|
113 gallons per hour...
On Nov 11, 11:23 am, "Don White" wrote:
The thing I find crazy...every year the outboard manufacturers bring out a bigger & more powerful engine. When will it ever stop? Same way with pick up trucks. |
113 gallons per hour...
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. |
113 gallons per hour...
On Nov 11, 11:26 am, "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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Richard, I'd say it's probably like having a boat with 4 300 hp. outboards, fuel consumption at half throttle is a set standard, and full throttle, consumption is well over double that standard. go figure. My wife got a raise which i thought was substantial, now she takes home less than she did, because she's now in a higher bracket. go figure. 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. |
113 gallons per hour...
On Nov 11, 11:37 am, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:31:00 -0000, Tim wrote: I didn't know the "poor" paid tax's. So how could you exempt them? The poor pay sin taxes (alcohol, tobacco) and they are not likely to stop. They also pay FICA on the first dollar and sales taxes on everything they buy. And they also can eat up far more than that, on Food stamps, no/low income housing, medical ...... |
113 gallons per hour...
"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 |
113 gallons per hour...
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message ... 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. There are a bunch of studies which disprove the increased lifetime health costs with smokers. The taxes that are collected exceed societies cost to take care of the person and on average they die sooner. Something like 80% of a persons health costs are in the last 2 years of life. And the smoker dies before all the small **** adds up. Raise the health insurance for a smoker. Actually they do lots of times. There should be freedom of choice. Where is a Twinkie Tax? A fatburger tax? All these are also unhealthy. Maybe we need 1984 or the government that would generate "Escape from LA" scenarios. |
113 gallons per hour...
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? :-) |
113 gallons per hour...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:25:08 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote: On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:03:16 -0500, John H. penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: 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 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..... New technology greatly reduces the amount of waste. France seems to have a good handle on the waste problem. Nuclear power may not reduce the gasoline used, but it would sure free up some natural gas. |
113 gallons per hour...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:08:00 -0500, HK wrote:
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. :} I think that was his point! |
113 gallons per hour...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:25:49 -0800, Tim wrote:
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? That wasn't my point, but that's OK. I don't think any of the cruise ships have had 'most' of the people sick. That would number in the thousands. But, when a hundred or so get sick on a cruise ship, it's big news. Of course, that hasn't happened on a Disney ship -- yet. |
113 gallons per hour...
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. |
113 gallons per hour...
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? |
113 gallons per hour...
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. |
113 gallons per hour...
"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 |
113 gallons per hour...
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? |
113 gallons per hour...
"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. |
113 gallons per hour...
"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 |
113 gallons per hour...
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? |
113 gallons per hour...
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! |
113 gallons per hour...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:02:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: 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. Ask and ye shall receive. http://tinyurl.com/2p6p2t or maybe this one: http://tinyurl.com/jnuxz |
113 gallons per hour...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:11:29 -0500, "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 Besides, the population with the greatest percent of smokers is the poor. There is one political group which seems to forget that. Maybe the rationale is to make them poorer, and then tax the rich even more to redistribute the wealth. That would make good sense. http://tinyurl.com/2pl7p9 |
113 gallons per hour...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:11:22 -0500, BAR wrote:
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. You were lucky as a smoker. After two bouts of pneumonia and a diagnosis of emphysema, I finally got smart enough to quit. Haven't had pneumonia since, and the emphysema hasn't gotten any worse. Of course, the cholesterol and blood sugar are both higher, but there has to be some bad with the good. Golf, if walking, is good for cholesterol and blood sugar problems, BTW. Another BTW - I've a brother coming up from NC and another flying in from Seattle this evening. We're planning five days of mid-November golf, and I think we lucked out in the weather department! |
113 gallons per hour...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:25:42 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"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. Yeah - It's slowly sinking in that it might not work. I just hate giving up on the idea though. :) |
113 gallons per hour...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:54:35 -0000, Tim wrote:
On Nov 11, 11:26 am, "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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Richard, I'd say it's probably like having a boat with 4 300 hp. outboards, fuel consumption at half throttle is a set standard, and full throttle, consumption is well over double that standard. go figure. My wife got a raise which i thought was substantial, now she takes home less than she did, because she's now in a higher bracket. go figure. 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. The French finally figured that out. |
113 gallons per hour...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:37:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: 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? I don't think so. Utlity lift trucks are constantly changing speeds, most boats do not. |
113 gallons per hour...
Don White wrote:
The thing I find crazy...every year the outboard manufacturers bring out a bigger & more powerful engine. When will it ever stop? Those larger OB's often replace twins that are heavier and burn more fuel. |
113 gallons per hour...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:11:29 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote: snippity-snip 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 Kansas decided to ride the tobacco tax windfall and raised the taxes by a huge amount. Missouri next door left the tobacco taxes alone. Kansas lost their asses while Missouri gained a huge tax proffit because the eastern half of Kansas was going to Missouri to buy cigaretts. Greed? LOL Kansas even tried laws and border checks until they got their asses sued over it. Mark E. Williams |
113 gallons per hour...
"John H." wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:54:35 -0000, Tim wrote: On Nov 11, 11:26 am, "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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Richard, I'd say it's probably like having a boat with 4 300 hp. outboards, fuel consumption at half throttle is a set standard, and full throttle, consumption is well over double that standard. go figure. My wife got a raise which i thought was substantial, now she takes home less than she did, because she's now in a higher bracket. go figure. Something doesn't compute. Even though a raise in salary can put you in a higher tax bracket I just can't think of how your net, after tax income can be lower than before the salary increase. The tax rate for the new bracket would have to be 100%. 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. The French finally figured that out. |
113 gallons per hour...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
.. I just hate giving up on the idea though. :) I am sure you won't. |
113 gallons per hour...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:29:15 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: . I just hate giving up on the idea though. :) I am sure you won't. Damn straight. :) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com