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

You want to reform the tax codes? Exempt the poor, however that is
defined, and then tax *all* income from, say, $50,000 to $100,000 at 10%,
all income above that to $250,000 at 15%, all income above that to
$500,000 at 20%, all income above that to $1,000,000 at 25%, and any
income above $1,000,000 at 49%.

No deductions. No shifting of money coming in to other categories so it
isn't considered income.

Oh, and supervised bookkeeping for corporations. No funny business with
the books. And income tax on corporate profits, too.

Every entity pays.

Churches, too.


Not bad. I'd probably support that.

I have a general question though. Why the stepped increases for higher
incomes?
The person/family making 100k in your plan pays 10k in taxes. A
person/family making 250k pays over three times the taxes (32.5k) but only
earned 2.5 times as much. Just curious as to your reasoning.

Eisboch



It is to teach you not to earn as much money.

Karl Marx pushed for the progressive tax. The Democrats jumped on his
bandwagon.

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

You want to reform the tax codes? Exempt the poor, however that is
defined, and then tax *all* income from, say, $50,000 to $100,000 at
10%, all income above that to $250,000 at 15%, all income above that
to $500,000 at 20%, all income above that to $1,000,000 at 25%, and
any income above $1,000,000 at 49%.

No deductions. No shifting of money coming in to other categories so
it isn't considered income.

Oh, and supervised bookkeeping for corporations. No funny business
with the books. And income tax on corporate profits, too.

Every entity pays.

Churches, too.


Not bad. I'd probably support that.

I have a general question though. Why the stepped increases for
higher incomes?
The person/family making 100k in your plan pays 10k in taxes. A
person/family making 250k pays over three times the taxes (32.5k) but
only earned 2.5 times as much. Just curious as to your reasoning.

Eisboch




I still believe in progressive income taxation. I also didn't spend 20
seconds on the math, and I wanted to make the "jumps" easy. Just a
starting point for discussion.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:27:20 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:02:43 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

And diesel/electric submarines are pretty damn efficient.

If the setup allows the diesel engine to run at a constant, optimum RPM,
regardless of vehicle speed (as diesels are really designed to do) there
will be a gain in efficiency.

Yes, and that's important on a train, it's likely having a
continuously variable transmission that allows the engine to run at an
efficient speed regardless of the actual load. On a boat running at a
more or less constant cruising speed, running at the right RPM is a
function of reduction gear ratios and prop pitch. Once you get those
two factors set correctly they will stay that way in most cases. The
one exception that comes to mind is slowing down for rough seas but
real men in real boats don't do that do they? :-)

So why wouldn't it work on a larger boat?

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:39:44 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

And diesel/electric submarines are pretty damn efficient.

If the setup allows the diesel engine to run at a constant, optimum RPM,
regardless of vehicle speed (as diesels are really designed to do) there
will be a gain in efficiency.

Yes, and that's important on a train, it's likely having a
continuously variable transmission that allows the engine to run at an
efficient speed regardless of the actual load. On a boat running at a
more or less constant cruising speed, running at the right RPM is a
function of reduction gear ratios and prop pitch. Once you get those
two factors set correctly they will stay that way in most cases. The
one exception that comes to mind is slowing down for rough seas but
real men in real boats don't do that do they? :-)

So why wouldn't it work on a larger boat?

It will work but there is little or nothing to gain unless the boat
runs at a variety of different speeds and/or the engines exceed the
ability of reasonably sized mechanical transmissions. Diesel-Electric
is considerably more expensive than a mechanical transmission and is
not cost effective in boats with less than locomotive sized engines.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:27:20 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:02:43 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

And diesel/electric submarines are pretty damn efficient.

If the setup allows the diesel engine to run at a constant, optimum RPM,
regardless of vehicle speed (as diesels are really designed to do) there
will be a gain in efficiency.

Yes, and that's important on a train, it's likely having a
continuously variable transmission that allows the engine to run at an
efficient speed regardless of the actual load. On a boat running at a
more or less constant cruising speed, running at the right RPM is a
function of reduction gear ratios and prop pitch. Once you get those
two factors set correctly they will stay that way in most cases. The
one exception that comes to mind is slowing down for rough seas but
real men in real boats don't do that do they? :-)

So why wouldn't it work on a larger boat?


Like Wayne pointed out, usually on large diesel boats you run them at a
constant speed most of the time anyway, hopefully at an optimum RPM for prop
pitch, cruising speed and fuel efficiency.

I was thinking more of hybrid cars and trucks that run at varying speeds. A
small, biofuel diesel would run at a constant RPM, turning an alternator
that charges a battery bank.

Eisboch

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:14:19 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:39:44 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

And diesel/electric submarines are pretty damn efficient.

If the setup allows the diesel engine to run at a constant, optimum RPM,
regardless of vehicle speed (as diesels are really designed to do) there
will be a gain in efficiency.

Yes, and that's important on a train, it's likely having a
continuously variable transmission that allows the engine to run at an
efficient speed regardless of the actual load. On a boat running at a
more or less constant cruising speed, running at the right RPM is a
function of reduction gear ratios and prop pitch. Once you get those
two factors set correctly they will stay that way in most cases. The
one exception that comes to mind is slowing down for rough seas but
real men in real boats don't do that do they? :-)

So why wouldn't it work on a larger boat?

It will work but there is little or nothing to gain unless the boat
runs at a variety of different speeds and/or the engines exceed the
ability of reasonably sized mechanical transmissions. Diesel-Electric
is considerably more expensive than a mechanical transmission and is
not cost effective in boats with less than locomotive sized engines.

Ok - so if Navistar can make this work for utility lift trucks with
that kind of efficiency, would they work in boats?

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Tim" wrote in message
ups.com...


I look at it like this, the more you make the higher percentage you
are taxed, which I think gives less of an incintive to suceed. What's
the point of working harder if you are going to enjoy less of the
financial benefits.



I never made a "big" income throughout my working career. In fact, in the
later years when I had a company, some of the employees made more than I
did. They were also always paid without fail .... I wasn't.

I agree that if you take away the incentives to work harder, better or
whatever you start, in some, to affect the desire to succeed. I also
think, as a general rule, people with more disposable income tend to be
more generous in giving in terms of donations, etc. Not because they are
better people, it's simply because they can.

That' been my experience anyway.

Eisboch

I bet you didn't run a union shop.

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Tim" wrote in message
ups.com...


I look at it like this, the more you make the higher percentage you
are taxed, which I think gives less of an incintive to suceed. What's
the point of working harder if you are going to enjoy less of the
financial benefits.



I never made a "big" income throughout my working career. In fact, in
the later years when I had a company, some of the employees made more
than I did. They were also always paid without fail .... I wasn't.

I agree that if you take away the incentives to work harder, better or
whatever you start, in some, to affect the desire to succeed. I also
think, as a general rule, people with more disposable income tend to be
more generous in giving in terms of donations, etc. Not because they are
better people, it's simply because they can.

That' been my experience anyway.

Eisboch

I bet you didn't run a union shop.


No, but we had contracts with many companies that were unionized. An eye
opening experience, for sure.

Eisboch

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:05:19 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:37:54 -0500, HK wrote:

My suggestion would have minimal if any impact on the manufacturers of
small boats.


It would be hard to enforce a gas tax on small boats since people
usually just bring the gas to the boat in cans. You really can't tell
whether I am buying "boat gas" or gas for my lawn mower.


Hey, I am in favor of any nearly rational system that makes "excessive
use" of dwindling natural resources *very* expensive for the offenders,
and I've already voted: any individual's boat that can burn 100+ gallons
an hour is, by definition, "excessive use."

We're either going to take energy conservation seriously, or we're going
to run out of oil sooner rather than later.

Why not tax anything that is 'fun' and consumes resources? Of course, we'd
have to have a bigger government to handle all that money.

Does Al still ride those big jets everywhere?

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:54:37 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:04:18 -0500, Dan intrceptor@gmaildotcom
wrote:

Large boats with smaller engines would burn less fuel per hour, but the
MPG would be worse since they have to run the same distance, dummy.

In actual practice it does not work out that way. It takes a huge
increase in fuel consumption to run a large boat on plane. The same
boat run at something like 1.2 times the SQRT of waterline length will
average much less on a per mile basis. That's why people buy
trawlers.

That's 5.1 mph for me. That's too fast to troll for stripers, but it would
be good for spanish mackerel.

Sounds good. Thanks!