"HK" wrote in message
...

Chuck Gould wrote:

Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)



Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+ prices
at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to deny the
impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to downsize one's energy
consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a substantial luxury tax or energy
surtax on oversized pleasure vehicles, luxury yachts, private planes, et
cetera.


The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Chuck Gould wrote:
Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)


Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+ prices
at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to deny the
impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to downsize one's energy
consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a substantial luxury tax or energy
surtax on oversized pleasure vehicles, luxury yachts, private planes, et
cetera.


The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch




No. Some people have to drive long distances to get to their jobs or in
connection with their jobs.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:


The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch




No. Some people have to drive long distances to get to their jobs or in
connection with their jobs.

When we lived in Italy, we were rationed 400 liters of gas for our cars a
month.
If we wanted or needed more, we paid through the nose.

It worked.

Eisboch

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:59:50 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:


The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch




No. Some people have to drive long distances to get to their jobs or in
connection with their jobs.

When we lived in Italy, we were rationed 400 liters of gas for our cars a
month.
If we wanted or needed more, we paid through the nose.

It worked.

Eisboch


The big advantage of having a wife who worked for the government and had a
car registered in her name. We got 800 liters! Didn't use it because most
of our travel was by motorcycle.

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Chuck Gould wrote:
Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)


Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+
prices at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to
deny the impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to
downsize one's energy consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a
substantial luxury tax or energy surtax on oversized pleasure
vehicles, luxury yachts, private planes, et cetera.


The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch




No. Some people have to drive long distances to get to their jobs or in
connection with their jobs.

Why, shoudn't they be coerced into living within walking distance of
their work?

BAR wrote:



No. Some people have to drive long distances to get to their jobs or
in connection with their jobs.

Why, shoudn't they be coerced into living within walking distance of
their work?

Harry believes the only fair tax are those that don't effect him. Since
he only owns a little low transom Parker, everyone who owns something
bigger should pay his (Harry's) portion of the tax. Since Harry lives
in the woods, he shouldn't have to pay for the gas he drives to get to
the city.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:49:07 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...

Chuck Gould wrote:

Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)



Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+ prices
at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to deny the
impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to downsize one's energy
consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a substantial luxury tax or energy
surtax on oversized pleasure vehicles, luxury yachts, private planes, et
cetera.


The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch


Harry, if you're still reading - many of those trawlers are powered with
small diesels, burning almost nothing. Do you consider Wayne's or Chuck's
boats 'luxury yachts'?

On Oct 10, 1:05?pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:49:07 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

Chuck Gould wrote:

Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)

Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+ prices
at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to deny the
impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to downsize one's energy
consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a substantial luxury tax or energy
surtax on oversized pleasure vehicles, luxury yachts, private planes, et
cetera.

The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.

Eisboch

Harry, if you're still reading - many of those trawlers are powered with
small diesels, burning almost nothing. Do you consider Wayne's or Chuck's
boats 'luxury yachts'?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I realize over 4 nmpg. I'd be surprised to learn that Harry's boat is
more economical than that.

While Harry has the financial resources to own whatever he likes,
including a small fleet of boats, many of the people who are so
against medium size and larger boats adopt that position as a result
of poorly informed conclusions. People who own large boats are
stereotypically dismissed as folks with way too much money. (Large
boat = anything larger than the one the person complaining about large
boats happens to own). In reality, most of us with moderate or larger
size boats are juyst normal folks who have made different choices and
spent money with different priorities.

It amazes me how a guy driving down the freeway in a 40-foot, $350,000
motor home is perceived as a "retired working stiff, living the
America retirement dream while touring the country." Put the same guy
in a 40-foot, $150,000 boat and all of a sudden he's part of he
"wealthy elite, out of touch with the common man and wasting
resources."

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:05?pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:49:07 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Chuck Gould wrote:
Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)
Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+ prices
at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to deny the
impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to downsize one's energy
consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a substantial luxury tax or energy
surtax on oversized pleasure vehicles, luxury yachts, private planes, et
cetera.
The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.
Eisboch
Harry, if you're still reading - many of those trawlers are powered with
small diesels, burning almost nothing. Do you consider Wayne's or Chuck's
boats 'luxury yachts'?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I realize over 4 nmpg. I'd be surprised to learn that Harry's boat is
more economical than that.


Some small tests I've run on Son of Yo Ho indicate about 3.5 mpg at 26
mph. At your boat's speeds, my mileage goes down. 10 miles an hour
equals about 2 mpg.

HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:05?pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:49:07 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Chuck Gould wrote:
Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)
Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+
prices
at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to deny the
impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to downsize one's
energy
consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a substantial luxury tax or
energy
surtax on oversized pleasure vehicles, luxury yachts, private
planes, et
cetera.
The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.
Eisboch
Harry, if you're still reading - many of those trawlers are powered with
small diesels, burning almost nothing. Do you consider Wayne's or
Chuck's
boats 'luxury yachts'?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I realize over 4 nmpg. I'd be surprised to learn that Harry's boat is
more economical than that.


Some small tests I've run on Son of Yo Ho indicate about 3.5 mpg at 26
mph. At your boat's speeds, my mileage goes down. 10 miles an hour
equals about 2 mpg.

Since you were talking about your lobster boat yesterday, what kind of
mpg and gph does your lobster boat get?