7/26 Hub Turn Meeting
07-26-2007, 02:40 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FDX A300 CPT
Posts: 967
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Never mind then. I'll shut up and color. Much better then suckin it up.
now that's funny!!!!!!!!!!!
.......DW said 3 on 3 off but never answered the ?s about the travel time...he probably doesn't know anyway...i have my contacts checking into it...should hopefully know soon!
07-26-2007, 02:46 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by fdx727pilot
OK, right off of PW's website on the subject og tax equalization
"Under the tax equalization policy, an assignee pays no more and no less tax as a result of the assignment.
This policy is designed to make tax a neutral factor in an assignee's compensation package. That is, the assignee should bear a tax burden equal to that which would have been borne had the assignee remained at home. The assignee is responsible during the assignment for "hypothetical" or "stay-at-home" tax, which would be calculated on the remuneration the assignee would have earned if the assignee continued to live and work in the home location (i.e. it excludes all assignment-related compensation). Hypothetical tax will normally be withheld from the assignee's normal pay and is retained by the employer as a "tax reserve". The company would then pay all required home and host country taxes on company income (including taxes on expatriate benefits) during the assignment. For a number of companies, the assignee would not be tax equalized on income from non-company sources, e.g. net investment income from home and host countries, which means that the assignee will remain fully liable for all actual worldwide taxes payable on the personal income. Under an equalization policy, any tax savings will go to the employer but, similarly, any additional tax liability will be borne by the employer."
Sounds like a standard part of the package to me. If it was optional, I doubt there would ever be any "tax savings to go to the employer."
"Under the tax equalization policy, an assignee pays no more and no less tax as a result of the assignment.
This policy is designed to make tax a neutral factor in an assignee's compensation package. That is, the assignee should bear a tax burden equal to that which would have been borne had the assignee remained at home. The assignee is responsible during the assignment for "hypothetical" or "stay-at-home" tax, which would be calculated on the remuneration the assignee would have earned if the assignee continued to live and work in the home location (i.e. it excludes all assignment-related compensation). Hypothetical tax will normally be withheld from the assignee's normal pay and is retained by the employer as a "tax reserve". The company would then pay all required home and host country taxes on company income (including taxes on expatriate benefits) during the assignment. For a number of companies, the assignee would not be tax equalized on income from non-company sources, e.g. net investment income from home and host countries, which means that the assignee will remain fully liable for all actual worldwide taxes payable on the personal income. Under an equalization policy, any tax savings will go to the employer but, similarly, any additional tax liability will be borne by the employer."
Sounds like a standard part of the package to me. If it was optional, I doubt there would ever be any "tax savings to go to the employer."
07-26-2007, 03:03 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by CaptainMark
now that's funny!!!!!!!!!!!.......DW said 3 on 3 off but never answered the ?s about the travel time...he probably doesn't know anyway...i have my contacts checking into it...should hopefully know soon!
.......DW said 3 on 3 off but never answered the ?s about the travel time...he probably doesn't know anyway...i have my contacts checking into it...should hopefully know soon!
07-26-2007, 05:13 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Michael Vick's favorite animal
Posts: 267
Just Vote NO
After attending the meeting this afternoon, I saw no valid reason to change my "no" vote that has been cast.
Here are the two things that bother me:
1. Tax Equalization. Vote in this LOA and you are BOUND to using the company's vendor to do your taxes. The company will MAKE MONEY off of those in HKG, and pay the difference for those in CDG. Narrowbody pay in CDG, Widebody pay in HKG. The company makes enough as it is to not also take the tax advantage those in HKG should rightfully enjoy.
2. Ground transport in HKG. It was said by the Union rep today that we would relinquish Section 8B1. Deadhead by surface transport. Then he said the reason is because it's going to be more than a 3 hour commute EACH WAY to the airport in HKG and they don't want to "overload" the SIG with requests for an exception to our current language in the CBA. Guess what? If we sign the LOA, SECTION 8B1 goes away and so too does the language about how pay for that GT time is derived.
This LOA is an attempt to pick away at us because in the past we have displayed a tendency to "cave". It is time to band together, vote NO and let them present this pilot group with an LOA that is representative of the 30+ billion dollar company that we are.
The biggest thing in this LOA for the company is that it lowers costs dramatically and actually may generate revenue (tax equalization) for them. Furthermore, the requirement for the pilot to sign within 15 days a letter agreeing that the CBA and RLA govern said pilot. That should show you that:
A. The company is afraid of pilots becoming rogue wildcat labor rebels under labor friendly foreign law.
B. The company COULD NEVER hire foreign pilots to fly this freight without the very same fear.
If we vote this down, an argument could be made later that the company MUST recognize that this foreign flying, if flown by us, is covered by the RLA or they would have never input the language into this LOA.
Just vote NO
Here are the two things that bother me:
1. Tax Equalization. Vote in this LOA and you are BOUND to using the company's vendor to do your taxes. The company will MAKE MONEY off of those in HKG, and pay the difference for those in CDG. Narrowbody pay in CDG, Widebody pay in HKG. The company makes enough as it is to not also take the tax advantage those in HKG should rightfully enjoy.
2. Ground transport in HKG. It was said by the Union rep today that we would relinquish Section 8B1. Deadhead by surface transport. Then he said the reason is because it's going to be more than a 3 hour commute EACH WAY to the airport in HKG and they don't want to "overload" the SIG with requests for an exception to our current language in the CBA. Guess what? If we sign the LOA, SECTION 8B1 goes away and so too does the language about how pay for that GT time is derived.
This LOA is an attempt to pick away at us because in the past we have displayed a tendency to "cave". It is time to band together, vote NO and let them present this pilot group with an LOA that is representative of the 30+ billion dollar company that we are.
The biggest thing in this LOA for the company is that it lowers costs dramatically and actually may generate revenue (tax equalization) for them. Furthermore, the requirement for the pilot to sign within 15 days a letter agreeing that the CBA and RLA govern said pilot. That should show you that:
A. The company is afraid of pilots becoming rogue wildcat labor rebels under labor friendly foreign law.
B. The company COULD NEVER hire foreign pilots to fly this freight without the very same fear.
If we vote this down, an argument could be made later that the company MUST recognize that this foreign flying, if flown by us, is covered by the RLA or they would have never input the language into this LOA.
Just vote NO
07-26-2007, 07:23 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by eFDeeeX
Will someone explain to me how the company will make money off of tax equalization?
I don't get it.
I don't get it.
It works like this: They are going to work your taxes as if you lived wherever you are right now. They are going to take that money from you, just like they do now. They will then work your actual taxes for both the US and Hong Kong based on your expat status and they will pay the Hong Kong and US Governments your burden.
The problem is, in Hong Kong, the tax rate is less than in the US. That and the the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion and the foreign tax credit/deduction can make your US burden Nil, so essentially what a lot of folks will owe is just Hong Kong taxes.
At the end of the day, in very general terms, if your burden to the US is now more than about 16%, you would be better off without equalization in Hong Kong.
YMMV.
France is an entirely different animal because the tax rate is MUCH higher than the US.
Equalization is a good deal for ALL in France.
Not sure for whom it's a good deal in Hong Kong, but I crunched my numbers and Fred would be keeping some of MY CASH under equalization (a full 10% difference in overall burden). The company email says the only people who won't benefit are those who will be in a domicile that won't exist ( I haven't figured out how people who won't exist could possibly be at some sort of disadvage...it's like saying tax equalization won't benefit martians) and some people with "special situations".
There are a lot of special situations out there. I would lose and I don't have anything unusual at all in my taxes. A few minor bad investments, a house in the US I'm renting out, single guy...sounds like the target demographic for the FDA to me.
SHOW US THE NUMBERS and MAKE IT OPTIONAL
07-26-2007, 07:32 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by BrownGirls YUM
They are going to work your taxes as if you lived wherever you are right now.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
