I keep hearing paycut, paycut, paycut, but???
- Thread starter Hockey9
- Start date
All I can say is GOOD LUCK with that thought Hidef! Personally from an educated perspective, I would much rather not have Obama in office. Something about paying 22% more in taxes, more for oil, and tucking our tails between our legs asking for another terrorist attack just does not sit well with me. Yes change is needed from the bush administration; however a change to a socialist goverment with a two faced flip flop leader is not what I want to envision for the United States of America. See you at the polls!
GnW
New Member
sigh
pm577
New Member
whoever is president, he will have to raise taxes to pay for the wars, overspending, and now bail-out of the financial system
the fear mongerers have no evidence for their "taxes will skyrocket" ideas
Did taxes skyrocket when Clinton was elected?
Do you want to extend the red line another 4 years?
Alleged 'low taxes' are going to have a tremendous burden on future generations.
the fear mongerers have no evidence for their "taxes will skyrocket" ideas
Did taxes skyrocket when Clinton was elected?
Do you want to extend the red line another 4 years?
Alleged 'low taxes' are going to have a tremendous burden on future generations.
BoomerSooner77
New Member
and without relation to GDP.
Barty
Well-Known Member
whoever is president, he will have to raise taxes to pay for the wars, overspending, and now bail-out of the financial system
the fear mongerers have no evidence for their "taxes will skyrocket" ideas
Did taxes skyrocket when Clinton was elected?
Do you want to extend the red line another 4 years?
Alleged 'low taxes' are going to have a tremendous burden on future generations.
I'd rather them just stop spending the money in the first place, that's what creates the debt, after all.
Personally, I don't think it is going to matter who is in the White House so far as the controller contract is concerned. Obama is more than likely pro-union, but you've still got to get it by Congress, which is where folks should really focus their attention every election cycle. Those are the folks that rob you and I blind with their pet projects, vote buying programs in the forms of social programs, bailouts and other handouts.
Anyway, this is getting off topic, so I'll stop there. I could go on and on about that.
pm577
New Member
No doubt Congress can be a problem, but aren't contracts approved without congress? To my knowledge the FAA Administrator is in charge of setting a budget and pay for his employees.
I know current controllers are trying to get Congress to circumvent the Administrator and force a real negotiation, however IWR was implemented without any input from Congress.
Therefore, the next Administrator will have a real effect on the wage of future ATCers.
Well, from my educated perspective, I would much rather not have McCain and his hockey mom sidekick (see "two faced flip flop" comment above, haha) in office. Taxes? You can't have two wars (one illegally) and lower taxes. Like the rest of America I guess we'll just charge it to the card and worry about it later when the bill comes due, huh? And change is needed from the Bush administration? Too little too late my friend.
I'll admit I primarily vote my paycheck. I would venture to bet most people do. I'm also a member of NATCA and NATCA supports Obama. Any of the new hires who decide their vote should go to McCain had better never complain about the pay scale should he win. Not to mention, it goes deeper than just the pay scale. If you could see some of the goofy things we have to do now all because of the man (Mr. Sturgell) Bush has tried to appoint to the administrators position, I think you'd be just as angry. I just don't have enough time and space here to explain it all. Anyway, hopefully one day you guys/girls will see why so many controllers are pro-dems. rant over
See YOU at the polls.HD
BoomerSooner77
New Member
Speak of the Devil... is anyone else watching AC360?
so where did you hear this, most people here will have very little change in taxes
or are you talking about this
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp
Well, from my educated perspective, I would much rather not have McCain and his hockey mom sidekick (see "two faced flip flop" comment above, haha) in office. Taxes? You can't have two wars (one illegally) and lower taxes. Like the rest of America I guess we'll just charge it to the card and worry about it later when the bill comes due, huh? And change is needed from the Bush administration? Too little too late my friend.
I'll admit I primarily vote my paycheck. I would venture to bet most people do. I'm also a member of NATCA and NATCA supports Obama. Any of the new hires who decide their vote should go to McCain had better never complain about the pay scale should he win. Not to mention, it goes deeper than just the pay scale. If you could see some of the goofy things we have to do now all because of the man (Mr. Sturgell) Bush has tried to appoint to the administrators position, I think you'd be just as angry. I just don't have enough time and space here to explain it all. Anyway, hopefully one day you guys/girls will see why so many controllers are pro-dems. rant over
HD
So what you are telling me is just because NATCA is pro dem, and your a member of NATCA then your vote is for Obama. Wow that's an educated decision!
Sure Bush has made some extremely stupid decisons and was forced to make some decisions due to past Presidents sweeping problems under the rug. However now more than ever a time when the country needs a strong leader. You would rather elect a president with less political experience than Bush ever had. A person who will essentially collapse capitalism and create a socialist economy and goverment, as well send more jobs overseas. But ohhh its ok my union supports him.???
I understand your dishearted over the IWRs, I am dissapointed in them too. However Congress has a chance to correct what is wrong. To ensure stability in the national air infrastructure and with the testimony of Natca and the persuassion of others hopefully congress will move to pass the latest BIPARTISAN bill.
I see no reason to write off american values and vote for a man that will not ensure the freedoms of democracy and capitalism. Fortunately some of us can see through the hipocrisy and hipe. Find our patriotic selfs and realize what values mean the most for us.
Great conversation Hidef After all its the freedom of choice that makes this country so great.
pm577
New Member
Of course Congress approves the budget. However, the budget doesn't necessarily dictate the terms of a contract. (So the FAA budget suddenly went down 30% in 2006 causing salaries to go down 30%?) Running a govt like a business means: screwing the working man and giving large bonuses for managers.
btw, taxes are not planned to increase for anyone making under 150k under either party's plan. the question is how much will the richest pay.
btw, taxes are not planned to increase for anyone making under 150k under either party's plan. the question is how much will the richest pay.
pm577
New Member
Yup, it sure is
But seriously, if rich people are voting for their self-interest (low income tax, low estate tax, low capital gains tax), then the middle-class has to vote for their own self-interest. You have no other choice, it is either 'eat or be eaten'.
Who benefits from low estate and capital gains tax? I have investments, but my capital gains are only a few hundred every year, less than 1% of my income. CEOs are making millions on capital gains, so they are the primary beneficiary. In fact, many businessmen derive a majority of their INCOME from capital gains. So why should they pay LESS in capital gains than I do in regular income tax? Let alone, capital gains are free from social security and disability income taxes. These guys are paying 15% for capital gains, while I'm paying close to a marginal rate of 50% (fed+state+socialsecurity+federalrailroadtax) on my hard-earned income.
If Bush wanted to help the middle-class with capital gains, like he claims, then he would have the first 50k in capital gains tax free, and charge the rest at 50%. I can guarantee you that very few Americans have capital gains in excess of 50k per year.
The same scam applies to estate taxes. Who really has a large enough estate that it falls under the tax? very very few individuals...
SkierMatt, I would like to know, with your "educated decision" which McCain are you voting for.
A) the McCain that said he was to continue Bush policies (back Bush over 70% of the time)
B) the McCain that after getting the republican nomination said the current government has let us down and Washington is broke and needs to be fix.
I am not sure which will be better leader Obama or McCain, but I do know that I am not sure which McCain I would be voting for, if he gets my vote.
A) the McCain that said he was to continue Bush policies (back Bush over 70% of the time)
B) the McCain that after getting the republican nomination said the current government has let us down and Washington is broke and needs to be fix.
I am not sure which will be better leader Obama or McCain, but I do know that I am not sure which McCain I would be voting for, if he gets my vote.
Yes. IWR's are a crappy situation to say the least. However if you think electing Obama will solve everything then whats to stop it from happening farther down the road? I'm not saying McCain will fix the IWR's however I have faith in congress to do that and restore collective bargaining. The national air infrastructre is an issue of national security and commerce. I believe whole heartedly the issue is not one sided. It is truely a BIPARTISAN issue. So please watch what way you swing. As a possible future member of Natca and coming from a family of union workers, I understand the democratic foundation.
However; with certain issues I side to the conservative view. Personally I am More against Obama(i am not against natca)than with McCain. To some it would say voting the lesser of two evils. To each their own, and with me I personally believe in voting for a future without Obama in an office of my representation.
The trueth is look past McCain/Obama the real deal is with congress to restore collective bargaining and pass the bill to ensure the new generation of air traffic controllers freedom in negotiations with future administrations. I see they resume this thursday with the Natca and I look forward to it.
However; with certain issues I side to the conservative view. Personally I am More against Obama(i am not against natca)than with McCain. To some it would say voting the lesser of two evils. To each their own, and with me I personally believe in voting for a future without Obama in an office of my representation.
The trueth is look past McCain/Obama the real deal is with congress to restore collective bargaining and pass the bill to ensure the new generation of air traffic controllers freedom in negotiations with future administrations. I see they resume this thursday with the Natca and I look forward to it.
Barty
Well-Known Member
Yup, it sure is
But seriously, if rich people are voting for their self-interest (low income tax, low estate tax, low capital gains tax), then the middle-class has to vote for their own self-interest. You have no other choice, it is either 'eat or be eaten'.
Who benefits from low estate and capital gains tax? I have investments, but my capital gains are only a few hundred every year, less than 1% of my income. CEOs are making millions on capital gains, so they are the primary beneficiary. In fact, many businessmen derive a majority of their INCOME from capital gains. So why should they pay LESS in capital gains than I do in regular income tax? Let alone, capital gains are free from social security and disability income taxes. These guys are paying 15% for capital gains, while I'm paying close to a marginal rate of 50% (fed+state+socialsecurity+federalrailroadtax) on my hard-earned income.
If Bush wanted to help the middle-class with capital gains, like he claims, then he would have the first 50k in capital gains tax free, and charge the rest at 50%. I can guarantee you that very few Americans have capital gains in excess of 50k per year.
The same scam applies to estate taxes. Who really has a large enough estate that it falls under the tax? very very few individuals...
I don't know about you, but my long term retirement plan is to be able to live off of what my investments EARN and not touch the principal for as long as possible. Capital gains taxes are a regressive tax of the worst kind from that perspective, because they have the greatest negative impact on people who would otherwise be paying a lower tax rate if those same earnings were taxed as ordinary income.
$500k @ 10% is $50k per year, which isn't out of the reach of someone with a decent income that starts investing in their 20s to early 30s and puts the money into solid funds and stocks. Personally, I hope to have to have at least a cool million put away between the wife and I by the time we reach retirement, in which case I would be very much impacted by your proposal. I'd have to put away at least another half a million just to make up for the tax. See the problem with that now?
As far as the estate tax is concerned, it does effect far more people than it was ever intended (ahh, those darned unforseen circumstances!) because it has only periodically been adjusted for inflation. The problem we have today is that the amount of wealth that one has to accumulate to be subject to it isn't that hard to reach if someone has run a successful small business, owns a significant amount of real-estate or real-estate that has appreciated significantly throughout their lifetime, etc.. Upon that person's death, families have had to liquidate businesses, sell property, etc., just to pay the taxes. This is one of the reasons why you see folks selling off the old family farm to developers to build the next Wal-Mart or strip mall, they simply can't afford the estate tax bill otherwise. Again, I don't know about you, but I thought one of the things we belived in this country was being able to make a better life for your children, including leaving them the fruits of your labor when you die. Truthfully, I can't care less how many people actually end up paying it, as long as one person who busted their butt off their entire life ends up having the government suck up well over half of what they worked for in their lifetime, it is wrong and improper. Remember, the estate tax exemption goes back to $1m in 2011 if no action is taken...and that counts ones' investments as well.
Just something to consider....
But back on topic...
(to keep the mods happy)I'm in the same boat as SkierMatt really, I'm more against Obama than for McCain. I stand beside my previous assertion that the Congress is going to be the ultimate arbiter in how the whole FAA debate works out. If Congress is still controlled by the Democrats and McCain gets elected, you are still going to have some comprimise when it comes to the new administrator. They're not going to let him install another Sturgell (which even in my outsider opinion, could be doing alot differently, and not just in terms of ATC) and of course, they are the ones who will ultimately sign off on any budget that the FAA proposes. Also keep in mind that unless any party gets over that magic 2/3rds majority, they still won't be free to do whatever they damn well please without having input from the other side.
