Originally Posted by
scambo1
------------
Sink;
Thank you for taking the ball and running with it. Subtly, this is where I wanted the discussion to head in the first place. There is darn little reason to make more money than what triggers the Alternative Minimum Tax. I'd rather have the 415c limit in my 401k, more int'l pay, night pay, perdiem, etc. etc. W-2s are overrated after a certain point, but tax exempt income is where its at. Tax exempt income on the companies side MAY also be cheaper for them to pay, being in a different debit column than payroll. pretax vs after tax expenses.
My pleasure. Let's keep in mind, however, my argument isn't a tribute to lower take-home pay, but to higher total compensation. You could have substantially more credit for the same days at work if we worked the rules and the DC plan, which could still translate into higher total tax exposure. Or much less work.
I can't exactly take credit for this. I was explaining to a Captain I was surprised to read on this site that people thought 20% was a number "gaining traction", and he made this argument. I've always been a "workrules and scope before payrates" guy, but hadn't considered his arguments about the fact the company would balk at the "me-toos", and the argument about better funding on the DC side. The beauty of the DC angle was just apparent to me as I was responding, above: how could the other groups have the nerve to whine about our DC, when they have DB plans that the company is funding? Combine this point with the tax implications, and it turns a liability into an asset.