as ruled by a dictatorship, monarchy, democracy, and a republic.

I also understand what America was founded as and what it has become. The US Constitution has been disregarded by the Executive and Judicial branches of government ,and the failure of the balance of power by the Legislative branch to restore the balance.

So before you start schooling me in unrelated Nazi German history, I think you need to start understand what is going on.

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been thrown in the garbage. Because I am concerned about those things does not make me an ACLU liberal. It makes me a conservative. Which by the way you don't seem to understand. The founding fathers were not liberals. They were not concerned about security of the population but freedoms required to create a sustainable country.

I am Lucky to have a Job not because I don't deserve the job, am unable to do the job, or couldn't get the job, but because I understand that even if you are all those things and there is still an element of predestination required from God allowing one to have this incredible type of job. And I am thankful for that beyond telling everyone how great I am, and how I can do everything in my own power.

So get a clue AV80R. Because you missed the point.

I am glad we agree that NEOCON's are the answer for America. Caveman didn't even know the word he was using when he listed himeself as a NEOCON. I was just trying to point out the finer points of what he should have already be aware of using such a description.

 

[SuperFLUF]

Hi!

Last year, the floor for AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) was $48K, before Congress raised it at the last minute.

It it's unchanged, the floor will be LESS than $48K this year.

cliff
YIP

We've earned more than that for quite a few years now and have never been hit with the AMT.

If that number really is accurate (isn't it more like $148?) I'm sure the dems will raise it so that only the rich airline captains have to pay. At lest until the Prez. election is over since they have a good chance of winning. If they do all tax bets are off anyways.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Wikipedia:

In 2006, the IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate's report highlighted the AMT as the single most serious problem with the tax code.
...

• Determining whether one is subject to the AMT is complex for some payers. According to the IRS's tax payer advocate, some people cannot determine whether they owe AMT taxes without:[10]

• Completing a 16 line worksheet.
• Reading 9 pages of instructions.
• Completing a 55 line form.

...
The advocate noted that the AMT punishes taxpayers for having children or living in a high-tax state, and that the complexity of the AMT leads to most taxpayers who owe AMT not realizing it until preparing their returns or being notified by the IRS.

Congressional Testimony, 9.7.2007:

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) enacted in 1978 was intended to tax the small number of wealthy individuals who, in any given year, legally owe no personal income tax due to the many exemptions allowed by the U.S. tax code.

The AMT has its own set of rules, which limit deductions. Individuals with incomes above a certain level calculate their taxes under both sets of rules and pay whichever amount is higher.

However, the exemption levels are not indexed for inflation.
...
Currently, the AMT taxes individuals a flat 26 percent of gross income minus deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Therefore, the brunt of the AMT falls on taxpayers earning between $200,000 and $500,000.
...
Ironically, the AMT does not achieve its original goal. Even with the AMT, 5,650 tax filers with incomes over $200,000 owed no income taxes in 2002.
...
the AMT is ineffective in taxing the super-rich. Left unabated, it will cause a major tax increase for middle income filers starting in 2007.

a week ago, from a column by Julie Tripp-"Managing Your Money":

Nearly three out of four families earning $75K-$100K could face the AMT this year, along with 97 percent of families earning from $100K-$200K.

The 23 million forced into the AMT could each pay $2,000 more than under the regular tax system.

The above will be true IF congress does not raise the AMT floor, which they HAVE done the last several years.

You pay your taxes, then, if you are subject to the AMT, you pay extra AMT taxes above your regular ones. We have had to pay AMT about 3 out of the last 5 years.

The future?

The New York Times reported that "by 2010, nearly 30 million taxpayers will be hit -- among them, a staggering 94 percent of married filers who have children and make $75,000 to $100,000."

cliff
YIP

 

[waveflyer]

wow, nice thread.......?

Pilots are walking contradictions 90% of the time. Staunch conservative free market capitalists that defend to no end their semi-socialist screwed up seniority system.

Since this thread is all over the place- I'll throw in another:

Either get a national list or become a guild/PAC and get out of the way and let us each individually negotiate our own contracts like every other professional-- Either way- let us change companies w/o such a monumental hit

 

[Caveman]

Still waiting for Caveman or any pro-65 guy to answer my question regarding retirement effects upon those who want to punch out at 60...

See the previous page for original post...

Relax, I've been working.

Go ahead and punch out at 60. As of right now your contract allows that. Unless you negotiate away the status quo you can still retire at 60. If age 65 were enacted today what would change in your current CBA? Nada, zip, nothing. Your retirement has not been affected at all. Retire early if you want. Nothing has changed.

It is not in mgmts best interest to keep you until 65. You'll be making more and your retirement will be more. They would rather retire you early and hire a new guy.

BTW, I'm not 'pro 65'. I'm anti age discrimination.

 

[Flopgut]

Caveman!!

This is very short sighted.

We have contracts that speak to pilot retirement age. We're all going to go into negotiations wanting a raise, mgts are going to leverage the new age against our deserved raises, we're going to be working for status quo more than for a raise?!

Of course we know how you windfall types are going to vote. Thanks.

Did you miss this post? We don't want simply "status quo"!! We want raises, and they would be all but a foregone conclusion if you guys weren't working this seniority aggression--age 65 BS!!

Do you not see that you're going to force us to bargain for status quo instead of raises? Your last post says it all, really. Your own pot of gold [extra $ past age 60], and your NON answer to age discrimination, have you so perfectly wrapped in self absorbed selfishness you're the posterchild for why this whole thing is a bad idea.

I know I'm sounding like a bit of an a$$hole and I beg your pardon. You've been exceedingly kind in this thread and I don't want to spoil that. But, think about it for a second: We want raises...Are you going to risk your own dollars to help us get them?

 

[Caveman]

Did you miss this post? We don't want simply "status quo"!! We want raises, and they would be all but a foregone conclusion if you guys weren't working this seniority aggression--age 65 BS!!

Do you not see that you're going to force us to bargain for status quo instead of raises? Your last post says it all, really. Your own pot of gold [extra $ past age 60], and your NON answer to age discrimination, have you so perfectly wrapped in self absorbed selfishness you're the posterchild for why this whole thing is a bad idea.

I know I'm sounding like a bit of an a$$hole and I beg your pardon. You've been exceedingly kind in this thread and I don't want to spoil that. But, think about it for a second: We want raises...Are you going to risk your own dollars to help us get them?

We're going to have to agree to disagree. You believe that changing to age 60+ is somehow going to be a windfall for management. I don't. It will be more expensive to keep a pilot past age 60 than to let him retire. That said, when it comes time to renegotiate your CBA I believe that age 60+ will be a nonissue. In fact someone smarter than me could make a credible case as to why management would have to give up negotiating capital to keep retirement at 60. The sooner you retire the less it will cost them.

The only problem I have with the tone of our discussion is that you keep implying that I want to change the retirement age for monetary reasons. I've never discussed money except when responding to your queries about CBA negotiations. I've repeatedly said that I oppose any mandatory age based on philosophical reasons. Please don't assume I'm simply trying to pad my retirement.

 

[SuperFLUF]

...... If age 65 were enacted today what would change in your current CBA? Nada, zip, nothing. Your retirement has not been affected at all. Retire early if you want. Nothing has changed.....

That's not true. Because the majority of airline pilot retirement plans are no longer defined benefit plans but are now DC plans and 401k's directly related to entire carreer earnings. Retirement for those who's income is reduced by age 65,67,70,72....retirement changes WILL be reduced. AND working to age 65 won't make it up.

It is all in the compounding power and time value of money invested. A little saved earlier is worth more than a lot saved later.

Once the law changes it will affect all of those who are not the ones getting extra time in the left seat or bigger equipment like the guys near 60 now.

In order to retire at 60 with the same amount of money we will need to some how increase our retirement savings to the same amount as we would be saving at the higher pay that has been delayed and lose a lot of current disposable income. Since the average upgrade is a 40% pay increase, there is no way most pilots could save as much as they would be saving if they had upgraded. Also we would have to make up for the difference in salary percentage that the companies would have been placing in to DC plans. Certainly disability insurance premiums will go up, reducing current disposable income and reducing how much we can save for retirement.

AND most certainly as soon as age 65 legislation is passed "they" will being to push for age 67, then age 70 and so on. Which then will reduce our earnings plan again and again and the vicious cycle will continue.

Sure, you can make the argument that age 60 mandatory retirement is age discrimination and you can make the argument that it is a safety rule and argue those points back and forth all day.
However, you CAN'T make the argument that changing the retirement age will not affect the retirement of the MAJORITY of pilots who are currently employed. Only those allready in the senior seat positions right now will be able to retire at 60 and not have their retirement affected. Those who's earnings and advancement are delayed and reduced by a rule change WILL be affected. Both present earnings and retirement earnings, no matter how long we choose to stay.

 

[Flopgut]

The only problem I have with the tone of our discussion is that you keep implying that I want to change the retirement age for monetary reasons. I've never discussed money except when responding to your queries about CBA negotiations. I've repeatedly said that I oppose any mandatory age based on philosophical reasons. Please don't assume I'm simply trying to pad my retirement.

You can try to downplay opportunistic regard you have for the dollars, but you are in favor of trading in one age limit for another age limit that is no less discriminating save one thing: It favors your own needs.

Weigh the fact that what you are supporting clearly falls short of a solution to discrimination against the fact that it perfectly sabotages majority rule and free market forces for pilot demand. Your philosophy is not good.

 

[Caveman]

You can try to downplay opportunistic regard you have for the dollars, but you are in favor of trading in one age limit for another age limit that is no less discriminating save one thing: It favors your own needs.

Wrong. I'm not in favor of age 65. I support it bcause it's less discriminatory than age 60. I'm against any mandatory retirement age.

 

[Caveman]

That's not true. Because the majority of airline pilot retirement plans are no longer defined benefit plans but are now DC plans and 401k's directly related to entire carreer earnings. Retirement for those who's income is reduced by age 65,67,70,72....retirement changes WILL be reduced. AND working to age 65 won't make it up.

It is all in the compounding power and time value of money invested. A little saved earlier is worth more than a lot saved later.

Once the law changes it will affect all of those who are not the ones getting extra time in the left seat or bigger equipment like the guys near 60 now.

In order to retire at 60 with the same amount of money we will need to some how increase our retirement savings to the same amount as we would be saving at the higher pay that has been delayed and lose a lot of current disposable income. Since the average upgrade is a 40% pay increase, there is no way most pilots could save as much as they would be saving if they had upgraded. Also we would have to make up for the difference in salary percentage that the companies would have been placing in to DC plans. Certainly disability insurance premiums will go up, reducing current disposable income and reducing how much we can save for retirement.

AND most certainly as soon as age 65 legislation is passed "they" will being to push for age 67, then age 70 and so on. Which then will reduce our earnings plan again and again and the vicious cycle will continue.

Sure, you can make the argument that age 60 mandatory retirement is age discrimination and you can make the argument that it is a safety rule and argue those points back and forth all day.
However, you CAN'T make the argument that changing the retirement age will not affect the retirement of the MAJORITY of pilots who are currently employed. Only those allready in the senior seat positions right now will be able to retire at 60 and not have their retirement affected. Those who's earnings and advancement are delayed and reduced by a rule change WILL be affected. Both present earnings and retirement earnings, no matter how long we choose to stay.

Regarding the highlited points, I've never said it wouldn't affect a lot of pilots. What I clearly said was I believe the effect to be minimal. I also said that I believe we should respect seniority and allow them to keep their seats if they want to. Just because you want to upgrade doesn't mean we should tell somebody else to go home. Wait your turn.

 

[Flopgut]

Wrong. I'm not in favor of age 65. I support it bcause it's less discriminatory than age 60. I'm against any mandatory retirement age.

Increased discrimination for me and most pilots. Less for you. Great philosophy.

"Just because you want to upgrade doesn't mean we should tell somebody else to go home. Wait your turn."

We don't want to move up Caveman, so much as we want OUT--on time! Just because you want to stay doesn't mean we should tell everybody they have to stay or they can't have their fair share. I've waited for my turn, TAKE your turn and get out.

 

[Flopgut]

Hey Caveman: I want to know how you're going to vote. Let's say you get the age change and you're about to turn 60. Simultaneously, your pilot group is taking a strike vote. What are you going to do?

 

[Caveman]

Hey Caveman: I want to know how you're going to vote. Let's say you get the age change and you're about to turn 60. Simultaneously, your pilot group is taking a strike vote. What are you going to do?

What am I voting on and what has this got to do with age 60?

 

[Caveman]

Increased discrimination for me and most pilots. Less for you. Great philosophy.

"Just because you want to upgrade doesn't mean we should tell somebody else to go home. Wait your turn."

We don't want to move up Caveman, so much as we want OUT--on time! Just because you want to stay doesn't mean we should tell everybody they have to stay or they can't have their fair share. I've waited for my turn, TAKE your turn and get out.

How is it less discrimination for me? I'm still an FO. If anything I'm on firmer moral ground than you. If I get my way it will cost me money because my upgrade will be delayed. If you get your way you reap a windfall.

What fair share? There aren't any guarantees past your next paycheck. Nobody is entitled to anything. This IS a philosophical argument as far as I'm concerned. It's not about money, retirement, unions, your fair share, my fair share or anything else. I just want to let healthy/qualified pilots keep working if they so desire. That's it. I have no other agenda. You just can't seem to grasp the idea that someone has a different opinion than you. You'll never change my mind on this because I'm entrenched in the principle of the thing. IT's WRONG to arbitrarily take away another man's livelihood for no legitimate reason other than a birthday.

One more time: There is nothing in the rule change that will require you to work past age 60.

 

[Flopgut]

It's got everything to do with age 60!

Let's say your company is flush with cash and could easily afford to issue raises. You're turning 60 and about to enter a super seniority scenario. Your company won't give a pay raise and your pilot group is going to take a strike vote. Are you going to be a striker, or are you going to take for yourself?

 

[Flopgut]

How is it less discrimination for me? I'm still an FO. If anything I'm on firmer moral ground than you. If I get my way it will cost me money because my upgrade will be delayed. If you get your way you reap a windfall.

What fair share? There aren't any guarantees past your next paycheck. Nobody is entitled to anything. This IS a philosophical argument as far as I'm concerned. It's not about money, retirement, unions, your fair share, my fair share or anything else. I just want to let healthy/qualified pilots keep working if they so desire. That's it. I have no other agenda. You just can't seem to grasp the idea that someone has a different opinion than you. You'll never change my mind on this because I'm entrenched in the principle of the thing. IT's WRONG to arbitrarily take away another man's livelihood for no legitimate reason other than a birthday.

One more time: There is nothing in the rule change that will require you to work past age 60.

Mgts love guys like you!!

Just answer this question: Is it worth throwing away free market principal for our profession and betrayal of majority rule when all you would accomplish is another age limit?

 

[Caveman]

Mgts love guys like you!!

Just answer this question: Is it worth throwing away free market principal for our profession and betray majority rule when all you would accomplished is another age limit?

I am honoring the free market principle. You want to retain arbitrary restrictions on someone's right to engage in the free market by excluding them based on age.

 

[Caveman]

It's got everything to do with age 60!

Let's say your company is flush with cash and could easily afford to issue raises. You're turning 60 and about to enter a super seniority scenario. Your company won't give a pay raise and your pilot group is going to take a strike vote. Are you going to be a striker, or are you going to take for yourself?

I think you're suggesting I might cross a picket line. If so you are way out of line. If that's not the case, disregard.

I will, for the sake of discussion, answer your not so subtle accusation more directly: I would never cross a picket line. I didn't the last time I was on strike and I won't in the future. In that regard I support the majority decision even if I don't like it. I will always play by the rules that are in effect at the time. However, I reserve the right to actively lobby, legislate, coerce, cajole, plead, worry, annoy, and pester the powers that be to get a rule changed if I think it needs to be changed. That's my right as a partcipating member of any group. Rules are not sacrosanct. They can be changed. I want this one changed.