Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON Management Routinely Misclassified Operational Errors and Deviations as Pilot Errors

Peter Clark wrote:

Did I get the following here or somewhere else? Original title Bar
Stool Economics

"
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten Comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it Would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
Arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you
are All such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost
of your Daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the First four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But What about the other six men - the paying customers? How could
they Divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
That from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
would Each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner
suggested That it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly
the same Amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should
pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The Sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay
$5 Instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12
(25% Savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth Now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued To drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to Compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He
pointed To the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's
right,"exclaimed the Fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's
unfair that he got ten Times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the
seventh man. "Why should He get $10 back when I got only two? The
wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
Anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat Down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, They discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money Between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
Most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
Being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
Might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
Friendlier.
"

I've seen this before, like you, I don't remember where. Unfortunately, the
logic is lost on contemporary liberals.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 04 May 2008 08:51:42 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
into taking their eye off the pea.

The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.

It's your langauge that is that of a spinmaster, with inflammatory emotional
wording ("windfall", "rubes", "spinmaster").

So if you are incapable of rebutting my point, you attack my diction.
With all due respect, is that another pathetic attempt to dodge the
true issue, or merely the result your lack of insight?

I already gave the response.

A response perhaps, but not a rational refutation of my statement
based on logic.

It is difficult to be any more based on logic than simple arithmetic.

Mr. McNicoll so lacked the ability to articulate his
opposing view, that he was driven to invoke profanity in place of
logical argument; pathetic.

Your statement contains no logic. There was no profanity as you claim. I provided
many examples of logic that opposed your rants in other posts, you merely snipped
nearly all of the post and focused on one item at the bottom.



The people who pay taxes see benefit when taxes are cut. This isn't
spin, it's simple math.


While it may be mathematically accurate, it serves to conceal the
truth rather than expose it.

Fascinating "logic."



It appears that you want to turn this into some kind class war.

From that statement, I can only assume you choose to overlook that
aspect of the issue. That's not going to make it go away.

The only reason we are debating this issue is because it was one of
the examples of RNC anti-average-citizen measures I mentioned. When
this issue is viewed along side other anti-average-citizen measures
promulgated by RNC scalawags, such as the prohibition against Medicare
negotiating lower prices with pharmaceutical companies, failure to
repeal tax subsidies for oil companies that are reaping the largest
profits in history, etc., it becomes apparent that this administration
is very definitely indulging in a form of class warfare. To overlook
that is to attempt to obfuscate it.

Which special "tax subsidies" for "oil companies" are your referring to,
specifically? No obfuscations, please. Since all of your vitriol is targeted at
only RNC, which legislation to repair your supposed issue has been procreated by the
Democrat led Congress, or even signed by recent Democrat Presidents?

By the way, do you prefer more oil consumption, or less?

On Sun, 04 May 2008 14:45:35 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote in
:

On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera wrote:
The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.

This is the spin. It's merely justification for more soak-the-rich
confiscatory taxation.

If you pay taxes, you get benefits from tax cuts. If you pay more, you get
more benefit. This is so simple as to make perfect sense - unless you're a
liberal.

As a percentage of your total income how much is derived from
dividends?

On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera wrote:
As a percentage of your total income how much is derived from
dividends?

0.

Larry Dighera writes:

It would seem that you are also incapable of providing a reasoned
response to my statements. If you see fallacy in them, define it. If
you are incapable of that, perhaps it is because there is none.

Do you see what happens when you try to be nice?

On Sun, 04 May 2008 17:37:04 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote in
:

On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera wrote:
As a percentage of your total income how much is derived from
dividends?

0.

How is this relevant?

Here's a quote from an unbiased source:

http://www.smartmoney.com/taxmatters...story=20030527
Qualified Dividends Now Taxed at 15% or Less
As you know, dividends have always been taxed as "ordinary
income." That meant you paid your regular tax rate, which could be
as high as 35% (formerly 38.6%).

That was then. Effective for all of 2003 through the end of 2008,
qualified dividends from domestic corporations and qualified
foreign corporations will be taxed at the same low rates as
long-term capital gains. And those rates have been reduced, too
(see below). Bottom line: The maximum rate on qualified dividends
is now only 15%. And if you're in the 10% or 15% rate bracket (see
the table above), your dividends will be taxed at only 5%. (For
2008, the rate will be 0%, but just for that one year.)
...

One more thing: The new low rates don't apply to dividends
received in tax-deferred retirement accounts (traditional IRAs,
401(k) accounts, SEP and Keogh accounts, and the like). Dividends
accumulated in these accounts will still be taxed at your regular
rate (up to 35%) when withdrawn as cash distributions.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 04 May 2008 17:37:04 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote in
:

On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera wrote:
As a percentage of your total income how much is derived from
dividends?

0.

How is this relevant?

Here's a quote from an unbiased source:

http://www.smartmoney.com/taxmatters...story=20030527
Qualified Dividends Now Taxed at 15% or Less
As you know, dividends have always been taxed as "ordinary
income." That meant you paid your regular tax rate, which could be
as high as 35% (formerly 38.6%).

That was then. Effective for all of 2003 through the end of 2008,
qualified dividends from domestic corporations and qualified
foreign corporations will be taxed at the same low rates as
long-term capital gains. And those rates have been reduced, too
(see below). Bottom line: The maximum rate on qualified dividends
is now only 15%. And if you're in the 10% or 15% rate bracket (see
the table above), your dividends will be taxed at only 5%. (For
2008, the rate will be 0%, but just for that one year.)

Thank you for posting this description of the tax rates, which anyone who
just completed Schedule B this spring is probably well familiar with
already. The new "qualified" dividend rate was a good idea and was a
response to accounting frauds in the late 1990s. It was also designed to
generate investment in American companies. Lowering dividend rates (which
is double taxation to begin with) increases incentives of corporations to
pay dividends, (it is much harder to fake real cash paid) and it has been
successful, while decreasing double taxation.

...

One more thing: The new low rates don't apply to dividends
received in tax-deferred retirement accounts (traditional IRAs,
401(k) accounts, SEP and Keogh accounts, and the like). Dividends
accumulated in these accounts will still be taxed at your regular
rate (up to 35%) when withdrawn as cash distributions.

Well, obviously.

On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2008 17:37:04 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote in
:
On 2008-05-04, Larry Dighera wrote:
As a percentage of your total income how much is derived from
dividends?
0.
How is this relevant?
http://www.smartmoney.com/taxmatters...story=20030527
Qualified Dividends Now Taxed at 15% or Less

I repeat: How is this relevant to the concept that those who pay more taxes
get more benefit from tax cuts? Especially, how is *my* level of income from
dividends relevant to that discussion? What connection is there from this to
your soak-the-rich taxation desires?

Or are you simply trying to change the subject?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

EMTAE wrote:

FAA management routinely violates labor law and hates union personnel

You would think management covering up controller errors and deviations
would actually win some brownie points (keeping folks from being
counseled, decertified.. etc)..

Your assertions dont quite hold up in this latest chapter of your rant.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 04 May 2008 07:39:45 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Because it's so banal as to be irrelevant, and those who emphasize it
are seen to be spinmasters who are attempting to confuse the rubes
into taking their eye off the pea.

The point is that those most able to pay and who have reaped the most
from the system, the wealthiest 1% of tax payers, reaped a windfall as
a result of Bush's tax cut on dividend income.
It's your langauge that is that of a spinmaster, with inflammatory emotional
wording ("windfall", "rubes", "spinmaster").

So if you are incapable of rebutting my point, you attack my diction.
With all due respect, is that another pathetic attempt to dodge the
true issue, or merely the result your lack of insight?



The point is that it is awful hard to give a tax cut to people who don't
pay taxes.