• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

WSJ on SWA/AT Merger

jonjuan

Honey Ryder
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Posts
4,155
Total Time
3,000+
The only thing they're talking about is taxing the contributions, not taking the money. Nice try. ;)

For now. Standby if you your "gal" gets elected in '16. ;)
 

dalad

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Posts
209
Total Time
10000+
How did that workout for the bankruptcy guys in the last 10-12 year? PBGC? They got basically nothing.

vs. SW 9.3% plus profitsharing.....and stock options (for those in the same era). The differences are stark.

Does SW need to do better? Of course, but to say other carriers over the same years did fine with pensions is ludicrous.
Red, your info is wrong. The pre BK contract froze the DB pension for DAL pilots. Mine was frozen with a $ 620k lump sum and a $6k per month annuity. A DC plan was set up at that time along with the 401k match of 2%. Post BK we received the plan which we have now. What did I receive? I got the full MPPP plan at 105k which was rolled over inta an IRA worth just north of 200k today. I also received a bankruptcy claim payment of approximately 230k and a bankruptcy note payment of 84k. Some of that money was used to fill pilots up to the 415c limit for two years. So I now sit on a 401k worth 930k today, a rollover IRA worth 200k, and a DC plan that is now worth 480k. That's north of $1.5 million. Lets not leave out the PBGC promise. If I choose to collect at 60, that's $4.2k per month, or $ 6.9 k per month at 65. Add in $2.4k per month for SS and that becomes $9.3k per month at 65. So I would say your numbers are off.
 

race#53

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Posts
183
Total Time
2000
Don't count on PBGC if you have income from any other source even SS...check what they did to the EAL guys.
 

nimtz

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2001
Posts
1,442
Total Time
?
Why waste negotiating capital on retirement? SWAPA can just lobby for Age 70.
 

dalad

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Posts
209
Total Time
10000+
Don't count on PBGC if you have income from any other source even SS...check what they did to the EAL guys.

I disagree. Not planning on anything from the Government Ponzi scheme either. But, if I get anything from PBGC and SS it will be icing on the cake.
 

scoreboardII

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Posts
2,694
Total Time
xxxxxx
Until they're not.....it all may be a mute point ;)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324050304578412932073225110.html

REVIEW & OUTLOOK Updated April 12, 2013, 12:13 p.m. ET
Now He's After Your 401(k)
The White House pulls a switcheroo on retirement savings accounts.
using the 3% rule, you need just over $7 million to make that amount of coin for a reasonable and prudent 3% rule withdrawl rate.

The president is jacked on this, $3 mil gets you $90,000 a year. Sorry Charlie, take out medical, taxes and food costs and you'll be taking home less than $50,000 with the almighty ones plan.

******************** him.

Thanks to him, my going in plan is to plan on zero percent growth of my investments.
 

slaquer5

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Posts
1,282
Total Time
>19k
The only thing they're talking about is taxing the contributions, not taking the money. Nice try. ;)


It's called baby steps . I doubt most of use I'll ever see our SS money owed to us.


Nice try though . :)
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
It's called baby steps . I doubt most of use I'll ever see our SS money owed to us.

Probably true. But then again, I don't think you and I should get it. SS should be treated as a safety net, not as a retirement plan. People with $5 million in a 401k shouldn't be collecting money from the government every month.
 

slaquer5

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Posts
1,282
Total Time
>19k
Probably true. But then again, I don't think you and I should get it. SS should be treated as a safety net, not as a retirement plan. People with $5 million in a 401k shouldn't be collecting money from the government every month.


So you and I put the most into SS and we should not get it?

I disagree, but I am sure that will be the quick fix with the goberment .
 

waveflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Posts
10,005
Total Time
12000
Not if I'm paying into it PCL- it shouldn't be retirement welfare- it should be govt mandated and controlled annuity as an economic safety net, not a social safety net
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
Not if I'm paying into it PCL- it shouldn't be retirement welfare- it should be govt mandated and controlled annuity as an economic safety net, not a social safety net

We'll just have to agree to disagree, as usual, wave. ;)
 

Sacha

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Posts
542
Total Time
25,000
I am contributing to SS for my safety net, not someone else's.

What if someone CHOOSES to not contribute to his 401K and instead buys sports cars and goes on Ski vacations with the money instead and ends up with zip when he retires? Should he be entitled to SS as a "Safety Net" whereas I get nothing because I actually CHOSE to save, contribute and invest? My SS money is used for his benefit?

What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine.....The Liberal Mantra

PCL says " people with 5 million in a 401k shouldnt be collecting money from the government every month".....

You are confusing SSI with WELFARE. People who collect money from the Government every month are on WELFARE.........People who collect SS every month are getting back money THEY paid into the system. It is a Ponzi scheme I will admit. Like Defined Benefit Pension plans, the Mathematics will eventually be upside down.
 
Last edited:

Luv2BFlyin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Posts
514
Probably true. But then again, I don't think you and I should get it. SS should be treated as a safety net, not as a retirement plan. People with $5 million in a 401k shouldn't be collecting money from the government every month.

Why should I be penalized for being successful and not receive a benefit that I paid into just like every other hard working American (I actually have worked hard prior to and early on in aviation)? I don't care if 20 years from now it'll just buy beer, but I want it. Why do they call it SSI? If I pay premiums into an insurance plan, I expect to collect a benefit in one form or another at some time in the future (besides term insurance to provide for the wife and kids due to an untimely death, I really hope they don't have to collect on that :)).
 

SWA Bubba

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
2,300
Total Time
>10000
Probably true. But then again, I don't think you and I should get it. SS should be treated as a safety net, not as a retirement plan. People with $5 million in a 401k shouldn't be collecting money from the government every month.


That's an interesting theory--and one that goes against the original design of the plan. It was NOT designed to completely support everyone in their old age. Or even just the poor in their old age. It was designed to force a minimum level of self-responsible retirement planning upon everyone. Despite your suggestion, it IS, in fact, a retirement plan, albeit a government-mandated one. That's why you're only "taxed" up to a certain amount (indexed to inflation), and more importantly, why if you earn more and contribute more, you GET more when you retire. The limit on SSI contribution is due to the designers figuring that above that threshold, you're already covered.

People clamoring to "fix" Social Security by eliminating the cap on contributions forget that if you further increase required contributions above the cap, then the government is obligated, under the premise of the program, to give those people even more when they retire. That's why it's called Social Security Insurance, and not Social Security Tax. It's technically called Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI). That's also why your payroll deductions are called FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act), not tax. As a tax, the government can do what it wishes with the money. As insurance, the government is obligated to treat ALL the "policy holders" with fair and equal treatment under the rules. (I don't necessarily mean equal amounts of money, but rather everyone's "insurance payout" is calculated with the same rules.)

Your suggestion that the people who contribute the most shouldn't get anything, because they don't "need" it, even further flies in the face against the program's goals and stated criteria. In that case, it would be changed to be just be another friggin' government-mandated redistribution of wealth program. It's my opinion that we have too many of those as it is already.

Bubba
 
Last edited:

SWA717

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Posts
144
Total Time
15+
Probably true. But then again, I don't think you and I should get it. SS should be treated as a safety net, not as a retirement plan. People with $5 million in a 401k shouldn't be collecting money from the government every month.

I've got news for you. If you want to give all your money to idiots who never decided to save a lick and instead spent everything they made trying to live well beyond their means, then by all means please do so. But stay the Phuk away from my money you socialist jurk.
 

Ty Webb

Hostage to Fortune
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Posts
6,525
Total Time
11000+
Probably true. But then again, I don't think you and I should get it. SS should be treated as a safety net, not as a retirement plan. People with $5 million in a 401k shouldn't be collecting money from the government every month.

Wow.

So, by your "logic", you think that the $8,500. a year (or so) that I have paid in every year shouldn't go to me, but should be diverted to a "safety net" for other people instead? Are you out of your %^&^&$ mind?

"Comrade PCL, the local tribunal has decided that your new Jaguar is really too nice of a car to be wasted on a young, single guy such as yourself. We'll be reallocating this asset to a "needy" family we've located. Nobody in the family is currently working, or looking for work, but we're certain that this is due to a lack of transportation. Please be sure to remove all your personal effects, we'll be picking it up tomorrow. Thanks for your contribution to the safety net.

Oh, btw, we have a homeless family that needs a house, as well. We'll be sending you more correspondence on that next week".
 

redflyer65

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Posts
4,456
Total Time
8000
Maybe ALPA should increase their dues to 5% to help pay for the thin meals they are taking up in DC. Who can live on a 2 thousand dollar dinner! Spread the wealth....and the A1.
 

Dan Roman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Posts
2,815
Total Time
19000
Holy crap PCL, I agree with a lot of your positions on here. My politics lean left and I credit the "liberals" with creating the middle class and the opportunities in our country for the majority of the population. But your perception that someone should give up the SS investment they made while working because they worked hard and were successful is absurd.
If that concept ever gets seriously considered by democrats it will do more than divide our country further, it would render the Democratic party useless.
 

Dan Roman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Posts
2,815
Total Time
19000
I might even become a Tea party member and I wouldn't be surprised if Wave joined me!
 
Top