Originally Posted by Big E 757 (Post 3532405)

I agree, if they can’t get the IRS to permit the MBCBP to be optional, they need to move it or it will potentially cause the TA to fail. I’m with most of you, in that I don’t want to be forced to participate.

Originally Posted by m3113n1a1 (Post 3532185)

This is what the MBCBP is:

Hey, how about we lock your 401k excess cash in a vehicle that underperforms the s&p for the next 30 years so you can defer your taxes until retirement? Sound like a good deal to you?

​​​​​Oh, you wanted to invest the excess into your Roth IRA, real estate, businesses, or your personal brokerage account? Nope! Not allowed.

Originally Posted by trip7 (Post 3532298)

i don't buy bonds and never will. Unless the mbcbp is going to return at least 20% i want control of my own money. I'm shocked some are willing to give up control of their money just to defer taxes. That is poor capital allocation. Thankfully the majority see it that way as well. The mbcbp is doa if not optional.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3532379)

Are you saying you have a low/no risk method to make 20%? Snake oil must be in high demand. If we are trying to replicate something like a pension with relatively low risk and a guarantee of future income, then diversification and tapering over time is the only way to do it in a employee 401k. All this outside speculative investing is not part of the PWA retirement argument. Why are we not ok with adding a vehicle and sheltering more money? You know why there are lifecycle funds right? Bonds don't have to be a part of your portfolio but some income generating investments and tapering to more as you age is what a retirement account and employer funding is about. Not your roulette wheel du jour. Is your DPSP cash above $330K in earnings really going to retirement or even exist after using a roth rollover? I hope your scratch offs pay you well but I'd rather let my nest egg grow unencumbered and decide my income upon withdrawal. You talk a good game but there's no way you are getting 20% without significant risk.

Originally Posted by TED74 (Post 3531422)

You actually can fix ignorance with education. Here’s your chance. Tell us your story. Tell us why you need a minimum balance and maybe you’ll change some minds.

Originally Posted by NavyFlyer (Post 3532465)

He won’t tell us anything. He won’t tel us about his $4 mil in retirement accounts and his 2 houses, 4 cars and new ski boat.

Rough life he leads. He needs you to plus him up… to make him “whole!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by O R C A (Post 3531791)

Argument: We got rid of the "B" Scale.
Response: The flying was moved the regionals which is known as the "C" scale because it was worse.

Argument: There is no negotiating capital spent on the Minimum Balance concept.
Response: It cost capital from our negotiations. If it doesn't, then we can close out the contract first, and ask for it after.

Argument: You weren't at Delta when those guys/gals went through bankruptcy, and age 65. Whatever you did before Delta doesn't matter.
Response: Guess you won't be needing any help from me to be made whole in retirement. (sorry, sympathy ran out during UNA talks)

Delta exited bankruptcy in 2007. $10,000 invested has since then has turned into $36,000 invested in the greater stock market. If you say that you were making so little you could not invest, try regional First Officer wages and student loans.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3532569)

I get a little tired of the poor regional pilot complaint. The rise of the regionals dramatically improved the civilian pathway to the major airlines. Pre RJ’s you instructed until you had 500 to 1000 hours and 100 multi. Then you graduated to flying checks all night long at 8 bucks an hour until you had 2500 plus hours. At that point your were eligible to get a job at a regional flying a turbo prop for another 5 years. When you reached 6000 hours and had a 4 year degree with a decent GPA you had a chance at a major. Then you spent 5 years on a B scale before breaking 56 bucks an hour looking mostly sideways. With the rise of the RJ’s the path became far easier and safer.

Originally Posted by Trip7 (Post 3532507)

Anybody else goal is to have more liquid money/assets than you have in retirement accounts? Overall I think too many people focus on retirement in 50s and 60s and not enough on Financial Freedom in the near future. Keep working hard, fill up that 401k but you can't touch it in large amounts until 59 1/2 without massive penalties. It's almost as if it's a vehicle built to shackle folks into working til their old.