Originally Posted by captnate702

I’m sure the republicans would love to support union’s getting a combined 30% direct contribution l to their retirement. AOC and Bernie would also support taxpayers subsidizing the retirements of pilots making over $300k a year. Sounds like a political winner to me.

Fact is, what the industry should be laser focused on is separating commercial airlines from the RLA so that we can actually flex our organized strength as a labor group. Problem is, we are already by far the highest paid pilots in the world and I can’t imagine a bill like this getting 60 votes to get through a filibuster. Idk how renconcilation or whatever works where you can avoid the filibuster like the dems just did, but maybe that would work.

Either way, as long as we are bound by the RLA pilots will not be allowed to strike on a significant scale. The politicos will never allow that.

Originally Posted by gzsg

All the excess from the 25% will flow into the MBCBP .

Originally Posted by chrisreedrules

I don’t think ALPA wants to replace the RLA with anything. It’s the devil they know. The devil they don’t would very well involve the management teams from all the airlines, Congress critters, and labor. I don’t think anyone wants to see what that room comes up with. The RLA isn’t perfect but ALPA have lawyers that are VERY skilled at navigating it.

Originally Posted by bugman61

If I don’t have an option to prevent that, I’m voting no regardless of the rest of the deal. And I’m far from alone.

Originally Posted by CBreezy

You know that's a ridiculous ask, right? If a company gets a 900% raise that brings their rates up to industry average, it's loony to think you can justify also asking for a 900% raise. That isn't how economics or capitalism or reality work.

Originally Posted by Casualinterest

I just flew with a captain who said he has never voted yes and probably never will. Doesn't even care to see it, just votes no because.... Reasons...

Originally Posted by TED74

I’d be interested to hear more about this. Why the disdain?

My finance guy can’t wait for me to have this thing up and running to shield more money from income tax since we’re about out of options. Sure, the risk/return profile isn’t what I’d want for my whole nest egg, but the MBCBP money will only make up a tiny fraction of the whole and can be offset elsewhere to keep an appropriate diversification profile. ~40% tax deferral on state and federal sounds pretty good to me on money that would otherwise be getting hit broadside at the highest rate.

What am I missing?

Originally Posted by flyingmau5

What would surprise you?

Originally Posted by RonRicco

If you are in a high tax state, that is certainly a factor. Like anything else, there are a lot of considerations. Do you think tax rates are going up? How much tax deferred savings do you already have? How much “never taxed again” (well, I won’t put anything past the government) savings do you have?

In retirement many will play the tax bracket game. Having Roth or cash to avoid creeping into the next bracket makes this possible.

Many savers also prefer to pay the taxes now while they can more easily afford it as opposed to paying them in retirement, hence why so many people close to retirement still do the Roth or Mega Backdoor Roth.

Originally Posted by Baradium

x +1% is that company's rate and then 1% added, not their gain ratio plus.