John, will you please stow that kind of talk until they stop taxing
people without kids, to pay for schools? Or reduce the income, sales,
and property taxes of people who don't drive? I mean this cheesy,
chintzy business of "I'll pay for this but I don't use that is just so
lame." Let the legislators fund everything that contributes to the
common good, and let us all pay a share of it. Easy. Over and done
with. No bull**** "special use fees" or any of that other "let's
license [whatever], to generate revenues" crap.

And if they don't charge "special use" fees, then you don't get
situations such as that where Marylanders have to pay to visit
Pennsylvania State Parks, but Pennsylvanians can visit Maryland State
Parks for free. Let the PA gubmint fund what it thinks is important
for the common good; if that doesn't include state parks then, at
least, they won't be screwing out-of-state visitors whose home states
don't screw Pennsylvanians in return. [PS, this was a bogus,
hypothetical example, though it does happen with PA's boat-launch
permits, even though PAians don't have to pay to launch on MD streams]


font face="courier"pre
-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net cell: 301.775.0471
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu office: 336.713.5077
================================================== ====================
/pre/font



John Fereira wrote:
Brian Nystrom wrote in
news:ZM%Rf.4011$Sb.1659@trndny08:

Garrison Hilliard wrote:
Kentucky May Do Away With Boat Launching Fees

Reported by: AP
First posted: 3/15/2006 12:05:28 PM

Boaters in Kentucky may not have to pay launching fees at state docks
much longer.

Lawmakers in the Kentucky House have approved a plan to eliminate the
$3 launching fee at many state docks.

One lawmaker called the fees a nuisance to boaters and fisherman.

It sounds like one of those fees that costs more to enforce, collect
and administer than it generates in revenues.

Either that or state taxes will be going up for everyone to provide funds to
maintain a boat ramp for those that want to use it.

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
oups.com...
John, will you please stow that kind of talk until they stop taxing
people without kids, to pay for schools?

Yeah...that'll work. Elderly voters in my school district tried it. They'd
come to town & school board meetings and complain about school taxes, and
how they didn't think it was fair to them to pay for extracurricular
activities. In the same breath, they'd bitch about how "kids just hang
around in gangs, all aimless & stuff, with nothin' to do, and then they get
in trouble. Something's gotta be done!"

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
oups.com...

John, will you please stow that kind of talk until they stop taxing
people without kids, to pay for schools?

Yeah...that'll work. Elderly voters in my school district tried it. They'd
come to town & school board meetings and complain about school taxes, and
how they didn't think it was fair to them to pay for extracurricular
activities. In the same breath, they'd bitch about how "kids just hang
around in gangs, all aimless & stuff, with nothin' to do, and then they get
in trouble. Something's gotta be done!"

As someone who doesn't have or want kids, I see it from a different
perspective. While I'm willing to contribute to the common good, why
should I have to do so at the same rate as someone who thinks it's cool
to pop out 4 or 5 kids? For that matter, why should anyone get a tax
DEDUCTION for having kids? Those who consume the most in services should
pay the most in taxes. If you don't force people to pay their own way,
they don't learn personal responsibility and they don't think about the
consequences of their (reproductive) actions. The welfare system taught
us that, in spades.

The government gives people with hybrid vehicles a tax break. Why
shouldn't someone who uses a bicycle instead get an even larger one? Not
only do they use zero fossil fuel and create dramatically lower
emissions, but the environmental cost of building, maintaining and
disposing of their vehicle is several orders of magnitude lower. People
who don't own cars at all should get an even bigger break. As much as I
like cars, need a car and actually enjoy driving, it's pretty obvious
that our priorities are majorly screwed up.

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:LmSTf.1281$Qm2.1278@trndny03...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
oups.com...

John, will you please stow that kind of talk until they stop taxing
people without kids, to pay for schools?

Yeah...that'll work. Elderly voters in my school district tried it.
They'd come to town & school board meetings and complain about school
taxes, and how they didn't think it was fair to them to pay for
extracurricular activities. In the same breath, they'd bitch about how
"kids just hang around in gangs, all aimless & stuff, with nothin' to do,
and then they get in trouble. Something's gotta be done!"

As someone who doesn't have or want kids, I see it from a different
perspective. While I'm willing to contribute to the common good, why
should I have to do so at the same rate as someone who thinks it's cool to
pop out 4 or 5 kids? For that matter, why should anyone get a tax
DEDUCTION for having kids? Those who consume the most in services should
pay the most in taxes. If you don't force people to pay their own way,
they don't learn personal responsibility and they don't think about the
consequences of their (reproductive) actions. The welfare system taught us
that, in spades.

I'm OK with adjusting school taxes as you described. But, I'd qualify the
change as follows. Anyone who voted that way should have to wear one of
those electric training collars that some hunters use to teach Poopy to
retrieve dead ducks. If you complained about young stupid retail employees
who can't make change, you'd get shocked. Not sure how to monitor the
behavior, but I'm sure something could be figured out.



The government gives people with hybrid vehicles a tax break. Why
shouldn't someone who uses a bicycle instead get an even larger one? Not
only do they use zero fossil fuel and create dramatically lower emissions,
but the environmental cost of building, maintaining and disposing of their
vehicle is several orders of magnitude lower. People who don't own cars at
all should get an even bigger break. As much as I like cars, need a car
and actually enjoy driving, it's pretty obvious that our priorities are
majorly screwed up.

I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it safe
to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual driving &
vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old lady here hit
two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were
garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't many places I feel
safe.

Doug Kanter wrote:

I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it safe
to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual driving &
vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old lady here hit
two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were
garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't many places I feel
safe.


Same here. About 8 months before I retired, I bought a 'comfort' type
bike from a well respected local bike shop. I had a number of the
components upgraded, such as crank, seat, rear wheel & spokes etc before
picking it up April 2003.
I used it regularly until the end of that October. I may have used it
once since then.
Here on the peninsula, the streets can be narrow and hilly with heavy
traffic at times. (think a smaller version of Boston downtown)

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.


Same here. About 8 months before I retired, I bought a 'comfort' type bike
from a well respected local bike shop. I had a number of the components
upgraded, such as crank, seat, rear wheel & spokes etc before picking it
up April 2003.
I used it regularly until the end of that October. I may have used it once
since then.
Here on the peninsula, the streets can be narrow and hilly with heavy
traffic at times. (think a smaller version of Boston downtown)

I don't understand why people don't think about elderly drivers correctly.
They think it's funny that old people drive down a 40 mph street doing 11
mph. But, nobody really wants to face reality and think about WHY old people
are driving that way.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:


I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.


Same here. About 8 months before I retired, I bought a 'comfort' type bike
from a well respected local bike shop. I had a number of the components
upgraded, such as crank, seat, rear wheel & spokes etc before picking it
up April 2003.
I used it regularly until the end of that October. I may have used it once
since then.
Here on the peninsula, the streets can be narrow and hilly with heavy
traffic at times. (think a smaller version of Boston downtown)


I don't understand why people don't think about elderly drivers correctly.
They think it's funny that old people drive down a 40 mph street doing 11
mph. But, nobody really wants to face reality and think about WHY old people
are driving that way.

Blame it on the AARP. They've done a heck of a job in blocking
common-sense laws that would require frequent driver testing of seniors.
It borders on being criminal. It's just a matter of time until they're
sued by the family of a victim of an incompetent senior driver. That day
can't come to soon.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:LmSTf.1281$Qm2.1278@trndny03...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
egroups.com...


John, will you please stow that kind of talk until they stop taxing
people without kids, to pay for schools?

Yeah...that'll work. Elderly voters in my school district tried it.
They'd come to town & school board meetings and complain about school
taxes, and how they didn't think it was fair to them to pay for
extracurricular activities. In the same breath, they'd bitch about how
"kids just hang around in gangs, all aimless & stuff, with nothin' to do,
and then they get in trouble. Something's gotta be done!"

As someone who doesn't have or want kids, I see it from a different
perspective. While I'm willing to contribute to the common good, why
should I have to do so at the same rate as someone who thinks it's cool to
pop out 4 or 5 kids? For that matter, why should anyone get a tax
DEDUCTION for having kids? Those who consume the most in services should
pay the most in taxes. If you don't force people to pay their own way,
they don't learn personal responsibility and they don't think about the
consequences of their (reproductive) actions. The welfare system taught us
that, in spades.


I'm OK with adjusting school taxes as you described. But, I'd qualify the
change as follows. Anyone who voted that way should have to wear one of
those electric training collars that some hunters use to teach Poopy to
retrieve dead ducks. If you complained about young stupid retail employees
who can't make change, you'd get shocked. Not sure how to monitor the
behavior, but I'm sure something could be figured out.

It's been shown over and over again that the problem with public schools
is not a lack of money. Besides, if you tax people without kids less and
people with kids more, there should be no decrease in revenue.

The government gives people with hybrid vehicles a tax break. Why
shouldn't someone who uses a bicycle instead get an even larger one? Not
only do they use zero fossil fuel and create dramatically lower emissions,
but the environmental cost of building, maintaining and disposing of their
vehicle is several orders of magnitude lower. People who don't own cars at
all should get an even bigger break. As much as I like cars, need a car
and actually enjoy driving, it's pretty obvious that our priorities are
majorly screwed up.

I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it safe
to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual driving &
vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old lady here hit
two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were
garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't many places I feel
safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...

I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.

That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another car,
you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to you on a
bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if" factor isn't
so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the drivers on our
roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that list
are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:7maUf.1345$Qm2.273@trndny03...


I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it
safe to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual
driving & vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old
lady here hit two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she
thought they were garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't
many places I feel safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.


That's just plain silly. If your car's tapped in a minor way by another car,
you may get a dented door or fender. If the same thing happens to you on a
bike, your risk of serious injury is vastly greater. The "if" factor isn't
so remote, either, considering that at least 80-90% of the drivers on our
roads fall into one or more of these categories:

-Clinically dead, but nobody's noticed yet
-Blind
-Drunk
-Too stupid to operate anything more complicated than a spoon
-Talking on the cell phone
-Exhausted

I'd love to see a lot more bikes in use, but until the factors on that list
are dealt with, I want a nice metal box around me.

Over 42,000 people die on the roads every year. Cycling deaths are ~700,
which means 60 times more people die in cars than on bikes. People take
driving for granted, but it's actually one of the most dangerous things
we do regulary, other than taking a shower.

In order to understand risk, you have to examine the data. Gut reactions
are almost always wrong. Look at how many people get all worked up over
West Nile Virus, when only a handful of people die from it each year. In
contrast, the flu kills around 40,000 people every year. I'm an avid
kayaker and when I discuss it with people many express concern about it
being dangerous. The average number of deaths in all forms of kayaking
in the US is 12 per year. Millions of people are afraid of flying, which
is the safest mode of transport in existence. When it comes to risk, the
perception of the average person isn't even close to the reality.