113 gallons per hour...
 

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

Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to
that. But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing
is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in
it.




Let them complain.

And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to excess. The
Govenator's new universal health plan for children in California is to be
paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it is a good thing to have
cheap universal insurance, then let everyone pay for it.

113 gallons per hour...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:10:59 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

Chuck Gould wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?

What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

Watched Fox News with Brit Hume Thursday.
He noted that although oil almost hit $100 a barrel, energy is still
cheaper than in 1974.
Made my day.

I love this "adjusted for inflation" crap.

It's nonsense.

Why? Between the Dems and Repubs overspending, the dollar is very inflated.
Probably 20% of the stock market is inflation at minimum.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:58:04 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

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

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Who gets the money? Exxon?

Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

Harry, you're talking a dream world. We know nuclear energy works. Hell,
the French taught us. Brian Williams did a special on it the other night.
Of course, his emphasis was on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which I
couldn't understand. There seems to be a certain crowd of people who are
against any workable alternatives, but want to raise taxes to study them.

Nonsense.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:24:00 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .

I have two concerns with nuclear.

1) We need a better alternative to the fate of spent fuel than
sweeping it under the rug.

2) It isn't cheap. I pay one utility bill to a fossil fuel(coal)
electric company and another to a nuclear fuel company. The nuclear
kwh is about 30% higher in cost than the fossil fuel.

It is a tough question, but one we are going to have to come to terms
with... I'm damn near willing to do anything to remove us from the
teat of arab oil.....


I am for nuclear power, but I am not sure I understand how it will help in
getting us off of oil.
Nuc power will reduce fossil fuel use but it is primarily coal I think.

Eisboch

Plentiful nuke electricity should make electric commuter cars more
viable than they currently are. I don't have figures, but I'll bet
that most gasoline goes to commuting/grocery-getting/short trips.
Don't know how much home/plant heating is done with oil, but that
can go electric.
Here I heat with NG. That is already becoming near as expensive as
electric. Some power companies are using NG to generate electricity,
increasing gas costs even more.
Coal is filthy and probably causes more death and destruction every
few years as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, TMI and Chernoybyl combined.
It could be burned cleaner, but scrubbing the gases would probably
make it more expensive than nukes.
Nukes are the future. Or dirty air, cold houses and very expensive
locomotion fuel. That's how I see it, anyway.
Save most of the gas/deisel for trucks, airplanes and boats.
And my car, of course. A few will of us will keep gas cars.

--Vic

113 gallons per hour...
 

HK wrote:
Jim wrote:

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

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons
used for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but
obviously the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old
data (1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30
million gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20
million gallons of that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much
of a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification
for burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just
for kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


Less than 40 gph at cruise, with that number diminishing every couple of
years, so that eventually we end up with smaller boats burning a lot
less fuel or large boats with smaller engines.

How did you come up with the 40 gph number?

113 gallons per hour...
 

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

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours, being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing
for bigger fish. Are you suggesting that offshore fishing be
eliminated because the boats are bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Harry,
Why should one boat get a tax break and another one support someone
else's habit? Tax them all, and let God sort them out.

113 gallons per hour...
 

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

Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations set
up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve the
public's trust.

Good grief Harry, haven't you learned by now that government distributed
funds (usually grants) for more research and development of anything rarely
yields anything? Boondoogles mostly.

Real advancements will come from private industry when there is a financial
reward or return for the investment cost and effort.

Eisboch



There are ways to have foundation-managed research without having the
crooks of the oil industry involved.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours, being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat designed for use 40 or more miles offshore,
fishing for bigger fish. Are you suggesting that offshore fishing be
eliminated because the boats are bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Harry,
Why should one boat get a tax break and another one support someone
else's habit? Tax them all, and let God sort them out.



We should be encouraging more economical use of resources by taxing the
big users into boats with smaller engines.

113 gallons per hour...
 

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:58:04 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

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

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.
But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
Who gets the money? Exxon?
Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

Harry, you're talking a dream world. We know nuclear energy works. Hell,
the French taught us. Brian Williams did a special on it the other night.
Of course, his emphasis was on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which I
couldn't understand. There seems to be a certain crowd of people who are
against any workable alternatives, but want to raise taxes to study them.

Nonsense.


I support properly built and managed nuke plants. I live close to one.
Further, I believe the spent fuel rods should be stored in places like
Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, where the locals know no better.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:34:29 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:58:04 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

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

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.
But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
Who gets the money? Exxon?
Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

Harry, you're talking a dream world. We know nuclear energy works. Hell,
the French taught us. Brian Williams did a special on it the other night.
Of course, his emphasis was on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which I
couldn't understand. There seems to be a certain crowd of people who are
against any workable alternatives, but want to raise taxes to study them.

Nonsense.

I support properly built and managed nuke plants. I live close to one.
Further, I believe the spent fuel rods should be stored in places like
Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, where the locals know no better.

I support nukes too.

Nuke everything!!

113 gallons per hour...
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording
it. It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling
resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing
747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours, being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat designed for use 40 or more miles offshore,
fishing for bigger fish. Are you suggesting that offshore fishing
be eliminated because the boats are bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Harry,
Why should one boat get a tax break and another one support someone
else's habit? Tax them all, and let God sort them out.



We should be encouraging more economical use of resources by taxing the
big users into boats with smaller engines.

The vast majority of Americans don't own a boat, they would say that all
boaters should be taxed to save our limited resources. Since I don't
trailer a boat, and don't own a pickup truck, I think all pick up trucks
should pay a 100% surcharge on all gas purchased.

113 gallons per hour...
 

HK wrote:
Jim wrote:

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

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons
used for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but
obviously the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old
data (1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30
million gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20
million gallons of that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much
of a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification
for burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just
for kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


Less than 40 gph at cruise, with that number diminishing every couple of
years, so that eventually we end up with smaller boats burning a lot
less fuel or large boats with smaller engines.

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.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:59:50 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording
it. It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling
resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing
747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours, being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat designed for use 40 or more miles offshore,
fishing for bigger fish. Are you suggesting that offshore fishing
be eliminated because the boats are bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Harry,
Why should one boat get a tax break and another one support someone
else's habit? Tax them all, and let God sort them out.



We should be encouraging more economical use of resources by taxing the
big users into boats with smaller engines.

The vast majority of Americans don't own a boat, they would say that all
boaters should be taxed to save our limited resources. Since I don't
trailer a boat, and don't own a pickup truck, I think all pick up trucks
should pay a 100% surcharge on all gas purchased.

Well I think any car whose parent company is located in another
country should be taxed at 200% each year.

Cars from companies HQ'd in the US shouldn't be taxed.

Oh - special consideration for those who drive vehicles made by Ford -
as in a special bonus payment from the gubmint for supporting the best
car brand on the planet.

Except for Mustangs - even the best make mistakes from time-to-time.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:59:50 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording
it. It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling
resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing
747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours, being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat designed for use 40 or more miles offshore,
fishing for bigger fish. Are you suggesting that offshore fishing
be eliminated because the boats are bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch

Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
Harry,
Why should one boat get a tax break and another one support someone
else's habit? Tax them all, and let God sort them out.


We should be encouraging more economical use of resources by taxing the
big users into boats with smaller engines.
The vast majority of Americans don't own a boat, they would say that all
boaters should be taxed to save our limited resources. Since I don't
trailer a boat, and don't own a pickup truck, I think all pick up trucks
should pay a 100% surcharge on all gas purchased.

Well I think any car whose parent company is located in another
country should be taxed at 200% each year.

Cars from companies HQ'd in the US shouldn't be taxed.

Oh - special consideration for those who drive vehicles made by Ford -
as in a special bonus payment from the gubmint for supporting the best
car brand on the planet.

Except for Mustangs - even the best make mistakes from time-to-time.

I agree with all of your points, but think we need to make sure Mazda is
included in the tax support, since they are a division of Ford.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording
it. It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling
resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing
747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours, being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat designed for use 40 or more miles offshore,
fishing for bigger fish. Are you suggesting that offshore fishing
be eliminated because the boats are bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Harry,
Why should one boat get a tax break and another one support someone
else's habit? Tax them all, and let God sort them out.



We should be encouraging more economical use of resources by taxing
the big users into boats with smaller engines.

The vast majority of Americans don't own a boat, they would say that all
boaters should be taxed to save our limited resources. Since I don't
trailer a boat, and don't own a pickup truck, I think all pick up trucks
should pay a 100% surcharge on all gas purchased.


Works for me. :}

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Nov 9, 6:08 pm, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:35:52 -0500, HK wrote:
Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

Here is an even bigger way to get deeper into the hole. How much more
should those folks pay?

http://www.nice-ventures.com/blog/up...ASY-CRUISE-SHI...

I always thought you did pay on a Carnival. Most people got seemingly
deathly ill ont he first day. did anyone ever figure out why?

113 gallons per hour...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:12:38 -0500, BAR wrote:

HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?


What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?
As high as diesel fuel has risen, it is still a relatively small
percentage of overall costs with a large sportfish. The guys being
impacted the most are the ones with large gas engines. Those boats
tend to be smaller and less expensive which makes fuel cost a much
larger piece of the overall budget.

Anyone thinking about buying a large diesel powered boat that is
worried about fuel costs just can't afford it.
You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Does your 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat waste huge amounts of
dwindling resources for your fun?

Give it up man - it's not going anywhere.

We get the point.

I think I've finally figure it out. Harry is the idiot everyone keeps
around because his antics are funny as hell. Nobody, I hope, believes
the crap he throws around.

113 gallons per hour...
 

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:32:10 -0500, HK wrote:

We should be encouraging more economical use of resources by taxing the
big users into boats with smaller engines.

Absolutely, all Yamaha outboards more than 20 hp should be hit with a
$20K/year surtax. And let's tax inefficient V8 SUVs while we're at
it, especially Toyota 4 Runners and people who live in homes with more
than 1,000 sq ft per person. Then we can start on private aviation of
all types.

Better yet, let's go to fuel rationing. Bring in Fidel, he'll know
how to implement all this.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:43:57 -0500, HK wrote:

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is a
matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch




There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier
air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

You seem bitter about something, Harry. Are the guys with the big
boats catching all your fish?

113 gallons per hour...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:34:29 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:58:04 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

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

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording
it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.
But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish.
Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats
are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
Who gets the money? Exxon?
Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and
development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes
any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

Harry, you're talking a dream world. We know nuclear energy works. Hell,
the French taught us. Brian Williams did a special on it the other
night.
Of course, his emphasis was on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which I
couldn't understand. There seems to be a certain crowd of people who are
against any workable alternatives, but want to raise taxes to study
them.

Nonsense.

I support properly built and managed nuke plants. I live close to one.
Further, I believe the spent fuel rods should be stored in places like
Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, where the locals know no better.

I support nukes too.

Nuke everything!!

specially that Woodstock. All those heathen rock and rollers and galactic
rulers.

I know it is a different Woodstock, but does not matter.

113 gallons per hour...
 

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.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:14:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Navistar is developing a very interesting diesel/electric hybrid lift
truck for utility companies. According to them, in tests, they are
achieving fuel reductions of 50/60% over normal lift truck operations.

It's only a matter of time until that gets to larger boats.

The strength of hybrids comes from good acceleration with a relatively
small engine. That does not compute for constant speed/constant power
applications like a boat.

113 gallons per hour...
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

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

Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to
that. But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing
is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in
it.




Let them complain.

And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to excess. The
Govenator's new universal health plan for children in California is to be
paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it is a good thing to have
cheap universal insurance, then let everyone pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22. Smoking is
declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten the decline as will
the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

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

Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to
that. But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing
is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in
it.




Let them complain.

And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to excess.
The Govenator's new universal health plan for children in California is
to be paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it is a good thing to
have cheap universal insurance, then let everyone pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22. Smoking
is declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten the decline as
will the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch


Boaters. :)

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:57:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:14:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Navistar is developing a very interesting diesel/electric hybrid lift
truck for utility companies. According to them, in tests, they are
achieving fuel reductions of 50/60% over normal lift truck operations.

It's only a matter of time until that gets to larger boats.

The strength of hybrids comes from good acceleration with a relatively
small engine. That does not compute for constant speed/constant power
applications like a boat.

I'm not at all sure about that.

I read somewhere recently that the new diesel/electric hybrid freight
train engines are so damn efficient it's scary. I think, and I can't
remember the exact figures (maybe somebody who can make Google sing
can find it please?), it was 480 tons for 30 miles on one gallon of
diesel.

Again, that's the way I remember it - it was on Discovery one evening
and I was half paying attention, but I think that's pretty close to
what they said.

And diesel/electric submarines are pretty damn efficient.

113 gallons per hour...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:57:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:14:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Navistar is developing a very interesting diesel/electric hybrid lift
truck for utility companies. According to them, in tests, they are
achieving fuel reductions of 50/60% over normal lift truck operations.

It's only a matter of time until that gets to larger boats.

The strength of hybrids comes from good acceleration with a relatively
small engine. That does not compute for constant speed/constant power
applications like a boat.

I'm not at all sure about that.

I read somewhere recently that the new diesel/electric hybrid freight
train engines are so damn efficient it's scary. I think, and I can't
remember the exact figures (maybe somebody who can make Google sing
can find it please?), it was 480 tons for 30 miles on one gallon of
diesel.

Again, that's the way I remember it - it was on Discovery one evening
and I was half paying attention, but I think that's pretty close to
what they said.

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.

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to
that. But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing
is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in
it.



Let them complain.
And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to excess. The
Govenator's new universal health plan for children in California is to be
paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it is a good thing to have
cheap universal insurance, then let everyone pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22. Smoking is
declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten the decline as will
the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch



The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit. We
all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

I am sure there are some who would prefer that all rec. boating be
outlawed as it is waste of limited resources. I guess we can all buy
sailboats w/o a iron gennie.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:43:57 -0500, HK wrote:

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is a
matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch



There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier
air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

You seem bitter about something, Harry. Are the guys with the big
boats catching all your fish?


Isn't it amazing, Wayne, that when I put up a post about boating that is
even slightly controversial, it provokes lots of boating-related
discussion?

Have a nice day.

113 gallons per hour...
 

HK wrote:


Isn't it amazing, Wayne, that when I put up a post about boating that is
even slightly controversial, it provokes lots of boating-related
discussion?

Have a nice day.

Actually, this was a great thread, because it did encourage lots of
boating related discussion. The problem with your surtax is it would
not be any real impact on our national consumption of fuel. The only
way to do that is to substantially increase the tax all fuel to
encourage new technology for alternative energy and the use of fuel
efficient cars. Your surcharge on boating related fuel, at best, would
put small boat mfg'ers out of business. These are the same ones you
wish would stay in business.

I do agree with Eisboch, that the government has consistently proven to
be the least effective way to encourage innovation and effective
research to solve complex problems. I would use the tax to encourage
private businesses to find solutions, via tax incentives to those who
are able to find effective solutions.

It does seem that your surcharge on fuel is like everyone's tax
recommendations, they want the next guy to pay the tax, and not them.
Your tax would not really provide a solution, but seemed to be designed
to punish those who have a bigger boat just because they have a bigger
boat.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than,
say, 40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close
to that. But there are others that would complain because offshore
fishing is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot
invested in it.



Let them complain.
And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to
excess. The Govenator's new universal health plan for children in
California is to be paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it
is a good thing to have cheap universal insurance, then let everyone
pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22.
Smoking is declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten
the decline as will the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch


The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit. We
all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

I don't see the correlation between smoking and health costs? I quite
smoking when I was 40, after 29 years of two to three, packs a day. I
was sick usually two days a year, never saw a doctor unless a bone was
broken. Then after I quit smoking I fell apart. Back, neck, foot, and
many other things.

I am sure there are some who would prefer that all rec. boating be
outlawed as it is waste of limited resources. I guess we can all buy
sailboats w/o a iron gennie.

If they can penalize half of the boaters now it will be easier to
penalize all of the boaters later. Once the camel gets its nose under
the tent its body soon follows.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:


Isn't it amazing, Wayne, that when I put up a post about boating that
is even slightly controversial, it provokes lots of boating-related
discussion?

Have a nice day.

Actually, this was a great thread, because it did encourage lots of
boating related discussion. The problem with your surtax is it would
not be any real impact on our national consumption of fuel. The only
way to do that is to substantially increase the tax all fuel to
encourage new technology for alternative energy and the use of fuel
efficient cars. Your surcharge on boating related fuel, at best, would
put small boat mfg'ers out of business. These are the same ones you
wish would stay in business.

I do agree with Eisboch, that the government has consistently proven to
be the least effective way to encourage innovation and effective
research to solve complex problems. I would use the tax to encourage
private businesses to find solutions, via tax incentives to those who
are able to find effective solutions.

It does seem that your surcharge on fuel is like everyone's tax
recommendations, they want the next guy to pay the tax, and not them.
Your tax would not really provide a solution, but seemed to be designed
to punish those who have a bigger boat just because they have a bigger
boat.


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

The surtax is aimed at what society may deem is excessive use of a
diminishing asset.

Well, there are other ways to accomplish the goal of reducing the amount
of fuel pleasure boats use

113 gallons per hour...
 

BAR wrote:


The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit.
We all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

I don't see the correlation between smoking and health costs? I quite
smoking when I was 40, after 29 years of two to three, packs a day. I
was sick usually two days a year, never saw a doctor unless a bone was
broken. Then after I quit smoking I fell apart. Back, neck, foot, and
many other things.

Statistically, there is a very strong direct correlation between smoking
and health cost, just as their is a strong correlation between obesity
and health costs. It does not mean that all smokers and/or obese people
have higher health cost, but these two factors have a major impact on
the cost to society and health insurance, which we all pay for.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
BAR wrote:


The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit.
We all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

I don't see the correlation between smoking and health costs? I quite
smoking when I was 40, after 29 years of two to three, packs a day. I
was sick usually two days a year, never saw a doctor unless a bone was
broken. Then after I quit smoking I fell apart. Back, neck, foot, and
many other things.

Statistically, there is a very strong direct correlation between smoking
and health cost, just as their is a strong correlation between obesity
and health costs. It does not mean that all smokers and/or obese people
have higher health cost, but these two factors have a major impact on
the cost to society and health insurance, which we all pay for.


Let's see...

He quit at 40, after smoking for 29 years.

40-29=11.

He started smoking at 11.

That pretty much says it all.

113 gallons per hour...
 

113 gallons per hour...
 

113 gallons per hour...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
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.


The thing I find crazy...every year the outboard manufacturers bring out a
bigger & more powerful engine.
When will it ever stop?

113 gallons per hour...
 

"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

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Nov 11, 7:37 am, HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Well, there are other ways to accomplish the goal of reducing the amount
of fuel pleasure boats use- Hide quoted text -


put up a sail?

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Nov 11, 11:01 am, HK wrote:


You want to reform the tax codes? Exempt the poor, however that is
defined,

No more free ride, unless your earnings are under a certain level.

I didn't know the "poor" paid tax's. So how could you exempt them?