• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Retirement/Retiree Gouge Forum?

SlickAg

Registered User
pilot
So you disagreed with my spelling. To your point, words do matter. They can both reinforce support or undermine support for any point being made. You and HAL both made good points, but using words words like Commiefornia or language such as "blood sucking leech scumbags" doesn't lend any additional merit to the point itself. And unfair comments such as, "After all, the illegals need their California tax payer supplied social welfare and unemployment benefits." can lend the messenger to be dismissed out hand, which wouldn't be fair to HAL. I say HAL's statement is unfair because there are also legal citizens of CA that need those benefits too. But I agree with HAL that the Franchise Tax Board is far too aggressive in their collection of said monies and their tactics are wrong.

And as long as we're on the topic of taxes, welfare, and airline pilots...we should mention, purely out of fairness, the $50 billion the airline industry received from our proverbial "Rich Uncle". $25 billion was in loans and $25 billion was payroll support. Also, to be fair, 70% of that $50 billion won't have to be repaid (according to Bloomberg).

Now, my point is NOT that the airlines shouldn't have received any aid. In fact, I feel the exact opposite. The airline industry has had some very volatile times the last 20 years. I'm glad that pay roll support could be channeled to those companies to help good folks like you and HAL. As such, all of us might benefit in exercising a little tact and be more objective with our language. Especially if we happen to be living in a glass house.
If this is now a commentary on California state politics and people’s opinions of said topic, let’s petition to have the thunderdome unlocked and move it into there or somewhere else appropriate.

Of course legal citizens of California deserve the intrinsic benefits of state income taxes. But why should they also pay for people living there in violation of federal law?
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
Of course legal citizens of California deserve the intrinsic benefits of state income taxes. But why should they also pay for people living there in violation of federal law?
Because that's what they voted to do.

(The whole thing is pretty messed up, for all kinds of reasons.)
 

SlickAg

Registered User
pilot
Because that's what they voted to do.

(The whole thing is pretty messed up, for all kinds of reasons.)
I honestly have no idea, but I'm assuming they voted in the lawmakers who passed the policy, vice voting in the actual state income tax law? Regardless, 100% agree that, statewide, the residents are getting what they voted for. One need only look at real estate prices in Austin, TX and Washoe County, NV and surrounding area to see how well those decisions are working out.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Jesus. Can’t we discuss anything without politics getting involved?

There are tax implications to living in different states. They can be stated without ideological commentary—though it is interesting to see airline personnel, beneficiaries of vast government subsidies, special protectionist trade policy, and heavy unionization, rant about liberalism.
 

SlickAg

Registered User
pilot
Jesus. Can’t we discuss anything without politics getting involved?

There are tax implications to living in different states. They can be stated without ideological commentary—though it is interesting to see airline personnel, beneficiaries of vast government subsidies, special protectionist trade policy, and heavy unionization, rant about liberalism.
You're right. The military-industrial complex is a classic example of laissez-faire capitalism. No special interests there.

And I wouldn't describe California as "liberal" anymore, but more "progressive". Maybe that's just me?

And you're absolutely correct about tax implications about living in a particular state. This particular discussion was about a certain state illegally trying to tax NON-residents.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
Jesus. Can’t we discuss anything without politics getting involved?

There are tax implications to living in different states. They can be stated without ideological commentary—though it is interesting to see airline personnel, beneficiaries of vast government subsidies, special protectionist trade policy, and heavy unionization, rant about liberalism.
There are also tax implications to not living in California in my case.

Also your second point is dumb. I can be against handouts, bailouts, and lockdowns and still accept free money without being a hypocrite. I would have happily accepted stimulus money too if I qualified for it even though I think it was a dumb idea.
 
Top