Pension

ATN_Pilot said:
Every bill that gets signed by the president is "executive action." It doesn't become law without his signature (with the exception of veto overrides, of course).
Click to expand...

That is not what you wrote, however. What you wrote was:

"Well, the pensions were well funded until Reagan gave a gift to corporations allowing them to underfund their pensions.

And yet pilots at the legacies will continue to vote Republican."

This implies that Reagan somehow, single handedly, in spite of Constitutional limits to the executive branch, permitted corporations to underfund their pension plans.

The truth is a Democratic Party controlled legislature passed the bill that favored large corporations and permitted them to underfund their pension plans. President Reagan happened to sign it. So why would we support the Democratic Party that crafted this legislation?
 
Last edited:
Blackhawk said:
That is not what you wrote, however. What you wrote was: "Well, the pensions were well funded until Reagan gave a gift to corporations allowing them to underfund their pensions. And yet pilots at the legacies will continue to vote Republican." This implies that Reagan somehow, single handedly, in spite of Constitutional limits to the executive branch, permitted corporations to underfund their pension plans.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't imply that in any way. I supposed it could be inferred that way by an uneducated reader who doesn't know how government works, but I don't suspect that that's you, so you know exactly what was said and meant.

The truth is a Democratic Party controlled legislature passed the bill that favored large corporations and permitted them to underfund their pension plans. President Reagan happened to sign it. So why would we support the Democratic Party that crafted this legislation?
Click to expand...

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just don't know the facts here and aren't intentionally lying. The reality is that this was a Reagan initiative, and he made it quite clear that he would be vetoing any legislation that didn't include his demands. His demands were extensive, including all sorts of corporate and rich guy tax breaks.
 
B767 said:
It's not that hard. I'm on track to get 60% of my average earnings by only pulling out 4% per year. Of course this number will be much higher if I get hired at a legacy before 2023. This number will also be much higher if I upgrade before 2020. I aimed low in my assumptions.
Click to expand...

In my 401k, I've always just put in the maximum. The money is gone before I ever see it, so to me it's like it never existed anyways. When I finally start making good money, I'll keep doing the maximum. If I die before I use it all up, my kids will get what's left.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No, it doesn't imply that in any way. I supposed it could be inferred that way by an uneducated reader who doesn't know how government works, but I don't suspect that that's you, so you know exactly what was said and meant.



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just don't know the facts here and aren't intentionally lying. The reality is that this was a Reagan initiative, and he made it quite clear that he would be vetoing any legislation that didn't include his demands. His demands were extensive, including all sorts of corporate and rich guy tax breaks.
Click to expand...

It was not that cut and dried and simple. There were concerns on both sides. The pension funds in some industries- such as coal and steel- were already seriously underfunded as these industries were going through serious economic hardships and were therefore granted exemptions. In others industries that had excess funds, these funds made them ripe for a corporate takeover where the raider would terminate the plan, take out the excess cash, then terminate the plan after purchasing an annuity to cover retirements already promised.
Also, while "rich guy" tax breaks were implemented many other "rich guy" loopholes were eliminated. In addition, the tax code was simplified, which helps middle/lower class families who can't afford to hire some accountant to find the loopholes.
Again, this was legislation. Did Regan propose some of it? Sure. But Tip O'Neill was Speaker of the House and controlled the purse strings.
 
Thank you for proving my point about how middle class people screwed by Republicans will continue to vote and make excuses for them. You get what you deserve. But that's okay. They give the tax breaks to me, so if you want to redistribute your wealth to me, go right ahead.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
It only takes about a 13.5% contribution for 25 years to match a 60% FAE pension.

Until the laws change to protect pensions, you'd be crazy to prefer an A Plan.
Click to expand...
Or you know, you don't put a single cent in accounts accessible by the company. Like any sane person. Unions manage the pensions in all of the blue collar fields.
 
The democratic and republican corporations are people. We must be careful not to critcize them.

Unions managing pensions seems like a good idea, as long as it's not the ALPA corporation.
 
Last edited:
ATN_Pilot said:
Thank you for proving my point about how middle class people screwed by Republicans will continue to vote and make excuses for them. You get what you deserve. But that's okay. They give the tax breaks to me, so if you want to redistribute your wealth to me, go right ahead.
Click to expand...
Actually the markets, made up of large corporations, do better under Democratic presidents than they do under Republican administrations.
The reason is that heavily capitalized, large corporations are able to deal with the red tape of regulation meant to help the "little guy" than the large corporations with their own legal departments.
One of the worst things the electorate can hear is "I'm for the people!"
 
z987k said:
Or you know, you don't put a single cent in accounts accessible by the company. Like any sane person. Unions manage the pensions in all of the blue collar fields.
Click to expand...

An unfunded pension is still an unfunded pension. If the company declares bankruptcy, 1113(c)s the contract, and stops making contributions to the union pension plan, you're still in the same spot. On the other hand, money contributed to a B-Fund or 401k is your money in your name, and it can't go anywhere.
 
Blackhawk said:
Actually the markets, made up of large corporations, do better under Democratic presidents than they do under Republican administrations.
Click to expand...

Hint: that's because progressive policies are better for the economy. There's a difference between something being good for the economy, and something being good for rich people.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Hint: that's because progressive policies are better for the economy. There's a difference between something being good for the economy, and something being good for rich people.
Click to expand...




You're wrong, but since our argument does not advance the thread I will defer the it to some point where I can convince you over a pint, or, failing that, take it outside the bar where we can continue the argument with fistscuffs.
 
Do you have to put money into pensions? Putting 13% of income to fund my retirement isn't easy especially with the market being so up and down.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
An unfunded pension is still an unfunded pension. If the company declares bankruptcy, 1113(c)s the contract, and stops making contributions to the union pension plan, you're still in the same spot. On the other hand, money contributed to a B-Fund or 401k is your money in your name, and it can't go anywhere.
Click to expand...
Well to be fair said blue collar fields don't have a single airline per union. Shop A goes bust, you go on the books and when your name comes up you go to shop B that needs some guys. At your previous wages. So the likelihood of it going unfunded are slim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top