|
|
Originally Posted by BobZ
(Post 2805102)
Hmmm.....you realize we hav had delta pilots in the GA legislature? :)
|
Originally Posted by BobZ
(Post 2805102)
Hmmm.....you realize we hav had delta pilots in the GA legislature? :)
|
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2804250)
Not sure I understand all this "talk" about fix QOL, "I'm happy with the pay rates".
I think one point that we have been missing is inflation, which has been historically low. Let's assume that inflation is 3%(pick your own number). so if one is making 200k a year then you would have to make 206K next year to "keep up with inflation" ?..........that is a fool's bet. By the time I pay the taxes on that $6000 increase to "keep up with inflation"....I'm still losing out Consequently, pay rates must go up by at least 1.35 time the inflation rate(even more if you live in a state with state tax)(CA it's broaching 12%)(and union dues).....for these individuals need to go up about 1.5 times the inflation rate just to maintain status quo with inflation. Let's use a 30% tax rate just for ease of numbers. If you make $200,000 a year you are paying $60,000 in taxes, giving you a take home of $140,000. If you have a pay increase to account for inflation taking you to $206,000 (a 3% increase), you are now paying 61,800 in taxes giving you a $144,200 take home, which is 3% more than the previous take home. The only time adjusting your pay at the inflation rate results in "losing out" is if you change tax brackets. The idea of larger increases doesn't bother me, but your reasoning is not correct. I'll also add that only pay rates don't automatically fix QOL issues. If someone just cares about time at home, pay rates do nothing if they can't drop trips or bid for more days off. If they want better deadhead rules, they lose out if they have to pay for them each time since (as already mentioned) it's after tax. |
Originally Posted by Baradium
(Post 2805137)
I just have to say something here because the bad math bothers me.
Let's use a 30% tax rate just for ease of numbers. If you make $200,000 a year you are paying $60,000 in taxes, giving you a take home of $140,000. If you have a pay increase to account for inflation taking you to $206,000 (a 3% increase), you are now paying 61,800 in taxes giving you a $144,200 take home, which is 3% more than the previous take home. The only time adjusting your pay at the inflation rate results in "losing out" is if you change tax brackets. The idea of larger increases doesn't bother me, but your reasoning is not correct. I'll also add that only pay rates don't automatically fix QOL issues. If someone just cares about time at home, pay rates do nothing if they can't drop trips or bid for more days off. If they want better deadhead rules, they lose out if they have to pay for them each time since (as already mentioned) it's after tax. If you're a dollar under the next bracket, you aren't paying several percent less in your bracket than that one. That's not how it works. |
Originally Posted by Baradium
(Post 2805137)
I just have to say something here because the bad math bothers me.
Let's use a 30% tax rate just for ease of numbers. If you make $200,000 a year you are paying $60,000 in taxes, giving you a take home of $140,000. If you have a pay increase to account for inflation taking you to $206,000 (a 3% increase), you are now paying 61,800 in taxes giving you a $144,200 take home, which is 3% more than the previous take home. The only time adjusting your pay at the inflation rate results in "losing out" is if you change tax brackets. The idea of larger increases doesn't bother me, but your reasoning is not correct. I'll also add that only pay rates don't automatically fix QOL issues. If someone just cares about time at home, pay rates do nothing if they can't drop trips or bid for more days off. If they want better deadhead rules, they lose out if they have to pay for them each time since (as already mentioned) it's after tax. |
Originally Posted by DWC CAP10 USAF
(Post 2805212)
A person that makes $200K and is married filing jointly will pay about $36.5K for federal taxes, not $60K
Actually, nevermind, I think the extra taxes are worth keeping my sanity :D |
Originally Posted by DWC CAP10 USAF
(Post 2805212)
A person that makes $200K and is married filing jointly will pay about $36.5K for federal taxes, not $60K
|
Originally Posted by contrails
(Post 2805204)
I don't think you understand tax brackets.
If you're a dollar under the next bracket, you aren't paying several percent less in your bracket than that one. That's not how it works. |
Originally Posted by Han Solo
(Post 2805115)
No, but my guess is not too many of those voted against the tax break if any are currently serving. Of course I am biased on this subject, but I thought it was ridiculous to deny the tax break based off DAL's elimination of the NRA discount, and I'm a solid supporter of 2A. If they just didn't want to offer a tax break that's one thing, but punishing a company that provides 10s of thousands of jobs in the state (#5 employer by volume https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures.../18/id/645208/), over a discount that roughly 10 people took advantage of is stupid at best.
Just because their idgits doesnt mean their dumb. :) |
Wait........are you all talking about this fuel tax break that the GA governor quietly put thru.....unless I missed something?
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...lta-nra-fight/ Denny |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:17 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands