Skyteam Airlines to launch CDG-MSP

[SWA Bubba]

Oh good God, I KNOW what the marginal tax rate plan is, I want to know what he, or you estimate your additional federal income taxes to be?

And by the way, most people who own mutual funds do so in a tax deferred 401k or IRA, and would not experience ANY tax increase related to capital gains. Your statement is plain inaccurate.

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but I had to do a little research to find your answer. The short answer is, I don't know exactly, because with our tax code it's next to impossible to forecast, but here's some rough estimates for you. If I have to pay 7% more federal income tax on my income above $200k, that equals approximately an extra $5,250 in fed income tax for last year (7% of $75k), and probably slightly more for this year. That's an extra $438 per month, not exactly chump change. Guys who work harder obviously will pay even more. Obviously that's a simplification, because marginal tax rates aren't the same as effective tax rates, but that's close to what I'll pay if President Obama gets his way, and I have to pay an extra 7% effective tax rate on my top income.

I'm already paying more than I'm supposed to because of the Alternative Minimum Tax Scheme. Since the creators neglected to index it to inflation, it's taxing middle class people that it was not intended to by its congressional mandate and design. It works by running parallel calculations, limiting or discounting entirely deductions that most people claim. Pretty much everything except charitable deductions. For last year that was another $3,400 in extra tax I got to pay that I was never supposed to. That was on top of what following all the rules said I should pay. The rub is that they can't change it now because the can't afford to--they've already spent the money.

Does that answer your question, Smarta$$? I don't know if you're a Captain or not, or what airline you work for, but are you looking forward to paying an extra $3-5,000 per year in President Obama's federal income taxes (plus all the other hidden taxes)?

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Oh good God, I KNOW what the marginal tax rate plan is, I want to know what he, or you estimate your additional federal income taxes to be?

And by the way, most people who own mutual funds do so in a tax deferred 401k or IRA, and would not experience ANY tax increase related to capital gains. Your statement is plain inaccurate.

To address the second part of your dismissive post, you should do some research of you own. I've invested in mutual funds outside of tax deferred vehicles for over 20 years, as do millions of Americans. I put money in every month, as is common (the theory of dollar cost averaging, doncha know). I use USAA, because I was in the military in a prior life, and I talked to their mutual fund department today. I was told that they (USAA) currently hold $46.7 Billion in mutual fund assets, with slighly less than half being in 401-k or IRAs. USAA is but one company to invest with, and Wikipedia tells me that in 2010, Americans had $13.1 Trillion held in mutual fund assets. It also said that the number represented about 23% of American household financial assets. Assuming that the approximate ratio is the same for other investment companies, that means that Americans collectively have over $6.5 Trillion in non-tax deferred mutual funds.

That's a lot of middle class tax revenue if the President's plan on changing capital gains tax comes to fruition. Why else do you think he wants to do it? So much for no tax increases for the middle class.

Bubba

 

[Smarta$$]

To address the second part of your dismissive post, you should do some research of you own. I've invested in mutual funds outside of tax deferred vehicles for over 20 years, as do millions of Americans. I put money in every month, as is common (the theory of dollar cost averaging, doncha know). I use USAA, because I was in the military in a prior life, and I talked to their mutual fund department today. I was told that they (USAA) currently hold $46.7 Billion in mutual fund assets, with slighly less than half being in 401-k or IRAs. USAA is but one company to invest with, and Wikipedia tells me that in 2010, Americans had $13.1 Trillion held in mutual fund assets. It also said that the number represented about 23% of American household financial assets. Assuming that the approximate ratio is the same for other investment companies, that means that Americans collectively have over $6.5 Trillion in non-tax deferred mutual funds.

That's a lot of middle class tax revenue if the President's plan on changing capital gains tax comes to fruition. Why else do you think he wants to do it? So much for no tax increases for the middle class.

Bubba

The money in mutual funds that is taxable, is significant. It is also OVERWHELMINGLY concentrated in the top 2-3% of households. That does not mean that many average Americans don't have some, they do, have some.

Take mitt Romney. He made 20+ million last year in income, and paid a lower effective tax rate than every pilot on this board. He also never checked in for an assignment or worked a 12 hour duty day like we did. But we got the privilege of working far harder and paying more of our income in taxes than him.

A tax on capital gains would have a small impact on hardworking middle class Americans.

 

[Smarta$$]

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but I had to do a little research to find your answer. The short answer is, I don't know exactly, because with our tax code it's next to impossible to forecast, but here's some rough estimates for you. If I have to pay 7% more federal income tax on my income above $200k, that equals approximately an extra $5,250 in fed income tax for last year (7% of $75k), and probably slightly more for this year. That's an extra $438 per month, not exactly chump change. Guys who work harder obviously will pay even more. Obviously that's a simplification, because marginal tax rates aren't the same as effective tax rates, but that's close to what I'll pay if President Obama gets his way, and I have to pay an extra 7% effective tax rate on my top income.

I'm already paying more than I'm supposed to because of the Alternative Minimum Tax Scheme. Since the creators neglected to index it to inflation, it's taxing middle class people that it was not intended to by its congressional mandate and design. It works by running parallel calculations, limiting or discounting entirely deductions that most people claim. Pretty much everything except charitable deductions. For last year that was another $3,400 in extra tax I got to pay that I was never supposed to. That was on top of what following all the rules said I should pay. The rub is that they can't change it now because the can't afford to--they've already spent the money.

Does that answer your question, Smarta$$? I don't know if you're a Captain or not, or what airline you work for, but are you looking forward to paying an extra $3-5,000 per year in President Obama's federal income taxes (plus all the other hidden taxes)?

Bubba

I'm on my phone, so I will have to answer later. So you are single with about a 275 w2?

 

[Dan Roman]

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but I had to do a little research to find your answer. The short answer is, I don't know exactly, because with our tax code it's next to impossible to forecast, but here's some rough estimates for you. If I have to pay 7% more federal income tax on my income above $200k, that equals approximately an extra $5,250 in fed income tax for last year (7% of $75k), and probably slightly more for this year. That's an extra $438 per month, not exactly chump change. Guys who work harder obviously will pay even more. Obviously that's a simplification, because marginal tax rates aren't the same as effective tax rates, but that's close to what I'll pay if President Obama gets his way, and I have to pay an extra 7% effective tax rate on my top income.

I'm already paying more than I'm supposed to because of the Alternative Minimum Tax Scheme. Since the creators neglected to index it to inflation, it's taxing middle class people that it was not intended to by its congressional mandate and design. It works by running parallel calculations, limiting or discounting entirely deductions that most people claim. Pretty much everything except charitable deductions. For last year that was another $3,400 in extra tax I got to pay that I was never supposed to. That was on top of what following all the rules said I should pay. The rub is that they can't change it now because the can't afford to--they've already spent the money.

Does that answer your question, Smarta$$? I don't know if you're a Captain or not, or what airline you work for, but are you looking forward to paying an extra $3-5,000 per year in President Obama's federal income taxes (plus all the other hidden taxes)?

Bubba

Bubba, here's a different viewpoint.
I'm in the same tax bracket as you and we are both among the most fortunate in this country. Make no mistake about it we worked hard to get were we are. But most Americans worked just as hard as we have and have not fared as well. The middle class is getting screwed and a small percentage are getting richer and richer. Not because they are smarter, better humans or working harder, but simply a result of circumstances. Life isn't fair, but the republican agenda wants a few to get richer at the expense of the vast majority. They seem to think that's OK. The concept that wealthy people paying less taxes helps anyone but the individuals saving more money is bit of a joke. Lower taxes for the wealthy do not trickle own. I have no problem paying more taxes. It won't change my lifestyle one bit, but if it helps create a more equitable U.S. for my kids to grow up in it would be a good investment.
But the bottom line is you and I have been very fortunate, but not more deserving. I care more about a more equitable country than I care about a few extra tax dollars.
Now that said, here is were you and I will agree....it does piss me off how much money is wasted by our Government, but that's a separate issue that both parties have failed at, and I'm not sure which one is the most guilty.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

Can I get a Amen! Well said.

Bubba, here's a different viewpoint.
I'm in the same tax bracket as you and we are both among the most fortunate in this country. Make no mistake about it we worked hard to get were we are. But most Americans worked just as hard as we have and have not fared as well. The middle class is getting screwed and a small percentage are getting richer and richer. Not because they are smarter, better humans or working harder, but simply a result of circumstances. Life isn't fair, but the republican agenda wants a few to get richer at the expense of the vast majority. They seem to think that's OK. The concept that wealthy people paying less taxes helps anyone but the individuals saving more money is bit of a joke. Lower taxes for the wealthy do not trickle own. I have no problem paying more taxes. It won't change my lifestyle one bit, but if it helps create a more equitable U.S. for my kids to grow up in it would be a good investment.
But the bottom line is you and I have been very fortunate, but not more deserving. I care more about a more equitable country than I care about a few extra tax dollars.
Now that said, here is were you and I will agree....it does piss me off how much money is wasted by our Government, but that's a separate issue that both parties have failed at, and I'm not sure which one is the most guilty.

 

[jonjuan]

I have no problem paying more taxes. It won't change my lifestyle one bit, but if it helps create a more equitable U.S. for my kids to grow up in it would be a good investment.
But the bottom line is you and I have been very fortunate, but not more deserving. I care more about a more equitable country than I care about a few extra tax dollars.

I don't think wealthy people mind paying more taxes either, as long as it's used in a healthy manner which helps those less fortunate or truly hard working folks who need a little help. The problem they see is, the current administration will use the additional revenues to "help" those who refuse to help themselves and have no idea what a 4 hour, much less 12-hour, work day looks like.
If he wins, just watch what happens to the country.

 

[SWA Bubba]

The money in mutual funds that is taxable, is significant. It is also OVERWHELMINGLY concentrated in the top 2-3% of households. That does not mean that many average Americans don't have some, they do, have some.

Take mitt Romney. He made 20+ million last year in income, and paid a lower effective tax rate than every pilot on this board. He also never checked in for an assignment or worked a 12 hour duty day like we did. But we got the privilege of working far harder and paying more of our income in taxes than him.

A tax on capital gains would have a small impact on hardworking middle class Americans.

Well, I don't know how to prove this point, but I don't agree in the slightest with the premise of your first paragraph (about that money being concentrated in the top 2-3% of households). I think you have this exactly backwards. I started investing in mutual funds back in the day when I was a young military guy making jack squat. I only put in $100/month (payroll deducted) when I started, because that's all I could afford. And if you think about it, USAA mutual funds are held by ONLY military guys and girls, who typically make, as I said earlier, jack squat.

In fact, mutual funds were created specifically so that the "little guy" could be an investor. You didn't need a lot of money; yours was pooled with other peoples into funds, and managed by professionals. It's for exactly middle-class Americans to be able to invest a little here and there, and hopefully make more than a simple savings account.

Do rich people have any mutual funds? Possibly, but not that much. You don't make Romney's kind of income with mutual funds. (They don't make anywhere near that kind of return. But, being professionally-managed goups of securities, they have less risk than simply putting money straight into the market.) Rich people make that kind of money by buying and selling individual securities, actual companies, and other assets. That's more risky, but that's how you can make bigger money. Like I said, mutual funds are actually the vehicle for the "poorest" investor to invest (along with being less volatile).

Having citizens ("rich" and "poor" alike) invest in companies is how American capitalism works. Raising taxes on doing this is a disincentive to investing for everyone.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba, here's a different viewpoint.
I'm in the same tax bracket as you and we are both among the most fortunate in this country. Make no mistake about it we worked hard to get were we are. But most Americans worked just as hard as we have and have not fared as well. The middle class is getting screwed and a small percentage are getting richer and richer. Not because they are smarter, better humans or working harder, but simply a result of circumstances. Life isn't fair, but the republican agenda wants a few to get richer at the expense of the vast majority. They seem to think that's OK. The concept that wealthy people paying less taxes helps anyone but the individuals saving more money is bit of a joke. Lower taxes for the wealthy do not trickle own. I have no problem paying more taxes. It won't change my lifestyle one bit, but if it helps create a more equitable U.S. for my kids to grow up in it would be a good investment.
But the bottom line is you and I have been very fortunate, but not more deserving. I care more about a more equitable country than I care about a few extra tax dollars.
Now that said, here is were you and I will agree....it does piss me off how much money is wasted by our Government, but that's a separate issue that both parties have failed at, and I'm not sure which one is the most guilty.

Not to rehash the entire political campaign season in one post, but I don't agree with your premises. Rich people currently already pay more in taxes than poor people, both in percentage and in overwhelmingly so in total money (People who earn exclusively from capital gains notwithstanding, but that's not actually very many). The Republicans want to keep from raising that taxation level, not give them a tax reduction. There's more than just a semantic difference between "giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires," and not raising their tax burden even higher. Keep in mind that 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax, and that the top 2% wage earners already pay 50% of everyone's tax, and that the top 10% of earners pays 90% of it. How is that equitable?

However, the primary premise of yours that I disagree with is that the current Administration's kind of plan will do anything to make the country better for future generations. Increasing the role of government (and obviously taxation to pay for it) will only turn the US into another Europe, albeit slowly (the more resistance from conservatives, the more slowly). And as you can see by watching any news channel, Europe is slowly and surely going over a fiscal cliff, one country after another, with the more left-oriented, the faster the fall. The more the central government controls, the less freedoms we have, and the more your "equitability" just becomes equal misery.

Plus, as you say, you hate the money that the government wastes. Don't you think that the more the government has their hand in, that they'll waste even more money?

I know I'm not going to change your mind, and sorry this thread devolved into another political bitchfest, but for you guys on this board who scoff at how pilots in unions can vote for Republicans, this is how.

Bubba

 

[Smarta$$]

Well, I don't know how to prove this point, but I don't agree in the slightest with the premise of your first paragraph (about that money being concentrated in the top 2-3% of households). I think you have this exactly backwards. I started investing in mutual funds back in the day when I was a young military guy making jack squat. I only put in $100/month (payroll deducted) when I started, because that's all I could afford. And if you think about it, USAA mutual funds are held by ONLY military guys and girls, who typically make, as I said earlier, jack squat.

In fact, mutual funds were created specifically so that the "little guy" could be an investor. You didn't need a lot of money; yours was pooled with other peoples into funds, and managed by professionals. It's for exactly middle-class Americans to be able to invest a little here and there, and hopefully make more than a simple savings account.

Do rich people have any mutual funds? Possibly, but not that much. You don't make Romney's kind of income with mutual funds. (They don't make anywhere near that kind of return. But, being professionally-managed goups of securities, they have less risk than simply putting money straight into the market.) Rich people make that kind of money by buying and selling individual securities, actual companies, and other assets. That's more risky, but that's how you can make bigger money. Like I said, mutual funds are actually the vehicle for the "poorest" investor to invest (along with being less volatile).

Having citizens ("rich" and "poor" alike) invest in companies is how American capitalism works. Raising taxes on doing this is a disincentive to investing for everyone.

Bubba

Poor and actual middle class Americans (not single guys that make nearly 300k and think they are just a regular middle class joe) each have very small quantities of TAXABLE (as in capital gains) mutual funds. If they individually had huge quantities of mutual funds, they wouldn't be poor and middle class, like Mitt.

Most actual middle class and poor choose to maximize their tax deferred (not subject to capital gains tax) investment vehicles before they invest in fully taxable accounts. The rich on the other hand max out any tax deferred accounts by the first weekend in January each year, and want (need) to continue to invest their fortune to make it grow and become even more wealthy. The fact is, under the higher capital gains rates during Clintons presidency, the economy did great and the rich still invested and got richer, because they will always invest their money whether the cap gains rate is 15% or 25% or 35%, because that is what they do.

But you can pretend the poor and regular middle class people have LARGE quantities of taxable investments.... I guess I don't care. What I do care about is this idea that low taxes on the very wealthy will somehow benefit the country or the other 97% of us, which it very clearly doesn't and hasn't.