​​​​​​​"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

That coming from the party that ran on transparency. Remember them promising a website to describe bills up for vote during Obama’s campaign? I have learned over the years that both parties are full of the same stool sample that you just referenced.

Agree completely.

The quote/joke/reference seemed appropriate :p

ahh hahaha. Yeah, I don't know sheet, except my history. I know that the President appoints NMB members. I know that an NMB member will eventually be assigned to our contract negotiations, just like every other time. On our last contract, (2012) we got Linda Puchala. She was appointed by Obama. She was formerly the president of the AFA... as in the Association of Flight Attendants. It turned out well, seeing as how our contract 2003 (in effect until Sept 2012) paid $137 for a 12 year Guppy Captain. What's it now? $282?? I can tell you a similar tale from the legendary Contract 2000 under Bubba Clinton. Or you can read about the 80s with Ronny 'fire the union thugs' Reagan. The Eastern strike with HW Bush's veto and his pal Frank Lorenzo. But hey, the President doesn't matter. Just be glad that Trump was a one and done loser. First in a quarter century. :D

Did you know that the current administration NMB has already signed off on a new CBA? Might want to head over to the Atlas forum and see how it turned out.

that period is in the wrong place. The actual quote was “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it away from the fog of controversy.” Context softens the statement, especially with the hindsight view of all the misinformation being spread at the time


sounds eerily familiar 🤔

I know……

…..but it was too good to pass up the chance at satire.

But hey, it’s ALWAYS fun to take a quote/comment that was taken out of context REGARDLESS of who said it and then take it as gospel, isn’t it?

-“OOfff” has entered the chat. Expect tangential comments about race, gender, sexual identity, snd virtue signaling to ensue-

i know…

…but it was too good of a chance to point out that misinformation is happening still, and that intentionally mischaracterizing quotes is an example of it.

and that continues, since the quote above was an answer to the question to her regarding the complaints that the process was happening before anyone had been given an opportunity to actually read the bill, (since it wasn't even finished when the debate started)

So, the part that you think adds context (away from the cloud of controversy) really was just her excuse to not let anyone read the bill. Not being able to read the bill was the problem she was addressing, and her excuse did not address the problem, if a bill cannot stand the light of day then it should not become law (regardless of the level of controversy). If you think that the context the full quote provides addresses the real problem with the process being addressed, then you have forgotten what was actually happening. "Away from the cloud of controversy" was her excuse to not actually allow people to read the bill that was going to be voted on. If that (or any other reason) is good enough to hide what is in any bill that is being voted on to become law is ok with you, then we just have different views on how things are supposed to work.

So, now years later we try to say that the "full" quote shows that the process was ok??? only if you include the full context of the situation and the question she was being asked to address. In that full context, it is still the Speaker of House making an excuse up as to why we don't need to know what is in the bill before we vote on it!!

The NMB didn't "sign off" on anything. You are confusing mediation with arbitration. The IBT was bound by a merger clause to enter BINDING ARBITRATION by a third party to settle unresolved issues in their JBCA. This was confirmed in court in 2019 and 2020. The pilots didn't even get a vote on the finished product!! Binding arbitration is certainly an option when entering federally mediated negotiations, but both parties must agree to it. That would be ill advised.

If that's the case, then post the full quote in context so the reader can decide for themselves with all the information, instead of shattering your credibility by telling them "the part I think they should see." Perfect example of what's wrong with our country.

If you have to pick and choose your "evidence" to build your case, maybe your case isn't that well thought out.

Then, when called out on it, make excuses about why the "full truth" didn't matter. America in a nutshell nowadays.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

I don’t know how anyone could come on here or any other platform and defend this current administration on any level?

You are worried about the position of the period? Do you really think that anyone in congress read that bill (more than 2000 pages)? The complete statement in full is still outrageous. The fact you seem to justify this garbage just because she is on your team is just pathetic.

Which part of my post is defending any "administration?" I'm defending the idea of telling the whole story, instead of picking and choosing what parts of a quote to post. How you lost that point is quite absurd to me.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

Yes, and why aren't you? Didn't you lament "fake news"? As I said above, your position on the topic notwithstanding, we should all be pushing for honest, fact based debate.

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

As much as I think greasy Pelosi and her dishonest antics are terrible, right now I care about whether I can still load up my Roth 401K with post-tax contributions in 2022… And to that end, I’d like to know what is in the bill before it’s passed…

I don’t see that portion of the bill going away, simply because it does not affect enough people nationwide to make a big enough stink. I’m surprised, though, that ALPA has been silent on this as it affects at least two of their carriers’ retirement plans.

there are other leftists posting here bud, don’t get you panties in a wad…

Well, you quoted me, so....

Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk

I would bet you that, literally, "OOfff" has been worried about the position of a period MORE than one time in their life.

“Partisan political discussions of any kind are not permitted.” Direct quote from the “Forum Rules.” Just sayin’…

Not interested in partisan political discussions. Just info on how my (our) taxes will be affected by this bill…

Ummmm… yeah.🙄

what does this even mean?

Well first, I think that’s pretty much a bipartisan presumption, she is in fact both greasy and dishonest.

And second, much like the earlier comment about finishing the actual quote, the rest of my quote is “right now I care about whether I can still load up my 401k with post-tax contributions in 2022.”

Don’t be greasy or dishonest, include the whole quote.

😂

A legitimate concern, but we don’t even have the final version of the legislation to know the answer yet. So why swerve into partisan political name calling?

To quote Ronald Reagan “…there you go again.” I must be getting close to your safe space so I’ll just back away and say peace be with you.

Not my sandbox, but for a forum that says no politics, there sure are a lot of political discussions here.

To LJs point.. this thread is supposed to be about back door retirement conversions affecting many income levels in our pilot community. I initially closed it for concerns it would be the kind of political fight we've seen throughout apc. But I admit it has stayed reasonably civil and it's relevant so we're leaving it open for now.

At this moment in time, the Roth portion has been removed. https://www.asppa-net.org/news/brows...ciliation-bill

I personally emailed every D Senator plus (I) Angus King and my D Rep with the following message:
I am writing to your office because I just found out that the Reconciliation Bill eliminates Roth rollovers and contributions for my wife and I.
We grew up in the lower middle class and have saved all of our lives. We both have military pensions and we both work full time. In addition, my wife works a part time job to bring in additional money to save for retirement and assist our less fortunate relatives. Because of all of our hard work, our combined income is in excess of $500,000 per year.
So now this Reconciliation Bill will target our future Roth contributions and savings due to our income level. I understand the desire to go after those that have abused loopholes in the Roth system. However, your bill also goes after those of us who have worked VERY HARD all of our lives and are finally making a decent income. You folks have chosen to use a machete when a scalpel was appropriate.
We understand paying increased taxes at our income level. But attacking our retirement money is out of bounds.

So that was 49 Senators and 1 House Rep that I sent emails to. I didn't bother with sending an email to Bernie's office. I also called both of my D Senators' offices and my D Rep's office.

Just so you know the origin of the Roth elimination, it came from the House Ways and Means Committee. Pretty much every D on the Ways and Means Committee had to support the change in order for it to get through Committee, so keep their names in mind in this next election cycle. I will. https://waysandmeans.house.gov/subco...117th-congress


The real target of the Roth change was one single person ... Peter Thiel, founder of Paypal. The crappy elected officials chose to go after everyone making more than $200K to get him. And note that there was no indexing for inflation in their Roth changes. https://www.propublica.org/article/l...ree-piggy-bank

Nice work and thank you!

Thanks. I haven't been this worked up over Congressional idiocy for a very long time.
Any guess on how much revenue was forecast to be generated over the next decade by eliminating the back door Roth? $5 billion and that's likely an overestimate.
Elimination of pretax Roth conversions (supposed to be phased in 2031) is revenue negative in the short term.

I consider the Roth to be the greatest single wealth builder for the middle/upper middle class. I don't mind taking a big tax hit today in order to avoid all future taxes on my savings.

S Corporations would have been a much better target, as that is full of abuse.

Yup. It Was going to cost me $3400. I only do the catchup ira not 401 so that’s 7k * 2 taxed at 24% for me and the wife. Seems the backdoor gets threatened by both sides every few years. I believe I’ve written my reps about it before but I like the way you worded that and sent it to basically everyone.

Andy, a little education for me. Why put in post tax dollars now to pull them out later with no taxes when you're presumably making less money?

By coverting them to Roth, the earnings are never taxed. In the case of the employer sponsored plan, this is only an option after you have completed your elective deferrals. So regardless of where you put that money, it’s an after-tax contribution. If that was no longer an option as was previously proposed, any earnings on that same money would be taxed.

In terms of a traditional IRA, being covered by a 401k at work sets the limits pretty low to be able to deduct that money and eliminates that option for basically everyone here. Also, most people’s earnings are too high to contribute to an Roth IRA, so that leaves the option of contributing non-deductible contributions, i.e. after-tax, to a traditional IRA and subsequently converting them to a Roth.

In both cases, there are no options to deduct those contributions from your income.

Disregard my savings example. I didn’t save that it’s funded through a traditional IRA with post tax dollars each contribution year. The backdoor Roth IRA conversation just ensures I don’t pay tax on the principal or earnings when withdrawn at whatever tax rate I’m at that calendar year. Backdoor Roth IRA conversions are the one no brainer.

Because any gains on your money are taxed if it's not in a Roth. And both the initial money and gains are taxed at your current marginal rate; the gains are not taxed at the capital gains rate. In addition, the higher your income in retirement (and non-Roth IRA/401k withdrawals count as income), the higher percentage of your Social Security is taxed. Plus throw in the monthly rates for medicare part B ... the higher your lookback income, the more you pay monthly for medicare part B.

As an example, if you're 5 years from retirement and you're earning 8% per year on your pre-tax savings, you're going to pay taxes on 140% of what you put in IF you withdraw that money immediately after retirement.

My wife and I are savers so we've got more than enough savings outside of our retirements to live for at least a decade without touching any Roth money so that money will continue to grow tax free. Of course our military retirements help stretch out the date needed to withdraw Roth money.
Ideally, we'll live into our 80s without touching any Roth money. And then after we die, our heirs inherit that money tax free and can draw down the money over 10 years.

This year, we're bumping up against the 37% marginal tax bracket so all of my 401K roth conversions are being taxed at 35%. I'll take that hit as long as all future growth is tax free.

I hope that explanation helps. Fire away with any questions.

Backdoor Roth conversions are absolutely no brainers if you didn't get a tax write-off on the money.

right. And if you did qualify for the write-off it means you also more than likely qualified to make the Roth IRA contributions anyhow.

Saving for retirement is a long game. Anyone happy with avoiding 15% marginal tax on their IRA contribution when they're in their 20s or 30s doesn't understand the power of compounding.

I think the mega-back door Roth is also a game changer. Socking away $50k+ every year is a great way to a massive tax-free nest egg. Ideally anything you can get into a Roth-like investment is incredibly valuable over time.

well well well. It appears the big bad democrats are not gonna take your money after all, eh? Just like when the republicans dropped their plan to slash your 401K pre-tax contributions by 80+ % in 2017. We'll be free to enjoy a new phat contract AND stuff that Roth. Hmm. As I suspected. ;)