What SHOULD Regional Airline Pilots Make?

[mrnolmts]

Pilotyip, you have the most asinine views I've seen in a long time. Your argument is akin to the "Do you know that the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes? OUTRAGEOUS!" argument.
I bet you are one of the numbnuts making that statement too, aren't you?

 

[asa rat]

So what defines an airline as "Regional" these days?

Why don't CEOs start their pay scale over when they swap companies?

 

[damnflyboy]

So what defines an airline as "Regional" these days?

Why don't CEOs start their pay scale over when they swap companies?

Love it! Behold! The root of the problem--the inability to make a true lateral move as an airline pilot. If we could determine pay/QOL on aptitude rather than seniority, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[pilotyip]

Pilotyip, you have the most asinine views I've seen in a long time. Your argument is akin to the "Do you know that the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes? OUTRAGEOUS!" argument.
I bet you are one of the numbnuts making that statement too, aren't you?

Yea I think I made that statement, and your point is? Do you fly airplanes because you like to?

 

[pilotyip]

So what defines an airline as "Regional" these days?

Why don't CEOs start their pay scale over when they swap companies?

Because they have skills beyond flying an airplane. I wish I had gone into management much earlier. As a management person you much more control over your life, and when you leave a job you can move to your next job at almost the same salary. Unlike a pilot whose pay is based upon a position on a seniority list. But I liked flying too much and stuck with the cockpit until I was in my mid-50's, when unemployment forced me into management. I am not degrading the skills of the pilot, but their skills are almost interchangeable, a ten year pilot is almost like any other 10 year pilot. Not so with a CPA who has ten years expereince in Tax policy, or an IT guy with ten year experience in net work development. This is my view of reality, I know it will be countered by some, but please stay away from the name calling.

 

[mrnolmts]

Yea I think I made that statement, and your point is?

Point is that you don't have the insight. In itself it looks like an outrageously unfair statement. I mean, how can it possibly be fair for 1% to pay 40% of the taxes, right?
Well, let's put it in terms you can understand: Let's say you and I are the only 2 tax payers, and there is a flat tax of 10%. You made $990,000 and I made $10,000 in a year. You paid $99,000 in taxes, and sat with "only" $891,000 left in your pocket. I paid $1,000 in taxes and had an awesome $9,000 left to live on.
You paid 99% of the taxes, and I paid a paltry 1%. Boo, f'n hoo.

 

[IBNAV8R]

Point is that you don't have the insight. In itself it looks like an outrageously unfair statement. I mean, how can it possibly be fair for 1% to pay 40% of the taxes, right?
Well, let's put it in terms you can understand: Let's say you and I are the only 2 tax payers, and there is a flat tax of 10%. You made $990,000 and I made $10,000 in a year. You paid $99,000 in taxes, and sat with "only" $891,000 left in your pocket. I paid $1,000 in taxes and had an awesome $9,000 left to live on.
You paid 99% of the taxes, and I paid a paltry 1%. Boo, f'n hoo.

The fallacy of this simplified thought is that we DON'T have a flat tax.

The truth is that "I" pay $346,500 in taxes while "you" are likely getting more money back than "you" sent in. Yet, somehow, "I'm" not paying my fair share.

 

[pilotyip]

Point is that you don't have the insight. In itself it looks like an outrageously unfair statement. I mean, how can it possibly be fair for 1% to pay 40% of the taxes, right?
Well, let's put it in terms you can understand: Let's say you and I are the only 2 tax payers, and there is a flat tax of 10%. You made $990,000 and I made $10,000 in a year. You paid $99,000 in taxes, and sat with "only" $891,000 left in your pocket. I paid $1,000 in taxes and had an awesome $9,000 left to live on.
You paid 99% of the taxes, and I paid a paltry 1%. Boo, f'n hoo.

so we should tax them at 99% like England did after WWII. Funny thing happened on the way to taxation perfection, the people with money left England.

 

[Flyprdu]

so we should tax them at 99% like England did after WWII. Funny thing happened on the way to taxation perfection, the people with money left England.

Lots of other numbers between 36% and 99%. Don't be such a drama queen.

 

[mrnolmts]

The fallacy of this simplified thought is that we DON'T have a flat tax...

*sigh* Of course we don't, nitwit. I was simplifying it with nice, round numbers so people like yourself could understand why it's logical that 1% pay 40% of the taxes. Apparently, I failed, and for that I apologize. I can only do so much.