Question:

What is the preferred method of tracking daily transactions for a small chiropractic office.  I want to track the number of cheques received, the number of people who paid by debit and by credit card and by cash. What program should be used? Thanks

Response:

Excel would suffice for something that simple. — Ken Russell .

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is the preferred method of tracking daily transactions for a small chiropractic office.  I want to track the number of cheques received, the number of people who paid by debit and by credit card and by cash. What program should be used? Thanks

Response:

What is the preferred method of tracking daily transactions for a small chiropractic office.  I want to track the number of cheques received, the number of people who paid by debit and by credit card and by cash. What program should be used?

The sign of professional IT person is having the ability to recognize when a computer program is needed and when it is not. I consider myself a professional, pencil and paper is all that is needed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks

Response:

I’d sugggest you use Quicken, Quickbooks or  MS Money. They are easy enough to learn and use, and your accountant will thank you for it. Depending on how well you use it you may find that there are other benefits as well. HS

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is the preferred method of tracking daily transactions for a small chiropractic office.  I want to track the number of cheques received, the number of people who paid by debit and by credit card and by cash. What program should be used? Thanks

Response:

What is the preferred method of tracking daily transactions for a small chiropractic office.  I want to track the number of cheques received, the number of people who paid by debit and by credit card and by cash. What program should be used?

Here’s 2 cents from a lowly accounting Know-Nothin’. Make sure that what you’ll be doing in the coming year is as simple as you may think right now. I used MS Money ’cause I thought my situation was ultra simple starting off in 2004 with even my accountant agreeing. Just so that I would end up switching to QuickBooks towards the end of the year and spend the equivalent of an entire month re-entering everything and learning how to "crawl & walk" all over again. hth

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : I also have some partnership questions, so I’ll start with this one.  I was : going to sell my airplane, but am considering the possibilty of taking on : some partners instead.  Has anyone ever heard of or been in a partnership : where the percentages of ownership are not even?  I would like to perhaps do : a deal where I own the majority of the airplane and in the agreement be able : to buy back the partners (at a market price or something like that) after x : amount of time.  I was considering something like 52% for me, and 24% each : for two other partners.  Everyone pays based on how much they fly and their : percentage depending on what’s being paid for.  Has this been done before? : Any experience or tips? Ryan, this concept is how my "partnership" is set up, with a few differences. I own the airplane outright (well, Eaglemark owns the plane.. but my name is on the title). I rent the airplane "wet" to two other pilots who are named on my insurance. This is allowed by my insurance policy through Avemco, you might want to check your policy. I calculate the "wet" rate at the end of each month based on how many hours each pilot flies and what sort of routine maintenance is performed. Routine maintenance and fuel is pro-rated by flight hours. Annual inspections and "airworthiness maintenance" (AD compliance) is evenly split 3 ways. This works well for me, and for my pilot friends (I have known these guys for 10+ years). I fly 200 to 300 hours a year, these guys fly about 20 each. They get access to a very nice airplane with modern avionics that they can take for as much time as they want, which is the opposite of the available rental aircraft in this area. They end up paying on-par for similar rental aircraft, but with a lot more scheduling flexability for that weekend on Block Island. I get some relief in case of absurd annual inspections or killer AD’s. It’s worked for 2 1/2 years so far.

That sounds like a different situation. Unless your two friends had to pay a buy in at the start of the agreement. Otherwise its just a rental agreement. Although, that’s the sort of thing I wouldn’t mind finding locally. I don’t want to lay out dollars on a new plane or partnership right now given my work field and the Bay Area economy. But, I would certainly like to fly some better aircraft than are for rent around here.(Plus as you stated, avoiding that daily minimum which just makes most local multi-day trips a non-starter)

Response:

Stan, But the share value of the selling partner will be affected by the amount of time on the engine and the condition of the engine.  More than likely the value (or price) the seller gets will be discounted by the estimated cost of an OH divided by 1/3 (for 3 partners). Trip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -We looked at that and decided against it.  An hour of engine/propeller life has a value, and we figured it ought to be paid for as we use it up, and that money stays with the airplane.  Money in someone’s personal bank account can be hard to get if they decide to sell out of the partnership. You could have a provision that a departing partner must pay the remaining partner(s) for the depletion of engine/propeller life, but that can be hard to enforce, and still requires accounting for usage. Stan

Response:

You won’t get anywhere near 48% of the value of the plane since the buyers will not have any control.  You’ll get whatever someone would be willing to pay and not have a say so. Trip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I also have some partnership questions, so I’ll start with this one.  I was going to sell my airplane, but am considering the possibilty of taking on some partners instead.  Has anyone ever heard of or been in a partnership where the percentages of ownership are not even?  I would like to perhaps do a deal where I own the majority of the airplane and in the agreement be able to buy back the partners (at a market price or something like that) after x amount of time.  I was considering something like 52% for me, and 24% each for two other partners.  Everyone pays based on how much they fly and their percentage depending on what’s being paid for.  Has this been done before? Any experience or tips? Thanks, Ryan N8096W ps — if anyone is interested in partnering in on a Cherokee 180, email me, I’m in the Bay Area Remove NOJUNKPLEASE to email me     I am interested in a 50/50 partnership for an aircraft and want to know how they are usually set up. I assume that you agree on a rate and then for each hour flown put back a certain amount into a bank account. That way if one partner flies more, he also pays more. I also assume that you would always refuel the plane when done so it’s always full for the next guy. General repairs would be split and any damage caused by one partner would be paid by that partner or by insurance if things got that bad. What am I missing? I’m sure it’s lots. Thanks in advance. Wayne

Response:

We looked at that and decided against it.  An hour of engine/propeller life has a value, and we figured it ought to be paid for as we use it up, and that money stays with the airplane. Of course you’re assuming that you can linearly scale the engine life with flight hours.   What happens when your midtime engine swallows a valve unexpectedly and you’re looking at a premature major overhaul?

I’m not really assuming that as a matter of reality, it is just the basis for planning and budgeting and accumulating a reserve.  In your scenario, we handle it the same way we handle any unbudgeted or over budget expense, or to overcome a cash shortage due to general expenses being higher than planned, we assess the partners as required.  As a matter of fact, that is what happened recently, we overhauled somewhat prematurely due to problems, and we had not accumulated sufficient reserves, so we paid in our pro rata shares. In our reserve accumulation (included in our hourly rate), we also include a reserve for paint and interior refurbishment.  We estimated a cost and a time (ten years, I believe) and we include it in the hourly rate based on historical annual use of the airplane.  We hangar our airplane, and decided that paint and interior are primarily usage items so we decided to pay as we go on those. The reserves stay with the airplane.  We are an LLC, so the reserves become assets of the company and are kept in a company savings account. We use the airplane on a wet basis and include fuel in the hourly rate. Actually, the hourly rate is made up of reserve accumulation and what I call "FBO Expense".  All expenses incurred at FBOs during usage of the airplane go into that expense category:  fuel, oil (not oil changes, that’s maintenance), landing fees, tiedown, transient hangar, and so on.  This simplifies recordkeeping.  Periodically we adjust the hourly rate based on experience and general fuel prices. Our fixed monthly fees total for all LLC members are $1320, covering hangar, insurance, taxes, inspections and maintenance, oil changes, etc.  and our hourly rate (hobbs) is $81, for a 1980 fixed-gear Turbo Saratoga. Stan

Response:

Sounds like a divorce!

It should. A marriage is a partnership, though the reverse is not always true. George Patterson,  N3162Q.

Response:

I also have some partnership questions, so I’ll start with this one.  I was going to sell my airplane, but am considering the possibilty of taking on some partners instead.  Has anyone ever heard of or been in a partnership where the percentages of ownership are not even?  I would like to perhaps do a deal where I own the majority of the airplane and in the agreement be able to buy back the partners (at a market price or something like that) after x amount of time.  I was considering something like 52% for me, and 24% each for two other partners.  Everyone pays based on how much they fly and their percentage depending on what’s being paid for.  Has this been done before? Any experience or tips? Thanks, Ryan N8096W ps — if anyone is interested in partnering in on a Cherokee 180, email me, I’m in the Bay Area Remove NOJUNKPLEASE to email me

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     I am interested in a 50/50 partnership for an aircraft and want to know how they are usually set up. I assume that you agree on a rate and then for each hour flown put back a certain amount into a bank account. That way if one partner flies more, he also pays more. I also assume that you would always refuel the plane when done so it’s always full for the next guy. General repairs would be split and any damage caused by one partner would be paid by that partner or by insurance if things got that bad. What am I missing? I’m sure it’s lots. Thanks in advance. Wayne

Response:

I also have some partnership questions, so I’ll start with this one.  I was going to sell my airplane, but am considering the possibilty of taking on some partners instead.  Has anyone ever heard of or been in a partnership where the percentages of ownership are not even?  I would like to perhaps do a deal where I own the majority of the airplane and in the agreement be able to buy back the partners (at a market price or something like that) after x amount of time.  I was considering something like 52% for me, and 24% each

There’s a guy with a Mooney based at PDX who wants to do almost the same thing.  In that case he’s selling you (at above market rate) a 24% share of the plane which entitles you to fly it up to X hours at a given wet rate.  In my opinion he isn’t looking for partners — a deal where he always owns the majority (even if slim) of the airplane and partners "vote" their shares is not much of a partnership.  He wants to be a sole owner, but doesn’t want to foot the bill.  He wants investors.  And why not?  I’d like investors too. — Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/

Response:

We looked at that and decided against it.  An hour of engine/propeller life has a value, and we figured it ought to be paid for as we use it up, and that money stays with the airplane.

Of course you’re assuming that you can linearly scale the engine life with flight hours.   What happens when your midtime engine swallows a valve unexpectedly and you’re looking at a premature major overhaul?

Response:

: I also have some partnership questions, so I’ll start with this one.  I was : going to sell my airplane, but am considering the possibilty of taking on : some partners instead.  Has anyone ever heard of or been in a partnership : where the percentages of ownership are not even?  I would like to perhaps do : a deal where I own the majority of the airplane and in the agreement be able : to buy back the partners (at a market price or something like that) after x : amount of time.  I was considering something like 52% for me, and 24% each : for two other partners.  Everyone pays based on how much they fly and their : percentage depending on what’s being paid for.  Has this been done before? : Any experience or tips? Ryan, this concept is how my "partnership" is set up, with a few differences. I own the airplane outright (well, Eaglemark owns the plane.. but my name is on the title). I rent the airplane "wet" to two other pilots who are named on my insurance. This is allowed by my insurance policy through Avemco, you might want to check your policy. I calculate the "wet" rate at the end of each month based on how many hours each pilot flies and what sort of routine maintenance is performed. Routine maintenance and fuel is pro-rated by flight hours. Annual inspections and "airworthiness maintenance" (AD compliance) is evenly split 3 ways. This works well for me, and for my pilot friends (I have known these guys for 10+ years). I fly 200 to 300 hours a year, these guys fly about 20 each. They get access to a very nice airplane with modern avionics that they can take for as much time as they want, which is the opposite of the available rental aircraft in this area. They end up paying on-par for similar rental aircraft, but with a lot more scheduling flexability for that weekend on Block Island. I get some relief in case of absurd annual inspections or killer AD’s. It’s worked for 2 1/2 years so far. — Aaron Coolidge   (N9376J)

Response:

AOPA has TONS if info on all types of partnerships.  The real issue is how much do you want to read.     I am interested in a 50/50 partnership for an aircraft and want to know how they are usually set up. I assume that you agree on a rate and then for each hour flown put back a certain amount into a bank account. That way if one partner flies more, he also pays more. I also assume that you would always refuel the plane when done so it’s always full for the next guy. General repairs would be split and any damage caused by one partner would be paid by that partner or by insurance if things got that bad. What am I missing? I’m sure it’s lots. Thanks in advance. Wayne

– Bob Esser, Ph.D. Electronic Sciences and Technology Division Navy Research Lab Washington, DC

Response:

There are many ways to set them up. I’m in a three-person partnership that uses a variation of the AOPA agreement, so we have something to fall back on if need be. We track the hours we fly for an engine/prop fund. We fill the plane when we’re done with it (there are no issues with it being overweight for the next trip.) If one of use wants to take the plane for an hour, we just take it if it’s at the airport. If we will go on a longer trip, or we need it at a specific time, we call the other two partners so we know it will be there. We divide all expenses, except for fuel, by three. Our rationale is that none of us puts a lot of hours on the plane and if we don’t fly it we’ll have to pay the maintenance costs anyway, so why penalize ourselves for flying? I looked at a partnership that was at the other extreme. The partners bought and sold stock in a corporation that owned the plane, there was a weekly primary pilot, and there was a fixed monthly charge plus an hourly wet rate. That seemed like a good arrangement for that partnership, and ours is a good arrangement for our partnership. Those partners were much more active than my partners. Probably the most important factor is how well you get along with the other partners. Do you have the same attitude about flying and maintenance? Are your goals compatible? Good luck, Bruce – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am interested in a 50/50 partnership for an aircraft and want to know how they are usually set up. I assume that you agree on a rate and then for each hour flown put back a certain amount into a bank account. That way if one partner flies more, he also pays more. I also assume that you would always refuel the plane when done so it’s always full for the next guy. General repairs would be split and any damage caused by one partner would be paid by that partner or by insurance if things got that bad. What am I missing? I’m sure it’s lots. Thanks in advance. Wayne

Response:

It kinda "depends" on fuel.  I was in a partnership for a 6-place plane once, where it was rare that full fuel was not an option, so we always kept it topped off unless one of us called and said "don’t top it off when you get back."  The belief was it was better to top it off all the time to cut down on condensation in the tanks.

Agreed it depends, and it depends on the airplane and on the usage patterns. My partnership is in a Turbo Saratoga, 6-place, and we usually have no problem with full fuel with just two people which is our most common load. But we also frequently make Angel Flight missions without much notice and other long trips, carrying 3-4 adults plus stuff, and then the fuel load becomes critical.  We just can’t afford to need to make a trip with pax and the other partner left the plane full of fuel.  We have no ability to defuel the plane.  The problem with fueling as required before a trip is smaller than the problem of having too much fuel to be able to make the trip.  We don’t have any to recover from the latter problem. Stan

Response:

We don’t operate an engine reserve, everyone preferring to keep that in our own bank account.

We looked at that and decided against it.  An hour of engine/propeller life has a value, and we figured it ought to be paid for as we use it up, and that money stays with the airplane.  Money in someone’s personal bank account can be hard to get if they decide to sell out of the partnership. You could have a provision that a departing partner must pay the remaining partner(s) for the depletion of engine/propeller life, but that can be hard to enforce, and still requires accounting for usage. Stan

Response:

Sounds like a divorce! Thanks for all the comments fellas. Wayne

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We don’t operate an engine reserve, everyone preferring to keep that in our own bank account. We looked at that and decided against it.  An hour of engine/propeller life has a value, and we figured it ought to be paid for as we use it up, and that money stays with the airplane.  Money in someone’s personal bank account can be hard to get if they decide to sell out of the partnership. You could have a provision that a departing partner must pay the remaining partner(s) for the depletion of engine/propeller life, but that can be hard to enforce, and still requires accounting for usage. Stan

Response:

Wayne, We do ours real simple. We have a 2 person co-ownership (used a subset of the AOPA agreement).  We each refinanced our houses and paid cash for the plane.  We split all the costs other than fuel – Actually we take turns paying for stuff, and whoever is behind pays for the next thing. We’ve discussed rationing the cost based on usage, but my partner (so far the lower usage person) would rather pay half.  He looks at it as he’s saving half the cost of ownership by have one partner, and doesn’t want the addional work of keeping track of hours. We each buy our own fuel, and try to leave the tanks at 1/2 full. This encourages us to fly alot.  Whoever flys the most gets the lowest cost/hr.  We are not doing an engine reserve, or any reserve.  We figure its is up to each of us to determine how to save up for such events, and not have a bunch of money sitting in an account at 0.7%. Its fun upgrading the plane when you only have to pay half.  This year we put in new carpet and new attitude.  Last year we did an alternator conversion, oil filter kit, and strobe. We trade weekends, and each schedules trips far in advance.  We talk weekly about our plans and maintenance issues. Mitch

Response:

Same results here.  (3 people) — Ben

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ours is set up with an hourly charge to pay for fuel, oil, and TBO’s. All other expenses are 50/50. Scheduling is handled with alternate week priority pilot. The priority pilot can use the plane whenever he wants the other must request to use the plane. After more than a year neither of use has ever had a scheduling conflict.

Response:

When it’s time to major the engine, will you split the bill 4 ways, or based on hours flown?  If you’re not putting money aside for an overhaul, it would be good to keep track of how many hours are put on by each pilot, and they pay that percentage of the overhaul when it comes…. On that note, what if someone sells their share, does the new person ‘inherit’ the hours of the prior pilot when it comes time to round up overhaul money?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We don’t operate an engine reserve, everyone preferring to keep that in our own bank account.

Response:

    I am interested in a 50/50 partnership for an aircraft and want to know how they are usually set up. I assume that you agree on a rate and then for each hour flown put back a certain amount into a bank account. That way if one partner flies more, he also pays more. I also assume that you would always refuel the plane when done so it’s always full for the next guy. General repairs would be split and any damage caused by one partner would be paid by that partner or by insurance if things got that bad. What am I missing? I’m sure it’s lots. Thanks in advance. Wayne

Response:

Your missing a big item: scheduling.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     I am interested in a 50/50 partnership for an aircraft and want to know how they are usually set up. I assume that you agree on a rate and then for each hour flown put back a certain amount into a bank account. That way if one partner flies more, he also pays more. I also assume that you would always refuel the plane when done so it’s always full for the next guy. General repairs would be split and any damage caused by one partner would be paid by that partner or by insurance if things got that bad. What am I missing? I’m sure it’s lots. Thanks in advance. Wayne

Response:

For sure don’t fill up the tanks for the next guy.  He might not be able to fly with his load of pax and baggage and full fuel.  But do leave it nice and clean for the next guy. Think it out carefully, there are a lot of issues.  You have to figure out how one partner leaves the partnership, how to build an overhaul reserve, and other things I am too tired to write about tonight.  I am in a partnership that works very well and we spend a lot of time in working things out before getting started. Stan

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     I am interested in a 50/50 partnership for an aircraft and want to know how they are usually set up. I assume that you agree on a rate and then for each hour flown put back a certain amount into a bank account. That way if one partner flies more, he also pays more. I also assume that you would always refuel the plane when done so it’s always full for the next guy. General repairs would be split and any damage caused by one partner would be paid by that partner or by insurance if things got that bad. What am I missing? I’m sure it’s lots. Thanks in advance. Wayne

Response:

Ours is set up with an hourly charge to pay for fuel, oil, and TBO’s. All other expenses are 50/50. Scheduling is handled with alternate week priority pilot. The priority pilot can use the plane whenever he wants the other must request to use the plane. After more than a year neither of use has ever had a scheduling conflict.

Response:

We (4 partners) charge each other a monthly flat rate ($90), to cover fixed costs like tiedown, insurance, fixed parts of the annual, etc.  We also charge an hourly rate ($40/ tach hour, wet) to cover variable expenses like oil, maintenance, variable parts of the annual, etc.  We can assess all of the partners an exceptional charge to cover unexpected maintenance expenses, like an excessively expensive annual, for example.  We don’t operate an engine reserve, everyone preferring to keep that in our own bank account. An overhaul would be a (much bigger) exceptional expense.  Scheduling is on a first come, first served basis.  If you want to use the plane, you send an e-mail to everyone reserving it.  If it’s last minute, you call everyone. So far, it works pretty well. — Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     I am interested in a 50/50 partnership for an aircraft and want to know how they are usually set up. I assume that you agree on a rate and then for each hour flown put back a certain amount into a bank account. That way if one partner flies more, he also pays more. I also assume that you would always refuel the plane when done so it’s always full for the next guy. General repairs would be split and any damage caused by one partner would be paid by that partner or by insurance if things got that bad. What am I missing? I’m sure it’s lots. Thanks in advance. Wayne

Response:

Hi Wayne I am in a 50/50 partnership. We have alternate weeks controlling the plane. We leave it full of gas – that’s all we pay on a weekly basis. We don’t pay a monthly anything – we have agreed that if it needs doing, we’ll pay for it, when it needs it. It works very well. We both try to outdo each other on what we do for free for the plane – examples – make new checklists, obtain young eagles/charity passenger agreement, find portable tiedowns/chocks, leave decent sick bags in the seat backs, leave some good flight planning sheets that we snagged from anothe FBO , find a bottle of Avblend or TCP (like gold lately). leave some new charts in the seat-back. I believe that it comes down to attitude – are you looking for what you can get, or are you looking for what you can give? We have decided that for our first year we are not going to bother about who flys the most. We’ll monitor it, and if one of us flys 50 hours more than the other we’ll address it – otherwise it isn’t an issue. Don’t sweat the small stuff! The most important ingredient is finding the right partner. Do that and everything else falls into place. Good luck. Tony     I am interested in a 50/50 partnership for an aircraft and want to know how they are usually set up. I assume that you agree on a rate and then for each hour flown put back a certain amount into a bank account. That way if one partner flies more, he also pays more. I also assume that you would always refuel the plane when done so it’s always full for the next guy. General repairs would be split and any damage caused by one partner would be paid by that partner or by insurance if things got that bad. What am I missing? I’m sure it’s lots. Thanks in advance. Wayne

– PP-ASEL – VFR-OTT Cessna 172 C-GICE

Response:

    Sounds like a good arangement. He had a partnership in the past that left him with hard feelings. He did all the work himself, and after his month with the plane, he was expected to deliver the plane and get a ride home, then again the next month, he had to get a way to the plane. They were several hundred miles away. Things weren’t terrible but there still were some hard feelings. I live within 15 minutes of him and the plane so I don’t see these things becoming a problem. I am already allowed to use the plane at any time now so it’s more like me just paying my share. To answer your question, I am looking for wha tI can give. He wants to upgrade to a faster plane and I plan to buy him out half at a time. I just want to be prepared when I show up with cash on April 1st. Sun-N-Fun here we come! Thanks for the reply. Wayne

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Wayne I am in a 50/50 partnership. We have alternate weeks controlling the plane. We leave it full of gas – that’s all we pay on a weekly basis. We don’t pay a monthly anything – we have agreed that if it needs doing, we’ll pay for it, when it needs it. It works very well. We both try to outdo each other on what we do for free for the plane – examples – make new checklists, obtain young eagles/charity passenger agreement, find portable tiedowns/chocks, leave decent sick bags in the seat backs, leave some good flight planning sheets that we snagged from anothe FBO , find a bottle of Avblend or TCP (like gold lately). leave some new charts in the seat-back. I believe that it comes down to attitude – are you looking for what you can get, or are you looking for what you can give? We have decided that for our first year we are not going to bother about who flys the most. We’ll monitor it, and if one of us flys 50 hours more than the other we’ll address it – otherwise it isn’t an issue. Don’t sweat the small stuff! The most important ingredient is finding the right partner. Do that and everything else falls into place.

Response:

It kinda "depends" on fuel.  I was in a partnership for a 6-place plane once, where it was rare that full fuel was not an option, so we always kept it topped off unless one of us called and said "don’t top it off when you get back."  The belief was it was better to top it off all the time to cut down on condensation in the tanks. Then I was in a partnership in a 2-place Robinson helicopter, where the useful load margin was pretty tight so we never added fuel when we were done.  Two full size people onboard and full fuel would slightly over-gross it, which some of us did anyway (I think since it wasn’t me) and some didn’t.  Also the speed difference between full and almost empty fuel was about 10 knots, so flying around with full fuel all the time would over the long haul waste a lot of time.  Also miscalculating the fuel needed in a small helicopter is not as big a deal as in a plane.  We could always land at a gas station and put in a couple of gallons of premium unleaded if we had to and keep going.  There is an autofuel STC for this heli that permits that.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For sure don’t fill up the tanks for the next guy.  He might not be able to fly with his load of pax and baggage and full fuel.  But do leave it nice and clean for the next guy. Think it out carefully, there are a lot of issues.  You have to figure out how one partner leaves the partnership, how to build an overhaul reserve, and other things I am too tired to write about tonight.  I am in a partnership that works very well and we spend a lot of time in working things out before getting started. Stan     I am interested in a 50/50 partnership for an aircraft and want to know how they are usually set up. I assume that you agree on a rate and then for each hour flown put back a certain amount into a bank account. That way if one partner flies more, he also pays more. I also assume that you would always refuel the plane when done so it’s always full for the next guy. General repairs would be split and any damage caused by one partner would be paid by that partner or by insurance if things got that bad. What am I missing? I’m sure it’s lots. Thanks in advance. Wayne

Response:

Question:

Usenet is no longer useful.  You can’t dialogue with other professionals when there are some who don’t notice that this is a specific thread.  That is why I created a place for accountants. Check it out before you dismiss it. intouch.blogspot.com

Response:

No.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Usenet is no longer useful.  You can’t dialogue with other professionals when there are some who don’t notice that this is a specific thread.  That is why I created a place for accountants. Check it out before you dismiss it. intouch.blogspot.com

Response:

Usenet is no longer useful.  You can’t dialogue with other professionals when there are some who don’t notice that this is a specific thread.  That is why I created a place for accountants. Check it out before you dismiss it. intouch.blogspot.com

No thanks…I find Usenet exceptionally useful in spite of certain drawbacks.  However, I’m definitely not interesting in dialogue via a web site.  Good luck though…diversity provides more opportunity!   Tippy Tippy

Response:

Usenet is no longer useful.  You can’t dialogue with other professionals when there are some who don’t notice that this is a specific thread.  That is why I created a place for accountants. Check it out before you dismiss it. intouch.blogspot.com No thanks…I find Usenet exceptionally useful in spite of certain drawbacks.  

Would those drawbacks include spam posts by people using subject lines such as, "Usenet is Dead"? easy2000

Response:

Question:

Rod Speed said..   Dunno about "Bartels and his ilk", but back then, he   was with Qantas, before it merged with AA. Qantas   wasn’t involved in that dispute, only the domestics.  RS Pity about Bartel’s union involvement. The union JB would’ve been in at the time, the International Airline Pilots Association, was not involved. Only the local AFAP, headed by Capt. Brian McCarthy, was. I think that the MOA, later to become the ASU, may have had something to do with it too. Not sure. However, I’m sure that JB can enlighten us. Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply

Response:

Most professions tho are in some union or another Wrong. Most doctors for example dont bother with the AMA. with name changes like "associations" Society etc; With Doctors Lawyers Engineers all having to be in one to either have there qualifications recognized or to get work. You’ve made a complete fool of yourself there too. Well in the case of Doctors Accountants or what ever, plenty have qualifications that give them recognition by the Government ("DEET") but NOT by the relevant "society" (union) which means they are not going to get work

Complete and utter drivel. As usual, you aint actually gotta clue to your pathetic excuse for a name. Doctors dont have to have anything to do with the AMA to be able to practice or ‘get work’. Accountants in spades. There is no requirement what so ever for any engineer to be part of the appropriate association. ALL that matters is basic stuff like getting qualifications in the appropriate field etc. And even that isnt required with a hell of a lot of engineering. The other factor in  favor of unions is that it does help a companies progress as Alarm bells are presented to a company in a more organized manner of a work forces collective view How odd that so many of them would love to have no union arseholes in their operation at all. In some companies with self managing work forces they are found to be very productive with safety standards and progress second to none (The Unions have representives on the Board) Usual utterly dishonest flagrant misrepresentation of what actually happens. Germany for instance I believe this happens (eg Mercedes Benz)

Pigs arse it does on ’self managing work forces’ In Australia the are very few that do but there are some

There are a few coops etc. Wota pity that very few of those bother to have anything to do with unions.

Response:

You’ve made a complete fool of yourself there too.

Well in the case of Doctors Accountants or what ever, plenty have qualifications that give them recognition by the Government ("DEET") but NOT by the relevant "society" (union) which means they are not going to get work – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -There is no requirement what so ever for any engineer to be part of the appropriate association. ALL that matters is basic stuff like getting qualifications in the appropriate field etc. And even that is required with a hell of a lot of engineering. The other factor in  favor of unions is that it does help a companies progress as Alarm bells are presented to a company in a more organized manner of a work forces collective view How odd that so many of them would love to have no union arseholes in their operation at all. In some companies with self managing work forces they are found to be very productive with safety standards and progress second to none (The Unions have representives on the Board) Usual utterly dishonest flagrant misrepresentation of what actually happens.

Germany for instance I believe this happens (eg Mercedes Benz) In Australia the are very few that do but there are some Petzl

Response:

Rod Speed said.. And the pilots in spades before even Hawke decided that enough was enough and Bartels and his ilk were give the bums rush very comprehensively indeed. Dunno about "Bartels and his ilk", but back then, he was with Qantas, before it merged with AA. Qantas wasn’t involved in that dispute, only the domestics.

Pity about Bartel’s union involvement.

Response:

Rod Speed said..  RS And the pilots in spades before even Hawke decided  RS that enough was enough and Bartels and his ilk were  RS give the bums rush very comprehensively indeed. Dunno about "Bartels and his ilk", but back then, he was with Qantas, before it merged with AA. Qantas wasn’t involved in that dispute, only the domestics. Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – just the usual union bludger bullshit thats seen hardly anyone stupid enough to want to have anything do do with any union now. The only factor to *EVER* raise the standard of living in a country would be a free thinking independent union Wota pathetic wanker you are Pretzel. No union can ever ‘raise the standard of living in a country’, and I bet you cant even manage to produce a SINGLE example of ‘a free thinking independent union’ in the entire world, let alone one thats ever managed to ‘raise the standard of living in a country’ No such animal. Its just a pathetic little fantasy. NOT the Government of the day Sure, ‘raise the standard of living in a country’ happens because of MUCH more fundamental things than either of those packa wankers. Union’s are definitely partners in progress in which all benefit Pathetic really. Like I said, almost everyone has noticed now that unions are completely and utterly irrelevant. And that there isnt much in it with govts either, they’ve shown one hell of a capacity to give those bums the bums rush whenever they feel like a change. Originally they were the only factor to raise a countries standard of living and still are to a degree.

Complete and utter drivel. What actually did that was MUCH more fundamental stuff like the industrial revolution, the industrialisation of economys largely based on agriculture, tremendous advances in industry and the sort of radical change that happened in countrys like the US over a couple of centurys and delivered living standards that are the envy of the rest of the world, particularly the dregs of the world like India, Russia and China etc. That didnt have a damned thing to do with any union, and neither did what the Japs did as they recovered from one of the most spectacular footshots any country has ever managed. Now unfortunately they are simply a front for political parties

They always were you silly little pig ignorant fool. The labor party was SET UP by the unions. And has now been almost entirely hijacked by posturing fools in suits who have almost never actually done a days work in their entire ‘life’ In Australia the Labour one and used as a stepping stone not to protect ones rights or income, just to get another snout in the trough of that party

Got SFA to do with that terminally stupid claim you made that ‘The only factor to *EVER* raise the standard of living in a country would be a free thinking independent union’ You’re complete off with the fucking fairys, as always. Trouble is the Union positions are taken up by wrong persons (unopposed through lack of interest)

The reason that happens is that no one with any sense sees any role for unions anymore. They’ve noticed that union ‘positions’ are just parasites with their snouts in the trough, only interested in stabbing each other in the back in a desperate rush for the gravy train. Perhaps ones work mates should select a representative by ballot whether they wish to stand for it or not?

The absolutely vast bulk of them have the sense to realise that unions are way past their useby date and that they dont need any ‘representative’ at all. The tiny handful of fools like you who cant manage to work those basics out for yourself dont actually amount to a hill of beans. This I would think

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought. stop the last choice getting the job of ones representative as it is now

Mindlessly silly. No one with any sense would do other than just make an obscene gesture at those who ‘elected’ them when they had said already that they werent interested. And we’re never gunna have compulsory ‘representatives’ Even the worst of the commos were ever stupid enough for that. Most professions tho are in some union or another

Wrong. Most doctors for example dont bother with the AMA. with name changes like "associations" Society etc; With Doctors Lawyers Engineers all having to be in one to either have there qualifications recognized or to get work.

You’ve made a complete fool of yourself there too. There is no requirement what so ever for any engineer to be part of the appropriate association. ALL that matters is basic stuff like getting qualifications in the appropriate field etc. And even that is required with a hell of a lot of engineering. The other factor in  favor of unions is that it does help a companies progress as Alarm bells are presented to a company in a more organized manner of a work forces collective view

How odd that so many of them would love to have no union arseholes in their operation at all. In some companies with self managing work forces they are found to be very productive with safety standards and progress second to none (The Unions have representives on the Board)

Usual utterly dishonest flagrant misrepresentation of what actually happens.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – just the usual union bludger bullshit thats seen hardly anyone stupid enough to want to have anything do do with any union now. The only factor to *EVER* raise the standard of living in a country would be a free thinking independent union Wota pathetic wanker you are Pretzel. No union can ever ‘raise the standard of living in a country’, and I bet you cant even manage to produce a SINGLE example of ‘a free thinking independent union’ in the entire world, let alone one thats ever managed to ‘raise the standard of living in a country’ No such animal. Its just a pathetic little fantasy. NOT the Government of the day Sure, ‘raise the standard of living in a country’ happens because of MUCH more fundamental things than either of those packa wankers. Union’s are definitely partners in progress in which all benefit Pathetic really. Like I said, almost everyone has noticed now that unions are completely and utterly irrelevant. And that there isnt much in it with govts either, they’ve shown one hell of a capacity to give those bums the bums rush whenever they feel like a change.

Originally they were the only factor to raise a countries standard of living and still are to a degree. Now unfortunately they are simply a front for political parties  In Australia the Labour one and used as a stepping stone not to protect ones rights or income, just to get another snout in the trough of that party Trouble is the Union positions are taken up by wrong persons (unopposed through lack of interest) Perhaps ones work mates should select a representative by ballot whether they wish to stand for it or not? This I would think stop the last choice getting the job of ones representative as it is now Most professions tho are in some union or another with name changes like "associations" Society etc; With Doctors Lawyers Engineers all having to be in one to either have there qualifications recognized or to get work. The other factor in  favor of unions is that it does help a companies progress as Alarm bells are presented to a company in a more organized manner of a work forces collective view  In some companies with self managing work forces they are found to be very productive with safety standards and progress second to none (The Unions have representives on the Board) Petzl

Response:

Rod Speed wrote Some stupid union bludger claiming to be just the usual union bludger bullshit thats seen hardly anyone stupid enough to want to have anything do do with any union now. The only factor to *EVER* raise the standard of living in a country would be a free thinking independent union

Wota pathetic wanker you are Pretzel. No union can ever ‘raise the standard of living in a country’, and I bet you cant even manage to produce a SINGLE example of ‘a free thinking independent union’ in the entire world, let alone one thats ever managed to ‘raise the standard of living in a country’ No such animal. Its just a pathetic little fantasy. NOT the Government of the day

Sure, ‘raise the standard of living in a country’ happens because of MUCH more fundamental things than either of those packa wankers. Union’s are definitely partners in progress in which all benefit

Pathetic really. Like I said, almost everyone has noticed now that unions are completely and utterly irrelevant. And that there isnt much in it with govts either, they’ve shown one hell of a capacity to give those bums the bums rush whenever they feel like a change.

Response:

Some stupid union bludger claiming to be

just the usual union bludger bullshit thats all it ever spews.

Response:

Some stupid union bludger claiming to be

just the usual union bludger bullshit thats seen hardly anyone stupid enough to want to have anything do do with any union now.

Response:

Some stupid union bludger claiming to be just the usual union bludger bullshit thats seen hardly anyone stupid enough to want to have anything do do with any union now.

The only factor to *EVER* raise the standard of living in a country would be a free thinking independent union NOT the Government of the day Union’s are definitely partners in progress in which all benefit (I admit I can’t resist this particularly as it annoy’s Rod) Petzl

Response:

And they cant even manage the basics either like the very low product cost from places like McDs sees heaps of people use them because its excellent value and that provides heaps of jobs.

You think McD’s is excellent value ?. Now I know who the wanker is. I know why you eat there, you saw an add that said " Eat at McDonalds, 3 trillion maggots can’t be wrong"

Response:

Unions are way past their useby date, as the absolute vast bulk of the workforce has noticed. Parasite like Combet, Burrows and their ilk should be flushed down the sewers of history.

If it wasn’t for unions, there would be people like Rod Speed in management abusing workers. There is nothing more infuriating seeing some lefty, socialist with a pommie speech impediment going on tv about "workers rights" as they bring all trains/petrol/airlines to a holt.

Of course management are completely innocent. And even when its not some damned pom, arseholes like Ludwig should be put to the sword or jailed.

? There is more to a community than some selfish workers who simply want more money than the other guy.

Like their bosses giving themselves 400% pay rises. And dont give a damn about the only thing that matters, the customers of their industry.

I’m a unionist and I care. Most "workers" are wankers and would not last one day in management.

Interesting comment, are you a wanker boss, or just a c**t boss. Yep, and when arseholes like Bartels get too big for their boots, they should get the bums rush and be replaced by those who are prepared to work for what is after all very decent money.

Publish your address, I want to pay you a visit. Whoever it was had a point, cabin staff get adequately paid for what is after all the sort of work anyone with a clue can do.

Unions have got their wages, or would you rather see them on $100 per week. Silly little bludgers like Lister in spades. No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing to them to do that work. They’re free to leave any time they dont like the job and there are plenty happy to have that job to replace them.

Where do they go to ?. If the likes of Combet and Burrows dont approve ? Who gives a damn ? No one, thats who.

I give a damn. TWU paid up and proud.

Response:

My post was a tounge-in-cheek troll to stir you up Rod. I completely disassociate myself from any of Roddles comments or criticsm of Mr Bartels or any other posters in this group….

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Yes RT, have heard that the people in GA often have the raw end of the stick when it comes to conditions. Personally, I work for one of the major airlines and haven’t experienced that first hand. Interesting that the ALAEA wanted more money to fight for higher pay. Don’t know what you used to pay in union fees but mine are pretty high…in my opinion they already get enough.

Agree. At the time it was the last straw.  Very low wage, non-earning wife, 2 kids, mortgage etc – then a surcharge to get more money for someone already much better off. Since then I’ve done very nicely by myself Have occasionally given unions a bit of a hand if I thought it was justified, but’ll never join one again.

Response:

Unions only think of themselves and have no regard for anyone else or our country.

They do indeed. And the current airline activity is an absolutely classic example of that. Fools like Lister are so stupid that they cant even manage to grasp that low cost operations like Impulse may very well deliver lots more jobs as low fares get plenty who would far prefer to fly away from the alternatives. Let alone the massive benefit to the only people who actually matter, those who pay to fly commercially. They do not seem to realise it takes productivity to make money.  Companies do not have an endless supply of money.

And they cant even manage the basics either like the very low product cost from places like McDs sees heaps of people use them because its excellent value and that provides heaps of jobs. There will always be plenty who dont have enough viable between their ears to do do anything that requires anything more sophisticated than cabin crew, monkeys on keyboards, McDs etc. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find who needs a union.  I have found that over the years with different companies, they pay you more if your good at what you do anyway. Yes and I have come accross the odd company that rips off it’s workers, but there is nothing stopping a person in getting another job. I would tolerate unions IF: a) there were secret ballotts on all decisions b) strikes were outlawed c) membership was not a requirment to employment. No point in bothering with those parasites even with that detail. Unions are way past their useby date, as the absolute vast bulk of the workforce has noticed. Parasite like Combet, Burrows and their ilk should be flushed down the sewers of history. There is nothing more infuriating seeing some lefty, socialist with a pommie speech impediment going on tv about "workers rights" as they bring all trains/petrol/airlines to a holt. And even when its not some damned pom, arseholes like Ludwig should be put to the sword or jailed. There is more to a community than some selfish workers who simply want more money than the other guy. And dont give a damn about the only thing that matters, the customers of their industry. Most "workers" are wankers and would not last one day in management. Yep, and when arseholes like Bartels get too big for their boots, they should get the bums rush and be replaced by those who are prepared to work for what is after all very decent money. Whoever it was had a point, cabin staff get adequately paid for what is after all the sort of work anyone with a clue can do. Silly little bludgers like Lister in spades. No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing to them to do that work. They’re free to leave any time they dont like the job and there are plenty happy to have that job to replace them. If the likes of Combet and Burrows dont approve ? Who gives a damn ? No one, thats who. just want a bit of feed back to see how every one feels about the unions in the aviation industry. I am a member and feel they are useful and protect employees from corporate bullies, such as that of impulse airlines. Unions are great, here to stay and i feel all should be members. Wota wanka.

Response:

I am a member of the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) and although they are a right wing union they have certainly helped me out on occasions. The ALAEA carries out enterprise bargaining with my employer on my behalf and this suits me just fine. To change the topic just slightly, it is worth noting that previously union free professions (such as, for instance, surgeons) are looking at forming unions.

In fact those are nothing like the unions being discussed. The vast bulk of surgeons get to charge whatever fee the market will bear etc. And there are bugger all union members in many of the real growth areas like computing etc. There’s a reason for that. I believe unions are necessary (in my profession anyway) but I really think there should be a balance (who remembers the days of the BLF holding employers to ransom).

And the pilots in spades before even Hawke decided that enough was enough and Bartels and his ilk were give the bums rush very comprehensively indeed. To say that ALL union members are bludgers is really a simplistic arguement

Wota pity no one did. Having fun thrashing that straw man are you ? Even you must have noticed that the absolute vast bulk of the workforce cant see any point in belonging to a union now. And quite a few who are still union members are essentially coerced into that even now.

Response:

Paul Lister…meet Rod Speed, resident flamer.

I am a member of the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) and although they are a right wing union they have certainly helped me out on occasions. The ALAEA carries out enterprise bargaining with my employer on my behalf and this suits me just fine.

Like they say, YMMV. Been in a union twice (1st and last) –  and it was the ALAEA At the time those in the airlines were doing quite well, while those on lighties (including me) were being paid less than motor mechanics.   We were all hit with an additional levy to fight a case for more money – for the airline group.   Paid up and got out.

Response:

Yes RT, have heard that the people in GA often have the raw end of the stick when it comes to conditions. Personally, I work for one of the major airlines and haven’t experienced that first hand. Interesting that the ALAEA wanted more money to fight for higher pay. Don’t know what you used to pay in union fees but mine are pretty high…in my opinion they already get enough. Regards, BB.

Response:

Unions only think of themselves and have no regard for anyone else or our country. They do not seem to realise it takes productivity to make money.  Companies do not have an endless supply of money. I find who needs a union.  I have found that over the years with different companies, they pay you more if your good at what you do anyway. Yes and I have come accross the odd company that rips off it’s workers, but there is nothing stopping a person in getting another job. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would tolerate unions IF: a) there were secret ballotts on all decisions b) strikes were outlawed c) membership was not a requirment to employment. No point in bothering with those parasites even with that detail. Unions are way past their useby date, as the absolute vast bulk of the workforce has noticed. Parasite like Combet, Burrows and their ilk should be flushed down the sewers of history. There is nothing more infuriating seeing some lefty, socialist with a pommie speech impediment going on tv about "workers rights" as they bring all trains/petrol/airlines to a holt. And even when its not some damned pom, arseholes like Ludwig should be put to the sword or jailed. There is more to a community than some selfish workers who simply want more money than the other guy. And dont give a damn about the only thing that matters, the customers of their industry. Most "workers" are wankers and would not last one day in management. Yep, and when arseholes like Bartels get too big for their boots, they should get the bums rush and be replaced by those who are prepared to work for what is after all very decent money. Whoever it was had a point, cabin staff get adequately paid for what is after all the sort of work anyone with a clue can do. Silly little bludgers like Lister in spades. No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing to them to do that work. They’re free to leave any time they dont like the job and there are plenty happy to have that job to replace them. If the likes of Combet and Burrows dont approve ? Who gives a damn ? No one, thats who. just want a bit of feed back to see how every one feels about the unions in the aviation industry. I am a member and feel they are useful and protect employees from corporate bullies, such as that of impulse airlines. Unions are great, here to stay and i feel all should be members. Wota wanka.

Regards, Andrew  Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:                 http://MailAndNews.com  Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or  POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.

Response:

I would tolerate unions IF: a) there were secret ballotts on all decisions b) strikes were outlawed c) membership was not a requirment to employment.

No point in bothering with those parasites even with that detail. Unions are way past their useby date, as the absolute vast bulk of the workforce has noticed. Parasite like Combet, Burrows and their ilk should be flushed down the sewers of history. There is nothing more infuriating seeing some lefty, socialist with a pommie speech impediment going on tv about "workers rights" as they bring all trains/petrol/airlines to a holt.

And even when its not some damned pom, arseholes like Ludwig should be put to the sword or jailed. There is more to a community than some selfish workers who simply want more money than the other guy.

And dont give a damn about the only thing that matters, the customers of their industry. Most "workers" are wankers and would not last one day in management.

Yep, and when arseholes like Bartels get too big for their boots, they should get the bums rush and be replaced by those who are prepared to work for what is after all very decent money. Whoever it was had a point, cabin staff get adequately paid for what is after all the sort of work anyone with a clue can do. Silly little bludgers like Lister in spades. No one is holding a gun to their head and forcing to them to do that work. They’re free to leave any time they dont like the job and there are plenty happy to have that job to replace them. If the likes of Combet and Burrows dont approve ? Who gives a damn ? No one, thats who. just want a bit of feed back to see how every one feels about the unions in the aviation industry. I am a member and feel they are useful and protect employees from corporate bullies, such as that of impulse airlines. Unions are great, here to stay and i feel all should be members.

Wota wanka.

Response:

Paul Lister…meet Rod Speed, resident flamer. I am a member of the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) and although they are a right wing union they have certainly helped me out on occasions. The ALAEA carries out enterprise bargaining with my employer on my behalf and this suits me just fine. To change the topic just slightly, it is worth noting that previously union free professions (such as, for instance, surgeons) are looking at forming unions. I believe unions are necessary (in my profession anyway) but I really think there should be a balance (who remembers the days of the BLF holding employers to ransom). To say that ALL union members are bludgers is really a simplistic arguement and really is just flaming in the extreme… Regards, BB.

Response:

just want a bit of feed back to see how every one feels about the unions

Union bludgers should be to the sword. in the aviation industry.

In any industry. I am a member

Just a bludger. and feel they are useful and protect employees from corporate bullies, such as that of impulse airlines.

Wota pathetic little wanker. No one held a gun to your head and forced you to ‘work’ there, bludger. Unions are great, here to stay and i feel all should be members.

More fool you. Clearly the vast bulk of the workforce has much more sense, even if you’re that stupid. All the rest of your puerile silly shit flushed where it belongs, as always.

Response:

just want a bit of feed back to see how every one feels about the unions in the aviation industry. I am a member and feel they are useful and protect employees from corporate bullies, such as that of impulse airlines. Unions are great, here to stay and i feel all should be members. P.S. The whole purpose of this post is to gee Rod Speed up. – have fun replying rod i won’t be reviewing this post again as i know your comments are all ways bias and nasty, a reflection of the person that types them i think! Regards, Paul

Response:

Paul you have not got a response from Rod so I thought I whould up the ante I would tolerate unions IF: a) there were secret ballotts on all decisions b) strikes were outlawed c) membership was not a requirment to employment. There is nothing more infuriating seeing some lefty, socialist with a pommie speech impediment going on tv about "workers rights" as they bring all trains/petrol/airlines to a holt. There is more to a community than some selfish workers who simply want more money than the other guy. Most "workers" are wankers and would not last one day in management.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – just want a bit of feed back to see how every one feels about the unions in the aviation industry. I am a member and feel they are useful and protect employees from corporate bullies, such as that of impulse airlines. Unions are great, here to stay and i feel all should be members. P.S. The whole purpose of this post is to gee Rod Speed up. – have fun replying rod i won’t be reviewing this post again as i know your comments are all ways bias and nasty, a reflection of the person that types them i think! Regards, Paul

Response:

Question:

Just speculating, I’d guess it has something to do with his cash flow crunch of a couple years ago, where it was widely reported that he was "broke"…. I don’t think Elton John is near broke, I have seen him in his private jet, a Falcon 20 twice in the past few months. Brand new airplane worth many millions…

Have you heard of Maxwell? Never believe an asset isn’t funded by loans. Peter Saxton from London

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just speculating, I’d guess it has something to do with his cash flow crunch of a couple years ago, where it was widely reported that he was "broke"…. I don’t think Elton John is near broke, I have seen him in his private jet, a Falcon 20 twice in the past few months. Brand new airplane worth many millions… Have you heard of Maxwell? Never believe an asset isn’t funded by loans.

He may not be "broke", but it sure looks like he got "bent" (or at least thinks he did). http://www.nme.com/NME/External/News/News_Story/0,1004,7844,00.html — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just speculating, I’d guess it has something to do with his cash flow crunch of a couple years ago, where it was widely reported that he was "broke"…. I don’t think Elton John is near broke, I have seen him in his private jet, a Falcon 20 twice in the past few months. Brand new airplane worth many millions… http://www.falconjet.com/menus-ux/900EXhomepagefr.htm

Some of the large accounting firms have gotten deeply into what some of us would call tax scams.  While most of them are arguably legal, some of them are extremely complicated, convoluted, and unworkable.  Wealthy and highly taxed people, including celebrities, commonly buy into these schemes without understanding them, find the scam costs as much or more than the tax, and sue when their unrealistic expectations are not met. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

Does anybody know what is Elton John suing PWC for? First they lost Oscars, now they got into trouble with entertainer, what’s next? greg Before you buy.

Response:

Just speculating, I’d guess it has something to do with his cash flow crunch of a couple years ago, where it was widely reported that he was "broke"….

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does anybody know what is Elton John suing PWC for? First they lost Oscars, now they got into trouble with entertainer, what’s next? greg Before you buy.

Response:

Just speculating, I’d guess it has something to do with his cash flow crunch of a couple years ago, where it was widely reported that he was "broke"…. Does anybody know what is Elton John suing PWC for? First they lost Oscars, now they got into trouble with entertainer, what’s next? greg

Price Waterhouse and Willie Nelson had a problem some years back over questionable tax advice.  I remember Willie’s comment that his drummer had asked, "Why not just pay the tax"?  Ultimately, it seems Willie agreed with the drummer and sued Price Waterhouse. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just speculating, I’d guess it has something to do with his cash flow crunch of a couple years ago, where it was widely reported that he was "broke"…. Does anybody know what is Elton John suing PWC for? First they lost Oscars, now they got into trouble with entertainer, what’s next? greg Price Waterhouse and Willie Nelson had a problem some years back over questionable tax advice.  I remember Willie’s comment that his drummer had asked, "Why not just pay the tax"?  Ultimately, it seems Willie agreed with the drummer and sued Price Waterhouse.

Seems to be over a tax dispute The dispute with the Revenue goes back to 1986 and could result in millions of pounds of employer’s NIC being paid over by the companies on the salary paid to Sir Elton. J Bondi’s former management (John Reid) and its ex-auditor Price Waterhouse – now part of PricewaterhouseCoopers – are now being sued by the company. KPMG is currently the auditor for the company. The dispute with the Revenue is revealed in the 1998 accounts for J Bondi which were signed last week. A note in  the accounts states: ‘This dispute relates to the employer’s contributions due in respect of the earnings paid to the employers whilst they are working overseas. It is not possible to quantify the amount of any repayment or liability that may arise.’ http://accountancyage.com/News/106166 also Rocket Man zooms to KPMG from PW http://www.accountancyage.com/Business/54565 — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

– Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

Question:

Has it ever occured to anyone that perhaps their F-mount is the limiting factor ?

For VR or for AFS.  VR is already a reality and so is AFS.  VR is a an electro-optical issue whereas AFS is purely an electro-mechanical one. What part of the F-mount are you speaking of? Before you buy.

Response:

On at least one of the Nikon website’s pages, there hasn’t been a mention of that lens for about a year or so.  Seems like it was just an oversight on Nikon’s part because the lens was and still is for sale.  I own one and love the quality, although the faster focusing AF-S version may be even better. I wish, however, Nikon would have included VR in the design.

Response:

It is being discontinued. Maybe B&H knows if there are many left. Personally, I found its autofocus dead slow, but that may not matter to everyone. Optically, it was superb. Peter Burian, Managing Editor http://www.photopoint.com/community/magazine

Response:

On at least one of the Nikon website’s pages, there hasn’t been a mention of that lens for about a year or so.  Seems like it was just an oversight on Nikon’s part because the lens was and still is for sale.  I own one and love the quality, although the faster focusing AF-S version may be even better. I wish, however, Nikon would have included VR in the design.

Apparently, it is not feasible to combine AF-S and VR in the same lens. At least that theory has been discussed at length here and elsewhere on the web.

Response:

Canon has been doing that for years now.  I think it’s very feasible but Nikon may have to get around a patent or two before the two are on one lens.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Apparently, it is not feasible to combine AF-S and VR in the same lens. At least that theory has been discussed at length here and elsewhere on the web.

Response:

Canon has been doing that for years now.  I think it’s very feasible but Nikon may have to get around a patent or two before the two are on one lens.

Either that or licensing , etc. may make it just too expensive, although I think Nikon users would pay for it. VR is maybe just too new for Nikon to incorporate it?

Response:

This is bullshit, Canon has never done this. Canon uses piezo technologie for IS which does’nt impact USM (or vice versa). Nikons voice coil motor technologie (larger lens-movement up to 3 f-stops instead of Canon’s 2) is not easy to combine with any silent wave AF motor. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Canon has been doing that for years now.  I think it’s very feasible but Nikon may have to get around a patent or two before the two are on one lens. Apparently, it is not feasible to combine AF-S and VR in the same lens. At least that theory has been discussed at length here and elsewhere on the web.

Response:

Has it ever occured to anyone that perhaps their F-mount is the limiting factor ? Liem – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Canon has been doing that for years now.  I think it’s very feasible but Nikon may have to get around a patent or two before the two are on one lens. Either that or licensing , etc. may make it just too expensive, although I think Nikon users would pay for it. VR is maybe just too new for Nikon to incorporate it?

Response:

Nice, diplomatic choice of words…the POINT was Canon has been using a silent, quick-focusing technology along with IS for some time now.  There’s already been speculation on this NG about patent/licensing problems Nikon may be having, but maybe that was all BS too?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is bullshit, Canon has never done this.

Response:

: Either that or licensing , etc. may make it just too expensive, although I : think Nikon users would pay for it. VR is maybe just too new for Nikon to : incorporate it? Or they want to sell the AF-S version now, then add VR to the lens and sell another one in a few years. -Bj

Question:

If the brothers have contributed money to the company in the form of Shareholders’ Loans, those funds can be pulled out of the company tax free (this is an oversimplification and there are exceptions to be aware of).  An example of this would be where one of the principle’s paid a corporate liability with personal funds or with a personal credit card.  This is often done in the early days of an enterprise when corporate cash flow has not quite come on stream.  These funds accumulate as a liability within the company, in favor of that shareholder, and can be pulled out at any time by that shareholder (tax free because they were contributed with after tax dollars).  There are very specific tax rules surrounding shareholders’ loans and the timing of repayments, etc., that you should be sure to look into. Revenue Canada publishes IT Bulletins on this topic.  See their website at www.rc.gc.ca. The corporation will likely pay a lower rate of tax than either of the brothers will as individuals.   Thus, any funds taken out of the company will probably be subject to a higher tax bracket.  Assuming they need to take funds out to live, it may be worth considering taking the funds out as dividends.  The Dividend Tax Credit helps here, by attempting to tax dividends at a rate roughly equal to the tax those funds would have been subjected to if left within the company. Linda B (the previous post) had it right in saying that it depends on all the other factors in the brothers’ personal tax situation.  A good tax textbook will help (there was one by Beam and Laiken that was outstanding, but I’m not sure if it’s still being published).  If you don’t want to battle through a textbook, see and accountant… (s)he’ll run through the scenarios very quickly and accurately. Ross. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Paul, This will depend on how much the net profit of the company is, as well as the personal tax situations of the brothers. E.g., are they married; how much does the spouse earn; what other income do they have; do they want to contribute to an RRSP? The ratios may be different for each of the brothers. You should probably run some "what if?" scenarios. You might get more info at the news group, can.taxes. Cheers, Linda B Two brothers run a little incorporated company in Alberta. What is the most tax effective way to take their revenues. They each take about $25,000 a year. Should they pay themselves some wages that are listed as an expense to the company or should they take some owner’s equity (profit of the company) out. Where could I find some information about the implication of doing a combination of both and in what ratio. Regards Paul Picard

Response:

Paul, This will depend on how much the net profit of the company is, as well as the personal tax situations of the brothers. E.g., are they married; how much does the spouse earn; what other income do they have; do they want to contribute to an RRSP? The ratios may be different for each of the brothers. You should probably run some "what if?" scenarios. You might get more info at the news group, can.taxes. Cheers, Linda B – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Two brothers run a little incorporated company in Alberta. What is the most tax effective way to take their revenues. They each take about $25,000 a year. Should they pay themselves some wages that are listed as an expense to the company or should they take some owner’s equity (profit of the company) out. Where could I find some information about the implication of doing a combination of both and in what ratio. Regards Paul Picard

Response:

Two brothers run a little incorporated company in Alberta. What is the most tax effective way to take their revenues. They each take about $25,000 a year. Should they pay themselves some wages that are listed as an expense to the company or should they take some owner’s equity (profit of the company) out. Where could I find some information about the implication of doing a combination of both and in what ratio. Regards Paul Picard

Response:

Two brothers run a little incorporated company in Alberta. What is the most tax effective way to take their revenues. They each take about $25,000 a year. Should they pay themselves some wages that are listed as an expense to the company or should they take some owner’s equity (profit of the company) out. Where could I find some information about the implication of doing a combination of both and in what ratio.

Your best bet would be to talk to a local Canadian accountant who is more familiar with the Canadian accounting and tax laws. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens,  Georgia

Response:

Question:

Where is the home page?????

Response:

www.imanet.org – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Where is the home page?????

Response:

www.rutgers.edu/Accounting/raw/ima

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Where is the home page????? http://www.rutgers.edu/Accounting/raw/ima/ima.htm

Response:

Question:

I need an accounting software for retailing. Which one would you recommend? Thanks.

Response:

"Best" suggests "best, regardless of price".   I will start with some educated assumptions, given the general lack of info. I assume that the main difference between retail and most other accounting is that retail installations connect to a cash register. With bar code?  With produce scales, credit card verification, …? If you give me more details, I can make some suitable suggestions. Sincerely,  - Carl Dick – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I need an accounting software for retailing. Which one would you recommend? Thanks.

Response:

Question:

Would like any and all opinions on UA Corporate Accounting Millenium.  Any experience, good points, bad points, success in customizing, etc. comments would be appreciated.  Thank You. Pam

Response:

Would like any and all opinions on UA Corporate Accounting Millenium.  Any experience, good points, bad points, success in customizing, etc. comments would be appreciated.  Thank You. Pam

Pam UA’s home is about 50 miles from me. I tried to talk to them about a serialized Inventory. Theyb were slow to respond. I did have a demo CD but the sample files were very thin. GARY

Response: