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.

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 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.

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 ......

"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

"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.

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? :-)

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.

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!

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.