I keep hearing paycut, paycut, paycut, but???

[esw2005]

I'll admit I primarily vote my paycheck. I would venture to bet most people do.


HD

....lesser of two evils.....McCain '08

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.

:yeahthat:

Yup, it sure is

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...

Capital gains tax is intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments and to fund entrepreneurial activity. The theory less companies have to pay in taxex the more moner they will have to invest in new ideas and hire more workers.

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.

:yup:

ok....the political talk (with exception to NATCA) needs to end or the discussion will be moved to the lavatory.


just an FYI.

It's politcal talk that pertains to pay....it's important...what's the big deal?

 

[coops2k]

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?

If your a controller or plan to be one and since this is about paycuts, look at it this way. Since IWR, my pay has been frozen. This has impacted my pay in ways it would affect anyone. But since our retirement is based on our high three, I have lost a large amount after I retire, that unless there are changes, I will never get back.

now for the capital gains tax, since it will taken out as income, $50k per year,, it will not be taxed this way and you need to have an income of over $250K
"Capital Gains: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates
that they pay today. For those in the top two income tax brackets – likewise adjusted to affect only
families over $250,000 – Obama will create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent. Obama’s 20%
rate is equal is the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate that President Bush proposed in
2001. It is almost a third lower than the rate that President Reagan signed into law in 1986.vii "


So any pay cuts, or less pay you make today, will have major impacts on your retirement.

 

[coops2k]

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.

Again, not saying one is better than the other, but if Congress really did have complete control over this, then we would of already been back to the green book, many controllers would getting more money. But if those bills went to the white house, they would get vetoed. For us to get a better pay, we need a group in Washington working together.

 

[K-Dog]

Based on todays rates, noone retirement age will be drawing 10 percent interest or dividends on their retirement money. If they do they are in the wrong investment as it is too risky. I would say that you will be lucky to draw 5-7% in a conservative investment.

So to draw $50,000 per year at 7% without touching the principal you would actually have to have around 715,000.

 

[Barty]

Based on todays rates, noone retirement age will be drawing 10 percent interest or dividends on their retirement money. If they do they are in the wrong investment as it is too risky. I would say that you will be lucky to draw 5-7% in a conservative investment.

So to draw $50,000 per year at 7% without touching the principal you would actually have to have around 715,000.

That's why you don't look at today's rates, but rather the return over at least a 5 year horizon, preferably 10 years or greater. I base my investment choices over what it is made over the life of the fund and I prefer to have at least half my money in solid funds that have a 20+ year track record.

If you play the game that way, even at retirement, 10% is still not out of the question if you aren't totally risk-adverse. As you get older and have less need for disposable income and your primary concern is paying expenses related to the home and health, of course you'll want to shift money into less risky investments. But while you're still at an age where you can still travel, fly, etc., you need to have your money working a little harder for you still so you're not dipping into your principal.

 

[K-Dog]

What fund that is even semi conservative in nature has yielded 10% in growth, dividends or interest in the last 5 years or the last 10 years?

Once you are retired and have no more earning capacity you will need to move the majority of your money into more conservative investments, unless you just like the prospect of being a Wal-Mart greeter into your 80's.

The only funds that have done well in the last several years have been bond funds and precious metals funds, while those normally are a more conservative investment the situations that will make them grown they way they have lately were uniques and rare.

Also, today's rates are almost exactly what they have been for the last five years.
I was merely pointing out a discrepancy in the statement, which no matter how hard you argue will still be true. Barring the possibility that we go back to rates the likes of the early 80's where you can get 10% cds and t-Funds. ..but what are the chances of that happening at the exact time you need your retirment?

Plan for the worst. I have never hear anyone advise on planning for the best and hope you don't need to be prepared.

 

[pm577]

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?

Sounds great, except: 401k withdrawls are taxed as straight income, not capital gains. Capital gains come from taxable investment accounts (those accounts invested with after-tax dollars on your own brokerage account). For the average American, it is incredibly difficult to amass a brokerage account of $500K+ (today's dollar) on a taxable non-401K account.

Thus: Your 401k account is taxed at your MARGINAL income tax rate, which is likely HIGHER than the richest pay in their capital gains rate of 15%.

Nice way to swindle the middle class.

(And if anyone thinks low capital gains tax spurs economic developement: What do you think the richest people spend their earnings on? Private jets, luxury cars, and massive mansions? Doesn't sound like long-term economic development to me. The country could use that money on real infrastructure updates, like our highways, airports, and ATC.)

Oh yea, and to have $1 million in today's dollars in 40 years from now, you had better get your account up to $5+ million for all the inflation we'll see in food, gas and housing. I'm savvy with investments, but I'm getting skeptical about 401ks in general. If your return is 10%, you had better take off 4% just for the effects of inflation. At a real return of 6% at best, it'll be hard for anyone to save enough. It's tragic that we've seen the loss of defined-benefit plans....retirement needs to be stable and known, not risky and uncertain.

Anyone can save a million in half-a-century from now, because 1 million will be NOTHING by then.

 

[pm577]

I find it interesting that when I have visited various FAA towers and attended the PEPC, one person's portrait is prominently displayed on the wall: President Bush.

Being an ingorant applicant that I am, even I can feel the effect that this administration has on its government agencies and workers. We're not just talking some phantom force here. For me, seeing the president's picture was an incredibly stark reminder of the power dynamic at hand here.

 

[Rosstafari]

I find it interesting that when I have visited various FAA towers and attended the PEPC, one person's portrait is prominently displayed on the wall: President Bush.

It's just a federal government thing. It'll be McCain or Obama in a few more months.

Or Nader.

Ha ha.

 

[bloomer]

I find it interesting that when I have visited various FAA towers and attended the PEPC, one person's portrait is prominently displayed on the wall: President Bush.

Being an ingorant applicant that I am, even I can feel the effect that this administration has on its government agencies and workers. We're not just talking some phantom force here. For me, seeing the president's picture was an incredibly stark reminder of the power dynamic at hand here.

Like Rostafari said it is just a military/government thing. I am not sure if you noticed but it is usually starts with the Commander In Chief and goes to the right with pictures of everyone in the chain of command. It is there basically to put faces to names, so when that person walks in people don't act like idiots.

I have read your post and know your feelings of the current administration but trust me, the President is not going around and forcing government offices to post pictures of himself like a totalitarian leader, LOL.

By the time you get to your facility you won't get to see his mug up there for much longer.

 

[Kristie]

id really like to post my opinion on this but i dont want some cry baby nubees running to the moderatiors to have me banned from the site again because the truth hurts some times so all ill say is ,

then say it with respect and not an ugly nubee type undertone... it's really quite simple.