[♪♫ in my ♥]

.....

My apologies for helping to sidetrack this thread into a discussion of taxation.

[♪♫ in my ♥]

Originally Posted by pinkeyICU

Okay, I have to reply only because of the few quotes about unionized airline pilots. My spouse is a pilot for one of the major airlines. Because of pressure from the union the age 60 rule was changed to make it so that pilots could fly to age 65. Was that a good thing? Well, not if you're young and can't move up because now there are all these older guys/gals sticking around because they either didn't have the foresight to prepare for the retirement they knew was mandatory at age 60 or are caught in the trap of rampant consumerism. I cannot speak for every union, but the major airline union (ALPA) -- My Opinion Only -- exists primarily to support the UNION and the old capts at the expense of the industry as a whole and the younger pilots. And there is NO choice of whether or not to join if that is the profession one chooses.

Well, Pinkey, let's look at the other side... my buddy John who's been flying for UAL forever (777 to/from Japan). John was cooking along and doing fine, planning for retirement and all. He's definitely not the extravagant-living type -- no plane, no sports car, no girlfriend... Just his wife with a disabling autoimmune disease and the child they adopted late in life.

So, John's looking forward to his retirement at age 60 -- you see, he loves to fly but he's just sick and tired of being away from home. Well, just three years before his retirement, UAL dissolves their pension plan. To John and the others like him, the PBGC says, 'Well, you're not entitled to the full benefit because you're retiring early -- if you want the full benefit then you must not retire until you're 65" while the FAA is pulling his ATP at age 60. So, this man who had carefully planned his retirement was now, at the age of 58, trying to figure out how to retrain into another career (uh, yeah, John, good luck trying to get hired as a 60-year-old new grad) since all his planning was for naught.

Meanwhile, the FAA had no reason for the age 60 rule. It's just an archaic rule that has no basis in safety nor statistics. What do the pilots say? Well, my other friend Tim, a ring-knocker flying KC-10s put it this way: "Who would you want flying if something went bad, me or John?" Well gee, Tim, you all the way. You're a USAF hotshot, you're young, strong, smart -- heck, you're even married to a nurse. You, all the way. "Wrong!!! You want John. The guy is rock-steady and has seen it all. Flying is about judgment and John's got it in spades. Believe me, you want him." Any my buddy Harry who runs 737s around the country for SWA, says, "John's a great pilot. I hope they don't extend the age, though, because I want seniority so that I can get better schedules."

So, just recently the legislature did the right thing and modified the age-discrimination for pilots, thanks in part to the union. Of course, without the union, John would've been run out long ago because he was earning so much more than the young guys -- like Harry and like your husband -- who crave that 777 seat.

Commodity workers -- like pilots, like nurses, like firefighters... -- need unions to balance the playing field.

[pinkeyICU]

Originally Posted by ♪♫ in my ♥

Well, Pinkey, let's look at the other side... my buddy John who's been flying for UAL forever (777 to/from Japan). John was cooking along and doing fine, planning for retirement and all. He's definitely not the extravagant-living type -- no plane, no sports car, no girlfriend... Just his wife with a disabling autoimmune disease and the child they adopted late in life.

So, John's looking forward to his retirement at age 60 -- you see, he loves to fly but he's just sick and tired of being away from home. Well, just three years before his retirement, UAL dissolves their pension plan. To John and the others like him, the PBGC says, 'Well, you're not entitled to the full benefit because you're retiring early -- if you want the full benefit then you must not retire until you're 65" while the FAA is pulling his ATP at age 60. So, this man who had carefully planned his retirement was now, at the age of 58, trying to figure out how to retrain into another career (uh, yeah, John, good luck trying to get hired as a 60-year-old new grad) since all his planning was for naught.

Meanwhile, the FAA had no reason for the age 60 rule. It's just an archaic rule that has no basis in safety nor statistics. What do the pilots say? Well, my other friend Tim, a ring-knocker flying KC-10s put it this way: "Who would you want flying if something went bad, me or John?" Well gee, Tim, you all the way. You're a USAF hotshot, you're young, strong, smart -- heck, you're even married to a nurse. You, all the way. "Wrong!!! You want John. The guy is rock-steady and has seen it all. Flying is about judgment and John's got it in spades. Believe me, you want him." Any my buddy Harry who runs 737s around the country for SWA, says, "John's a great pilot. I hope they don't extend the age, though, because I want seniority so that I can get better schedules."

So, just recently the legislature did the right thing and modified the age-discrimination for pilots, thanks in part to the union. Of course, without the union, John would've been run out long ago because he was earning so much more than the young guys -- like Harry and like your husband -- who crave that 777 seat.

Commodity workers -- like pilots, like nurses, like firefighters... -- need unions to balance the playing field.

You make a good point. However, from the bottom, it looks as if the Union protects the guys at the top because 1.9% of their income is a heckuva lot more than 1.9% of a guys on the bottom. I will say that the Union Members did a good thing after 9/11 and poneyed up a little more so that those guys/gals who were laid off could keep some of their benefits for a while longer. The problems with the major airlines (UAL specifically) are a combination of things and too complex to debate here. ALPA is a captain's union, and if you happen to be a capt, it's great. And yes, I know that EVERYONE at UAL bent over and took it where the son doesn't shine and gave up retirement, 40% income, quality of life, etc., etc. Makes me wish we would have gone with Southwest...but back before 9/11 when the union negotiated the highest pay in the industry and the sweetheart contract 2000, nobody knew it was helping to kill the golden goose.
As to unions specifically, I have seen where they have benefited, however as they mature it seems as if they take on a life of their own. As with ANY beurocratic (spellling, I know!) organization, corruption can get out of control and those w/power want more. Sometimes the "little guy" the union was orginally formed to protect ends up feeling lost in the shuffle.
And, on a personal note, I think I said "spouse" not necessarliy husband....many pilots are females, just as many nurses are male. And my spouse is no spring chicken either....gave up a cargo job for UAL for many resons that in retrospect were moot/mistakes.

[pinkeyICU]

"And, on a personal note, I think I said "spouse" not necessarliy husband....many pilots are females, just as many nurses are male. And my spouse is no spring chicken either....gave up a cargo job for UAL for many resons that in retrospect were moot/mistakes. "
Ooops! Forgot about that pesky profile that busts me as the female I am! I try so hard not to be sexist and now my feminism as turned against me and showed my inner idiot to everyone! If I had two more like me I could put on a show (is the name "Three Stooges" taken?).

[diveRN]

Originally Posted by ♪♫ in my ♥

Some examples of "good" tax policy would be:

1) Provide tax incentives for people to start companies. Forget the notion of "trickle-down" -- flat out, provide favorable tax treatment for money directly invested in start-ups and for returns from same.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by ♪♫ in my ♥

2) Provide tax incentives that FAIRLY allow people to save for retirement. In my last year under a 401(k) I was permitted to save $18,000 pre-tax. My next year, sans 401(k), I was was permitted to save a whopping $3500 in my IRA. Hmmm... equitable? No.

I have no opinion on this. But it must be stated that there are a TON of other retirement options available, particularly for the self-employed. I don't have a 401k or 403b and I save (pre-tax) A LOT more than the $3,500 IRA contribution.

Originally Posted by ♪♫ in my ♥

3) Provide tax incentives for companies that create domestic jobs and tax penalties to companies who transfer jobs out-of-country.

I'd agree to this, if the incentives were to apply to the entire spectrum of business, not just large firms.

Originally Posted by ♪♫ in my ♥

4) When looking at across-the-board tax cuts, provide the lion's share of the dollar value to the people who (a) most need it and (b) will be most likely to quickly return it to circulation where it further stimulates the economy -- the middle and lower classes.

Here's where I would disagree with you on tactics. For one, I wouldn't assess the tax base on "class," but rather on income. If that's what you mean, then it must be pointed out that low income earners don't pay much, if any, taxes. Therefore, the entire tax burden is shifted to middle and upper income earners. To give low income earners a rebateor cut on money they didn't pay isn't a rebate or cut, it's a subsidy, which is a redistribution of wealth and equates to socialism. Not for me.

Improved tax benefits for savings specifically for middle income earners, as you've mentioned, would be something I could get on board with. Tax deducting higher education or private education for middle income earners would be another. This requires some serious thought, mainly because I don't think that giving a tax cut to Joe Middle Class for spending as he sees fit would provide the economic kick in the arse you think it would. Again, if it encouraged saving (be it money, energy, etc) , investing (in monetary devices or people), I could get on board quickly.

Originally Posted by ♪♫ in my ♥

5) One that is equitable... A person whose primary source of income is from stock dividends should be taxed at the same marginal rate as someone with the same income level but which derives from employment.

I'd have to give this one some thought. Off the top of my head, I agree with you provided that certain safeguards were in place to prevent the gubment from double taxing.

Originally Posted by ♪♫ in my ♥

6) One that is progressive. Society as a whole does not benefit from the consolidation of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Here, we disagree because your premise for this can only be reduced to fairness. I won't get behind ANY financial or tax plan that's so rooted. Progressive equals punitive in my book in that the more you make, the more they take. If our economy was zero sum, I'd agree, but it's not. The promise of financial freedom is still a very real and motivating factor for many people in our country. If I were start a business with it in mind that the government was going to take most of the earnings from my efforts, I wouldn't bother.

Personally, I'd like to see a flat tax for individuals. Businesses no. If you want the ultimate in fair taxation, a flat tax is it, especially if you couple it with incentives for middle income earners as we've both suggested.

Originally Posted by ♪♫ in my ♥

Those are examples of what I consider to be "good" tax policy.

To that I'll add, don't cut taxes at all, for anybody, at the same time that you're ramping up spending (as opposed to the "conservative" Reagan/Bush approach which is largely responsible for the ENORMOUS federal debt).

Responsible leveraging isn't a bad thing, you and I do it all the time in the form of mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc... it's just on a "slightly" different scale as compared to the fed.

However, TRUE conservative economic policy seeks to cut taxes AND spending. Reagan dealt with a democratic congresses, remember how many of his budgets were sent back to him with added pork? Topic for a different thread on a different forum.

As for Bush 43, he's a Republican ... but he's no conservative. I favor his tax cuts, but his spending is out of control.

[♪♫ in my ♥]

diveRN, I have several replies but I'm choosing the disciplined approach and resisting the urge to continue to drag this thread OT. If you'd be willing to pop for a "premium" membership we could continue this in the "Break Room" or on the other political forums.

In the meantime, my apologies to all for helping to drag this thread off topic.

I will close by simply asserting my disagreement with several of the "taxation" statements previously made, beginning with the one to which I originally responded.

That, and my belief that unions are a necessary evil...

[♪♫ in my ♥]

Originally Posted by pinkeyICU

"And, on a personal note, I think I said "spouse" not necessarliy husband....many pilots are females, just as many nurses are male. And my spouse is no spring chicken either....gave up a cargo job for UAL for many resons that in retrospect were moot/mistakes. "
Ooops! Forgot about that pesky profile that busts me as the female I am! I try so hard not to be sexist and now my feminism as turned against me and showed my inner idiot to everyone! If I had two more like me I could put on a show (is the name "Three Stooges" taken?).

Funny because I at first thought you were taking me to task for presuming that you're straight...

About the SWA, UAL thing... My buddy the SWA guy said that when he first hired on, his USAF buddies would say, "Oh, sorry you couldn't get on with a major..." Now the "majors" are the "legacy" carriers and lots of the newer folks wish they'd caught on with SWA or JB (but who wants to fly an A320?).

[pinkeyICU]

The airlines are a mess and I can't help but notice that the least messy are the non-union ones. But, on the other hand, my mom (who is also a nurse) recently organized a union at her hospital which really, truly addressed issues facing nurses, cna's and ancillary staffmembers. So, I guess I can see the good and the bad. I guess I'm against big, old, greedy unions. I have worked on a unit where every nurse refused to work extra unless double-time was offered. They did this themselves w/o benefit of a union. However, they could not band together to say "NO" to 3 ICU pts per RN. Maybe a union could have helped.....I just get caught up in the ALPA nonsense, which may not be indicative of all unions.
I just cant seem to come down passionately & strongly on one side or the other. I see too many shades of grey.
& Thanks for not taking me to task for (wrongly) taking you task!

[♪♫ in my ♥]

Originally Posted by pinkeyICU

The airlines are a mess and I can't help but notice that the least messy are the non-union ones.

However, it's worth noting that the most successful of all right now, Southwest, is unionized.

At least with the union at UAL, your husba spouse has a reasonable idea of how his/her career is going to progress. Compare that to being an at-will pilot in times of uncertainty, especially as the market is flooded with type-rated, x,000-hour folks looking for any turbofan time for any pay they can get.

The union is simply a tool to be used by the members of each local as they see fit.

BTW, I'm sure you know but ALPA was the major opponent to extending the age to 65 precisely because of the folks like your spouse and my friend Harry. Ultimately, there was a coalition of the low-time folks and the high-time folks to work around the objections of the middle guys.

However, what really made it go was the amount of money "invested" and arm-twisting in congress by guys like John -- that, and a genuine sense of "what's right" (IMO).

[pinkeyICU]

First, thanks for using the gender nutral "spouse"
I really wish I could come down firmly on one side or another of this issue, but have seen good & bad come out of unions. I have the same opinion of government, big business, religion, etc...I have problems!
I could go on and on about UAL, but not in this forum.
Nursing is a pretty competitive area where I am. There are some major hospitals that are unionized and some others that are not. The wages work out to be basically the same and a good nurse can make a decent living (I made more than an airline pilot near the bottom of the seniority list last year!) I have not specifically chosen not to work at non-union hospitals, it just worked out that way for me. I certainly do see a need for nurses to band together and address some issues like staffing (maybe not an issue in CA), overtime issues (again, CA has different rules), and redress of grievences. Is unionization the answer? I don't know. I do know that I am quite surprised that here in the Midwest where all trades are highly unionzed, nursing unions do not really have a foothold. I would work at a union hospital if that was the hospital I wanted to work at.....I will work anywhere that allows me to become a better nurse and pays me what I think I'm worth. Of course, I've also just made the decision not to be a full-time staff RN anymore because I don't want to bust my butt on the clinical ladder for a measly 50cents more. Maybe if I had more experience (positive experience, that is) I would be more pro-union.
Hope this isn't too "stream of consciousness" I feel like I'm rambling.