Owning in retirement

[Ross]

I am getting close to this event. I was wondering how those that have
already retired keep an airplane. I am fortunate that I have a
moderately priced hangar, reasonable (this is relative) fuel for my
area, and perform owner assisted annuals. But, I am concerned on keeping
the flying going and not feel that I have to let it sit more than I
should. I have always been the sole owner since I purchased it over 10
years ago. Thanks.
--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Bob Fry]

Perhaps adding a trusted pilot friend to your insurance so he/she is
named, and they can fly your plane just for filling it with gas and
paying any extra insurance cost.
--
If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then
there'd be peace.
~ John Lennon

[Bob Fry]

Oh, and also try CamGuard http://www.aslcamguard.com/
Got a good review from Aviation Consumer
http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/36_4/maintenancematters/5541-1.html
(have to be a subscriber)
--
If you ever catch on fire, try to avoid looking in a mirror,
because I bet that will really throw you into a panic.
- Jack Handey

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Ross > wrote:

> I am getting close to this event. I was wondering how those that have
> already retired keep an airplane. I am fortunate that I have a
> moderately priced hangar, reasonable (this is relative) fuel for my
> area, and perform owner assisted annuals. But, I am concerned on keeping
> the flying going and not feel that I have to let it sit more than I
> should. I have always been the sole owner since I purchased it over 10
> years ago. Thanks.

I always made the max contributions to my 401(K) plan, retired early,
sold my 3-BR 2.5 bath townhome in CA, bought a 3 BR, 3 BA hangar homw,
with pool in FL. The 401(K), plus pension, plus Social Security, less
the state income tax and Social Security tax, enables me to do it.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 22, 7:24*am, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article >,

> I always made the max contributions to my 401(K) plan, retired early,
> sold my 3-BR 2.5 bath townhome in CA, bought a 3 BR, 3 BA hangar homw,
> with pool in FL. The 401(K), plus pension, plus Social Security, less
> the state income tax and Social Security tax, enables me to do it.

*Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the state
of California over $30,000 in income tax. Man, I need to get some of
that FL myself. I'm paying $600/month in property taxes for my house
and I can't even write it off (AMT). I just bought a used boat and had
to pay almost $2000 in use tax. I think I'm getting the short end.

-Robert

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Apr 22, 7:24*am, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
> > In article >,
>
> > I always made the max contributions to my 401(K) plan, retired early,
> > sold my 3-BR 2.5 bath townhome in CA, bought a 3 BR, 3 BA hangar homw,
> > with pool in FL. The 401(K), plus pension, plus Social Security, less
> > the state income tax and Social Security tax, enables me to do it.
>
> *Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the state
> of California over $30,000 in income tax. Man, I need to get some of
> that FL myself. I'm paying $600/month in property taxes for my house
> and I can't even write it off (AMT). I just bought a used boat and had
> to pay almost $2000 in use tax. I think I'm getting the short end.
>
> -Robert

That's why we escaped from the People's Republik of Kalifornia! THere is
also no "unsecured personal property tax" on boats, airplanes, etc. Auto
tag is $30 per year. Real property tax, however, is about 3%.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Ross]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:24 am, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
>> In article >,
>
>> I always made the max contributions to my 401(K) plan, retired early,
>> sold my 3-BR 2.5 bath townhome in CA, bought a 3 BR, 3 BA hangar homw,
>> with pool in FL. The 401(K), plus pension, plus Social Security, less
>> the state income tax and Social Security tax, enables me to do it.
>
> *Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the state
> of California over $30,000 in income tax. Man, I need to get some of
> that FL myself. I'm paying $600/month in property taxes for my house
> and I can't even write it off (AMT). I just bought a used boat and had
> to pay almost $2000 in use tax. I think I'm getting the short end.
>
> -Robert
>

We in TX do not pay state income tax either.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> *Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the state
> of California over $30,000 in income tax.


How can you not know this? There are a handful of states that do not
have state income tax. WA, WY, TX, SD, FL, AL and NV. NH and TN only
tax dividend income. California has some nice scenery but people that
actually live there have lost their ever lovin' minds.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 23, 9:27*am, Newps > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > *Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the state
> > of California over $30,000 in income tax.
>
> How can you not know this? *There are a handful of states that do not
> have state income tax. *WA, WY, TX, SD, FL, AL and NV. *NH and TN only
> tax dividend income. *California has some nice scenery but people that
> actually live there have lost their ever lovin' minds.

I wonder if that will stay the same. WA is becoming so liberal I can't
imagine them not wanting more gov't money. I remember about 10 years
ago FL talking about an income tax (so they could tax those rich
*******s moving down from NY).

-Robert

[Newps]

States that have no income tax are usually fiercely anti income tax. FL
will never change as the retirees are their golden goose, my folks live
there in the winter. Most retirees are not residents of Florida
anyways, they are snowbirds who keep their legal residency somewhere else.






Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:27 am, Newps > wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>> *Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the state
>>> of California over $30,000 in income tax.
>> How can you not know this? There are a handful of states that do not
>> have state income tax. WA, WY, TX, SD, FL, AL and NV. NH and TN only
>> tax dividend income. California has some nice scenery but people that
>> actually live there have lost their ever lovin' minds.
>
> I wonder if that will stay the same. WA is becoming so liberal I can't
> imagine them not wanting more gov't money. I remember about 10 years
> ago FL talking about an income tax (so they could tax those rich
> *******s moving down from NY).
>
> -Robert

[Ross]

Newps wrote:
> States that have no income tax are usually fiercely anti income tax. FL
> will never change as the retirees are their golden goose, my folks live
> there in the winter. Most retirees are not residents of Florida
> anyways, they are snowbirds who keep their legal residency somewhere else.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 9:27 am, Newps > wrote:
>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>> *Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the state
>>>> of California over $30,000 in income tax.
>>> How can you not know this? There are a handful of states that do not
>>> have state income tax. WA, WY, TX, SD, FL, AL and NV. NH and TN only
>>> tax dividend income. California has some nice scenery but people that
>>> actually live there have lost their ever lovin' minds.
>>
>> I wonder if that will stay the same. WA is becoming so liberal I can't
>> imagine them not wanting more gov't money. I remember about 10 years
>> ago FL talking about an income tax (so they could tax those rich
>> *******s moving down from NY).
>>
>> -Robert

TX's real estate taxes are pretty high, but then we do not have the
income tax and we do not have personal property taxes on boats, cars,
airplanes. Food is exempted (unless processed) from taxes. Our state /
city sales tax is 8.25%. There are little percentages included for city
road improvements, and several other little special projects that I
cannot remember right now. Housing is reasonable here. My wife wanted to
look at possibly retiring in Florida and I found housing high. But, I am
not fond of Florida, sorry. Nice place to visit and I will be at
Disneyworld the first part of May...

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "N" == Newps > writes:

N> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> *Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the
>> state of California over $30,000 in income tax.


N> How can you not know this? There are a handful of states that
N> do not have state income tax. WA, WY, TX, SD, FL, AL and NV.
N> NH and TN only tax dividend income. California has some nice
N> scenery but people that actually live there have lost their
N> ever lovin' minds.

The fox and the grapes (sour grapes)

A hungry fox passed below a fine bunch of grapes hanging high from a
vine. After trying in vain to jump and reach them he gave up, saying
to himself as he walked off, "the grapes looked ripe, but I see now
they are quite sour."
--
Democracy used to be a good thing, but now it has gotten into the
wrong hands.
~ Jessie Helms

[Vaughn Simon]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Most retirees are not residents of Florida anyways, they are snowbirds who
> keep their legal residency somewhere else.

That is not what I see. I think as many retirees as possible try to pass
themselves off as Florida citizens to avoid taxes. I live in Florida and I see
retirees that only live here a few months out the the year arrive from up north
in cars with Florida license tags. I know for a fact that some of them live
most of the year in large northern cities, but their auto insurance company
thinks they live in Florida (where auto insurance is a lot less). Most have
probably also figured out a way to receive their retirement income in Florida to
avoid their own state income tax. Also, Florida residents get a much better
rate on property taxes than non-residents do.

I don't blame these folks. You can be sure that when I am a retired person
(it won't be long now) my actual residence is likely to be a very nebulous
thing, a thing only for the wife and I to know for sure.

Vaughn

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> States that have no income tax are usually fiercely anti income tax. FL
> will never change as the retirees are their golden goose, my folks live
> there in the winter. Most retirees are not residents of Florida anyways,
> they are snowbirds who keep their legal residency somewhere else.

And most (all?) of those rich *******s are not living on regular income, but
on pensions and savings, mostly sheltered from tax consequences.


>
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 9:27 am, Newps > wrote:
>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>> *Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the state
>>>> of California over $30,000 in income tax.
>>> How can you not know this? There are a handful of states that do not
>>> have state income tax. WA, WY, TX, SD, FL, AL and NV. NH and TN only
>>> tax dividend income. California has some nice scenery but people that
>>> actually live there have lost their ever lovin' minds.
>>
>> I wonder if that will stay the same. WA is becoming so liberal I can't
>> imagine them not wanting more gov't money. I remember about 10 years
>> ago FL talking about an income tax (so they could tax those rich
>> *******s moving down from NY).
>>
>> -Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 23, 10:24*am, Newps > wrote:
> States that have no income tax are usually fiercely anti income tax. *FL
> will never change as the retirees are their golden goose, my folks live
> there in the winter. *Most retirees are not residents of Florida
> anyways, they are snowbirds who keep their legal residency somewhere else.

I used to see those guys when I would visit Tucson AZ. The city
thought they were being screwed out of their income tax so they come
up with a "hotel" tax on their trailer parks. The next year no one
showed up (I'm not joking, acres and acres of emptiness). Lesson
learned? Probably not.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 23, 3:12*pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
> > States that have no income tax are usually fiercely anti income tax. *FL
> > will never change as the retirees are their golden goose, my folks live
> > there in the winter. *Most retirees are not residents of Florida anyways,
> > they are snowbirds who keep their legal residency somewhere else.
>
> And most (all?) of those rich *******s are not living on regular income, but
> on pensions and savings, mostly sheltered from tax consequences.

And dividends as well. People have argued for years that the double
tax on dividends today is not enough and we should stick it to those
old rich dudes by increasing their dividend tax rate.

-Robert

[CareBear]

Sorry but AL does have state income tax.

--
CareBear

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> *Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the state
>> of California over $30,000 in income tax.
>
>
> How can you not know this? There are a handful of states that do not have
> state income tax. WA, WY, TX, SD, FL, AL and NV. NH and TN only tax
> dividend income. California has some nice scenery but people that
> actually live there have lost their ever lovin' minds.

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > "Robert M. Gary" > writes:
>On Apr 22, 7:24=A0am, Orval Fairbairn >
>wrote:
>> In article >,
>
>> I always made the max contributions to my 401(K) plan, retired early,
>> sold my 3-BR 2.5 bath townhome in CA, bought a 3 BR, 3 BA hangar homw,
>> with pool in FL. The 401(K), plus pension, plus Social Security, less
>> the state income tax and Social Security tax, enables me to do it.
>
>*Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the state
>of California over $30,000 in income tax. Man, I need to get some of
>that FL myself. I'm paying $600/month in property taxes for my house
>and I can't even write it off (AMT). I just bought a used boat and had
>to pay almost $2000 in use tax. I think I'm getting the short end.


You are making about $346,200 and think you are getting the short end?

How rough it is.


Alan

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > States that have no income tax are usually fiercely anti income tax. FL
> > will never change as the retirees are their golden goose, my folks live
> > there in the winter. Most retirees are not residents of Florida anyways,
> > they are snowbirds who keep their legal residency somewhere else.
>
> And most (all?) of those rich *******s are not living on regular income, but
> on pensions and savings, mostly sheltered from tax consequences.
>

So? What's wrong with that? We have paid our dues and supported all of
the welfare drones and corporations living of subsidies.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:

RG> I used to see those guys when I would visit Tucson AZ. The
RG> city thought they were being screwed out of their income tax
RG> so they come up with a "hotel" tax on their trailer parks. The
RG> next year no one showed up (I'm not joking, acres and acres of
RG> emptiness). Lesson learned? Probably not.

Yeah, you didn't learn it. What city needs "acres and acres" of
trailer park (trash)? Or old farts that run up big local medical
bills.
--
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.
~ John Morley

[clint]

richie rich mr bigshot give seniors some money huh?
Robert M. Gary submitted this idea :
> *Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the state
> of California over $30,000 in income tax. Man, I need to get some of
> that FL myself. I'm paying $600/month in property taxes for my house
> and I can't even write it off (AMT). I just bought a used boat and had
> to pay almost $2000 in use tax. I think I'm getting the short end.

> -Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 23, 6:13*pm, (Alan) wrote:

> * You are making about $346,200 and think you are getting the short end?
>
> * How rough it is.

I earned it, the gov't didn't.

-Robert

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:54:05 -0500, Ross > wrote:

>I am getting close to this event. I was wondering how those that have
>already retired keep an airplane. I am fortunate that I have a
>moderately priced hangar, reasonable (this is relative) fuel for my
>area, and perform owner assisted annuals. But, I am concerned on keeping
>the flying going and not feel that I have to let it sit more than I
>should. I have always been the sole owner since I purchased it over 10
>years ago. Thanks.

I think you'd be best off posing this question to a financial planner.
Prior to my retiring, I did some financial planning to ensure I would have
sufficient funds to support my "habit".
--ron

[Ross]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:54:05 -0500, Ross > wrote:
>
>> I am getting close to this event. I was wondering how those that have
>> already retired keep an airplane. I am fortunate that I have a
>> moderately priced hangar, reasonable (this is relative) fuel for my
>> area, and perform owner assisted annuals. But, I am concerned on keeping
>> the flying going and not feel that I have to let it sit more than I
>> should. I have always been the sole owner since I purchased it over 10
>> years ago. Thanks.
>
> I think you'd be best off posing this question to a financial planner.
> Prior to my retiring, I did some financial planning to ensure I would have
> sufficient funds to support my "habit".
> --ron

Oh, I am already doing that and have been for several years. I just
wanted to know what pilots WITH airplanes were doing. My adviser is a
tennis player not a pilot.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Ross]

Clark wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:04531735-9d6d-407a-a00e-
> :
>
>> On Apr 23, 6:13 pm, (Alan) wrote:
>>
>>> You are making about $346,200 and think you are getting the short end?
>>> How rough it is.
>> I earned it, the gov't didn't.
>>
> How much would you have earned if the government didn't exist or hadn't
> provided for infrastructure?
>
>

Let's stick to the original post.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Mike Noel]

The minimum that we all can do is develop a group of non-owning friends
willing to fly with us and share the direct expenses. It makes gas prices
less painful and helps promote GA.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 6:13 pm, (Alan) wrote:

> You are making about $346,200 and think you are getting the short end?
>
> How rough it is.

I earned it, the gov't didn't.

-Robert

[Ross]

Mike Noel wrote:
> The minimum that we all can do is develop a group of non-owning friends
> willing to fly with us and share the direct expenses. It makes gas prices
> less painful and helps promote GA.
>

I have always been sole owner of the plane. I have been thinking about a
partnership, but then I have someone else to work with on how it is
flown, maintainence, etc. I have never been there. Not saying it is bad
as lots of folks do it. I guess a two way partnership splits everything
50-50 except the gas, oil, and reserves. Need to look at what AOPA has
on the website.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[John T[_3_]]

I presume you are concerned about the cost of flying. One trick I
started after the Katrina aftershocks was to buy energy stocks. That
way, if fuel prices keep going up, many energy share prices will also
rise. If they fall, then you may be compensated with a fall in the
price of 100LL.

This scheme is not without flaws. You have to buy companies with proven
reserves instead of mainly refiners. There's always the concern about
nationalization and foreign corruption, so you need a diverse set of
companies. A couple of diverse possibilities are the ETF 'XLE' and
Vanguard's Energy fund.

Another approach would be to buy gasoline futures but that idea has more
flaws, in my opinion. Southwest Airlines has managed their fuel costs
somewhat this way, but eventually they will run out of low-cost hedges.

Another idea is to re-assess your insurance options. If you (and
others) have confidence in your skills, you might consider dropping the
hull component of your insurance, at least the in-motion part. I
probably wouldn't do this, however, if the airplane represents more than
5% of your net worth.

Finally, have you considered employment at the airport? You could do
anything from man the counter to wash planes. You would still be around
aviation and for each hour you worked, you could probably buy at least
one gallon of fuel!

Hope this helps.

-John T.


Ross wrote:
> I am getting close to this event. I was wondering how those that have
> already retired keep an airplane. I am fortunate that I have a
> moderately priced hangar, reasonable (this is relative) fuel for my
> area, and perform owner assisted annuals. But, I am concerned on keeping
> the flying going and not feel that I have to let it sit more than I
> should. I have always been the sole owner since I purchased it over 10
> years ago. Thanks.

[Ross]

John T wrote:
> I presume you are concerned about the cost of flying. One trick I
> started after the Katrina aftershocks was to buy energy stocks. That
> way, if fuel prices keep going up, many energy share prices will also
> rise. If they fall, then you may be compensated with a fall in the
> price of 100LL.
>
> This scheme is not without flaws. You have to buy companies with proven
> reserves instead of mainly refiners. There's always the concern about
> nationalization and foreign corruption, so you need a diverse set of
> companies. A couple of diverse possibilities are the ETF 'XLE' and
> Vanguard's Energy fund.
>
> Another approach would be to buy gasoline futures but that idea has more
> flaws, in my opinion. Southwest Airlines has managed their fuel costs
> somewhat this way, but eventually they will run out of low-cost hedges.
>
> Another idea is to re-assess your insurance options. If you (and
> others) have confidence in your skills, you might consider dropping the
> hull component of your insurance, at least the in-motion part. I
> probably wouldn't do this, however, if the airplane represents more than
> 5% of your net worth.
>
> Finally, have you considered employment at the airport? You could do
> anything from man the counter to wash planes. You would still be around
> aviation and for each hour you worked, you could probably buy at least
> one gallon of fuel!
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> -John T.
>
>
> Ross wrote:
>> I am getting close to this event. I was wondering how those that have
>> already retired keep an airplane. I am fortunate that I have a
>> moderately priced hangar, reasonable (this is relative) fuel for my
>> area, and perform owner assisted annuals. But, I am concerned on
>> keeping the flying going and not feel that I have to let it sit more
>> than I should. I have always been the sole owner since I purchased it
>> over 10 years ago. Thanks.

I really have thought of doing something at the airport or the city
which owns the airport. it would totally different than what I have done
for the last 33 years.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[[email protected]]

Ross > wrote:

> I really have thought of doing something at the airport or the city
> which owns the airport. it would totally different than what I have done
> for the last 33 years.

Observing numerous retired friends and acquaintances, I've noticed that
the happiest are those that take up something that looks like a job, i.e.
has a regular schedule or structure to it.

It doesn't seem to matter if it is a real full time job, part time job,
volunteer work, or a constructive hobby (such as building or restoring
something), as long as it gets you out of the house on a regular scheduled
basis.

Those that don't do this seem to tend to develop more marital problems
and die sooner than those that do.

Just an observation for what it's worth.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 24, 5:13*am, Clark > wrote:

> > I earned it, the gov't didn't.
>
> How much would you have earned if the government didn't exist or hadn't
> provided for infrastructure?

Following your reasoning they should just take 100%. What would limit
the amount of your income that the gov't is owed if you argue that no
one would earn any money if it were not for our gov't infrastructure.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 24, 10:15*am, wrote:
> Ross > wrote:
> > I really have thought of doing something at the airport or the city
> > which owns the airport. it would totally different than what I have done
> > for the last 33 years.
>
> Observing numerous retired friends and acquaintances, I've noticed that
> the happiest are those that take up something that looks like a job, i.e.
> has a regular schedule or structure to it.

I have a friend who retired young (mid 50's), bought a house at the
airport, got his A&P and now runs an informal maintenance shop from
his house hanger. Its flexible enough that he can take off and travel
but enough obligation that it keeps him busy. Its great for owner
assisted annuals.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 24, 7:54*am, Ross > wrote:
> Mike Noel wrote:

> I have always been sole owner of the plane. I have been thinking about a
> partnership, but then I have someone else to work with on how it is
> flown, maintainence, etc. I have never been there. Not saying it is bad
> as lots of folks do it. I guess a two way partnership splits everything
> 50-50 except the gas, oil, and reserves. *Need to look at what AOPA has
> on the website.

When I did it we charged monthly dues to cover all fixed expenses and
then figured all variable expenses (repairs, not routine parts of
annual) to an hourly rate that we charged. That way the guy who flys
10hr/yr can get along with the guy who flys 100hr/yr. Everyone is
interested in keeping the maintenance top notch so there isn't much
concern there. It also helps during owner-assisted annuals because you
have more hands turning screws (something like 1000 screws to annual a
Mooney).

-Robert

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > States that have no income tax are usually fiercely anti income tax.
>> > FL
>> > will never change as the retirees are their golden goose, my folks live
>> > there in the winter. Most retirees are not residents of Florida
>> > anyways,
>> > they are snowbirds who keep their legal residency somewhere else.
>>
>> And most (all?) of those rich *******s are not living on regular income,
>> but
>> on pensions and savings, mostly sheltered from tax consequences.
>>
>
> So? What's wrong with that? We have paid our dues and supported all of
> the welfare drones and corporations living of subsidies.

Sarcasm, Orval.

I'd think you'd know me well enough to know I'm pretty radical, and my view
that anything other than indirect taxes is obscene and anathema to America
as a free country.

[Ross]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Apr 24, 7:54 am, Ross > wrote:
>> Mike Noel wrote:
>
>> I have always been sole owner of the plane. I have been thinking about a
>> partnership, but then I have someone else to work with on how it is
>> flown, maintainence, etc. I have never been there. Not saying it is bad
>> as lots of folks do it. I guess a two way partnership splits everything
>> 50-50 except the gas, oil, and reserves. Need to look at what AOPA has
>> on the website.
>
> When I did it we charged monthly dues to cover all fixed expenses and
> then figured all variable expenses (repairs, not routine parts of
> annual) to an hourly rate that we charged. That way the guy who flys
> 10hr/yr can get along with the guy who flys 100hr/yr. Everyone is
> interested in keeping the maintenance top notch so there isn't much
> concern there. It also helps during owner-assisted annuals because you
> have more hands turning screws (something like 1000 screws to annual a
> Mooney).
>
> -Robert

Scratch Mooney as a plane to upgrade to... Actually, I used to work with
a john Mooney that was the son of the founder. He used to work at Texas
Instruments years ago.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 24, 5:13 am, Clark > wrote:

> > I earned it, the gov't didn't.
>
> How much would you have earned if the government didn't exist or hadn't
> provided for infrastructure?

: Following your reasoning they should just take 100%. What would limit
: the amount of your income that the gov't is owed if you argue that no
: one would earn any money if it were not for our gov't infrastructure.

He's engaging in what's called "False Alternative". You'll get nothing from
that.

Besides, what infrastructure does government provide? Do they have their own
construction company? (US Gub'mint Construction Company, LLC)

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:04531735-9d6d-407a-a00e-
> :
>
>> On Apr 23, 6:13 pm, (Alan) wrote:
>>
>>> You are making about $346,200 and think you are getting the short end?
>>
>>>
>>> How rough it is.
>>
>> I earned it, the gov't didn't.
>>
> How much would you have earned if the government didn't exist or hadn't
> provided for infrastructure?

False Alternative.

It also misses the proper functions of government.

It also misses the nature of government.

Oh-for-three!

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 24, 2:18*pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:

> False Alternative.
>
> It also misses the proper functions of government.
>
> It also misses the nature of government.
>
> Oh-for-three!

Plus, I would argue that with less gov't infrastructure I would have
made more money. I don't look towards the gov't to provide my
necessities and in areas it does anyway; it usually does it less
efficiently than I could myself.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 24, 2:17*pm, Ross > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 7:54 am, Ross > wrote:
> >> Mike Noel wrote:
>
> >> I have always been sole owner of the plane. I have been thinking about a
> >> partnership, but then I have someone else to work with on how it is
> >> flown, maintainence, etc. I have never been there. Not saying it is bad
> >> as lots of folks do it. I guess a two way partnership splits everything
> >> 50-50 except the gas, oil, and reserves. *Need to look at what AOPA has
> >> on the website.
>
> > When I did it we charged monthly dues to cover all fixed expenses and
> > then figured all variable expenses (repairs, not routine parts of
> > annual) to an hourly rate that we charged. That way the guy who flys
> > 10hr/yr can get along with the guy who flys 100hr/yr. Everyone is
> > interested in keeping the maintenance top notch so there isn't much
> > concern there. It also helps during owner-assisted annuals because you
> > have more hands turning screws (something like 1000 screws to annual a
> > Mooney).
>
> > -Robert
>
> Scratch Mooney as a plane to upgrade to... Actually, I used to work with
> a john Mooney that was the son of the founder. He used to work at Texas
> Instruments years ago.

160 knots on 10 gal/hr is hard to best though. I've thought about
upgrading to a Bonanza as my boys get larger. Two things stop me.
First, the fuel economy of the Mooney, second the Bonanza's limited
baggage loading ability. When we flew a rental Bo we could only load
the first couple bags through the door, the rest go over the back of
the seat. Mooney fixed the problem by putting the luggage door at the
top so you can load straight down like a car trunk vs. through the
side with a little door. We usually load baggage to the ceiling.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 23, 7:40*pm, Bob Fry > wrote:
> >>>>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:
>
> * * RG> I used to see those guys when I would visit Tucson AZ. The
> * * RG> city thought they were being screwed out of their income tax
> * * RG> so they come up with a "hotel" tax on their trailer parks. The
> * * RG> next year no one showed up (I'm not joking, acres and acres of
> * * RG> emptiness). Lesson learned? Probably not.
>
> Yeah, you didn't learn it. *What city needs "acres and acres" of
> trailer park (trash)? *Or old farts that run up big local medical
> bills.

I learned that liberals don't understand economic value. They just see
gov't pocket sizes.

-Robert

[Mike Isaksen]

"Clark" wrote ...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" wrote ...
>> I earned it, the gov't didn't.
>
> How much would you have earned if the government
> didn't exist or hadn't provided for infrastructure?

Here's one: A while back one of my coworkers told me (with a straight face)
that the only reason he doesn't steal or hasn't killed someone is because
he's afraid of going to jail.

Thinking about that,... I'm pretty glad the government provides that
infrastructure!

Back on topic: ..... I doubt I'll be able to keep flying, much less owning,
in retirement. I'm the backside of the baby boom curve, there'll be nothing
left when I'm ready (Pension or SS). Once the boomers stop feeding their
401K plans, and the flow into the market reverses,... well that's the
trifecta.

OK,... can you tell I had a crappy day in the office? ;-)

[Vaughn Simon]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
news:%E9Qj.15005$Zk5.4777@trnddc05...
> Back on topic: ..... I doubt I'll be able to keep flying,

I am wondering about that myself. My "backup plan" is this: If my flying
cash (and thus flying hours) is reduced to the point that my skills deteriate, I
will forget my medical certificate and drop my renter's insurance. Thereafter,
I will fly with one of my FBO's instructors. Considering the cost of my
renter's insurance, I will probably save money on the deal and be safer at the
same time.


> I'm the backside of the baby boom curve, there'll be nothing left when I'm
> ready (Pension or SS).

I have been wrong before, but I don't see collapse of the SS system.
Ultimately, I see higher taxes and/or reduced benefits.

> Once the boomers stop feeding their 401K plans, and the flow into the market
> reverses,... well that's the trifecta.

Those 401 plans aren't going to all get drained on day one. Their owners
will need to make them last for decades. At the same time, there will be plenty
of younger workers plowing money into their own accounts, which will tend to
replace the dollars being withdrawn by the retirees. Heck, a few accounts will
actually continue growing after retirement. That said, I am delighted to be
among the lucky few who have managed to hang on to a traditional (defined
benefit) retirement plan.
>
> OK,... can you tell I had a crappy day in the office?

We all have those occasionally.

Vaughn

[Mike Murdock]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> *Your not paying state income tax*???? Christ, I just paid the state
>> of California over $30,000 in income tax.
>
>
> How can you not know this? There are a handful of states that do not have
> state income tax. WA, WY, TX, SD, FL, AL and NV. NH and TN only tax
> dividend income. California has some nice scenery but people that
> actually live there have lost their ever lovin' minds.

As a resident of Alabama, I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that we have no
state income tax. I'm going to be applying to the Alabama Dept. of Revenue
to get a refund for the several hundred thousand dollars in state income
taxes that I've paid over the past few years. I'll be sure to mention that
I heard about it here :)

-Mike

P.S. I'm also firing my accountants, since they are obviously not as smart
as some guy on Usenet.

[Dave[_19_]]

Well...

It is early yet. But 3 years ago (almost 4) , with a partner, I
started a business that , so far, produces enough extra cash (and
more) to operate the aircraft.

Each of us average about an hour a day input, more if we take on a fun
project.

At least that's the plan, so far so good.

My business partner is also a partner in the ownership of the
aircraft. His own business allows for flexible time, I retired last
year and have the time.

So the extra income operates the aircraft, and adds some "walking
around" $$$ for me, and adds to his ability to save for retirement.
(He is half my age)

We will see how this works...

Dave


On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:54:05 -0500, Ross > wrote:

>I am getting close to this event. I was wondering how those that have
>already retired keep an airplane. I am fortunate that I have a
>moderately priced hangar, reasonable (this is relative) fuel for my
>area, and perform owner assisted annuals. But, I am concerned on keeping
>the flying going and not feel that I have to let it sit more than I
>should. I have always been the sole owner since I purchased it over 10
>years ago. Thanks.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:

RG> 160 knots on 10 gal/hr is hard to best though.

Any RV (except the -12) will easily best that. Buy a used one for
less than the Mooney.

--
Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans! No more merciful
beheadings! And call off Christmas!
~ The Sheriff of Nottingham

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 24, 7:57*pm, Bob Fry > wrote:
> >>>>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:
>
> * * RG> 160 knots on 10 gal/hr is hard to best though.
>
> Any RV (except the -12) will easily best that. *Buy a used one for
> less than the Mooney.

If you don't mind flying something an unknown person built.

-Robert

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>
> If you don't mind flying something an unknown person built.

I don't know anyone who built my Beech. <G>

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Clark wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:ceadf210-c923-4f43-b70f-
> :
>
>> On Apr 24, 2:18 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> False Alternative.
>>>
>>> It also misses the proper functions of government.
>>>
>>> It also misses the nature of government.
>>>
>>> Oh-for-three!
>> Plus, I would argue that with less gov't infrastructure I would have
>> made more money. I don't look towards the gov't to provide my
>> necessities and in areas it does anyway; it usually does it less
>> efficiently than I could myself.
>>
> Nope you wouldn't. You would have to provide for security, roadways, mails,
> etc. Open your eyes and realize how much you take for granted.
>
>

I have no problem paying the local, state and federal government for
those items. What I have problems with is paying for social engineering
programs.

[~^ beancounter ~^]

try fractional ownership ( llc or s corp ) with 5-10 other
folks....it keeps the costs under control, with a limited
number of users or owners....if managed right, its a breeze...

imho, flying is a trade off for other activities, as i get older, i
ask myself is the enjoyment worth the trade off of other activities...
so far, yes...as income decreases in retirement, i plan on flying as
long as "the body & eyes" hold out......

cheers & good luck !!






On Apr 22, 5:54*am, Ross > wrote:
> I am getting close to this event. I was wondering how those that have
> already retired keep an airplane. I am fortunate that I have a
> moderately priced hangar, reasonable (this is relative) fuel for my
> area, and perform owner assisted annuals. But, I am concerned on keeping
> the flying going and not feel that I have to let it sit more than I
> should. I have always been the sole owner since I purchased it over 10
> years ago. *Thanks.
> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> KSWI

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 24, 8:42*pm, Clark > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:ceadf210-c923-4f43-b70f-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 2:18*pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> False Alternative.
>
> >> It also misses the proper functions of government.
>
> >> It also misses the nature of government.
>
> >> Oh-for-three!
>
> > Plus, I would argue that with less gov't infrastructure I would have
> > made more money. I don't look towards the gov't to provide my
> > necessities and in areas it does anyway; it usually does it less
> > efficiently than I could myself.
>
> Nope you wouldn't. You would have to provide for security, roadways, mails,
> etc. Open your eyes and realize how much you take for granted.

Yes, and all those would be more efficient than the gov't provided
services we have today. For what I pay in state taxes I could hire a
full time armed guard and a fireman to stand watch on my house 24x7.

-Robert

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:

RG> On Apr 24, 7:57*pm, Bob Fry > wrote:
>> >>>>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:
>>
>> * * RG> 160 knots on 10 gal/hr is hard to best though.
>>
>> Any RV (except the -12) will easily best that. *Buy a used one
>> for less than the Mooney.

RG> If you don't mind flying something an unknown person built.

As opposed to flying a 40-year old antique that many unknown persons
have hacked at over the years....
--
Fascism is capitalism in decay.
~ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

[Paul M. Anton]

Hi All:

I'm one of these retired guys who wants to fly as long as possible. We might
be stuck with moving to California and want to know if there is anything on
line where we could plug in our numbers and get a ballpark idea of what out
income tax liability would be in Calif??

We have property in Washington State and San Diego. We had planned to sell
both and move to an airpark. However with the depressed market in San Diego
we might have to live in that one for a while.

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A
KPLU

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 24, 8:42 pm, Clark > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:ceadf210-c923-4f43-b70f-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 2:18 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> False Alternative.
>
> >> It also misses the proper functions of government.
>
> >> It also misses the nature of government.
>
> >> Oh-for-three!
>
> > Plus, I would argue that with less gov't infrastructure I would have
> > made more money. I don't look towards the gov't to provide my
> > necessities and in areas it does anyway; it usually does it less
> > efficiently than I could myself.
>
> Nope you wouldn't. You would have to provide for security, roadways,
> mails,
> etc. Open your eyes and realize how much you take for granted.

(Robert, your messages don't wrap/indent properly)
::> Yes, and all those would be more efficient than the gov't provided
::>services we have today. For what I pay in state taxes I could hire a
::> full time armed guard and a fireman to stand watch on my house 24x7.

I think he means "security" in the national sense. That is only a tiny
fraction of national taxes, and much of that is wasted propping up much of
the rest of the world.

Roads are not a national function; the ConUS specified "...to POST roads",
meaning to mark and identify them. They're not a government function in any
case. We're finding out that the best, most efficient roads are built by the
users, not the politicians propping up their construction buddies.

Mail you pay for each time you mail a letter, and the Postal Service now
needs massive subsidies and a legal monopoly.

[Peter Becker]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
news:e97a0d08-9af5-4d53-9478-

>Yes, and all those would be more efficient than the gov't provided
>services we have today. For what I pay in state taxes I could hire a
>full time armed guard and a fireman to stand watch on my house 24x7.

>-Robert

That's a load of crap, a fireman without any help and a truck would do you
little good. Stop snivelling you whiny little ****! I suspect you don't make
anywhere close to what you claim. If you then suck it up and stop your
crying. There's no way you have the balls to make any serious coin! If any
one of my employees spent as much time whining as you do, he'd be recieving
that social assistance you're crying about!

[Darrel Toepfer]

Bob Fry > wrote:
> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:

> If you don't mind flying something an unknown person built.
>
> As opposed to flying a 40-year old antique that many unknown persons
> have hacked at over the years....

55 years young, but whose count'n...

All "hack"ers are listed in the logbooks...

I'm but the 3rd owner...

[[email protected]]

Matt W. Barrow > wrote:


> Roads are not a national function; the ConUS specified "...to POST roads",
> meaning to mark and identify them. They're not a government function in any
> case. We're finding out that the best, most efficient roads are built by the
> users, not the politicians propping up their construction buddies.

Most of the original parts of the National Highway System were built
by the Federal government to support WWII.

Better than 99% of roads are build and maintained by government agencies,
mostly state, with a big portion of the money and standards coming from
the Federal government.

If you are talking about the guys with the shovels, most of them are from
private contruction firms on contract to government agencies.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Paul M. Anton > wrote:

> Hi All:

> I'm one of these retired guys who wants to fly as long as possible. We might
> be stuck with moving to California and want to know if there is anything on
> line where we could plug in our numbers and get a ballpark idea of what out
> income tax liability would be in Calif??

http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/tax_table/index.asp

Your California Taxable income will be the same as the Federal for most
people.

> We have property in Washington State and San Diego. We had planned to sell
> both and move to an airpark. However with the depressed market in San Diego
> we might have to live in that one for a while.

Or rent out the place in San Diego until the market recovers.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Paul M. Anton]

<> Or rent out the place in San Diego until the market recovers.
>
>

We've been down here repairing the damage from renting it out for the last 4
years. :-(

Don't want to face that again.

Thanks for the link to the california tax info.

Paul
N1431A
KPLU.

[[email protected]]

Paul M. Anton > wrote:

> <> Or rent out the place in San Diego until the market recovers.
> >
> >

> We've been down here repairing the damage from renting it out for the last 4
> years. :-(

> Don't want to face that again.

The wife works for a property management company, so I know exactly
what you are talking about. At least it's deductable.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 25, 2:07*pm, "Peter Becker" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> news:e97a0d08-9af5-4d53-9478-
>
> >Yes, and all those would be more efficient than the gov't provided
> >services we have today. For what I pay in state taxes I could hire a
> >full time armed guard and a fireman to stand watch on my house 24x7.
> >-Robert
>
> That's a load of crap, a fireman without any help and a truck would do you
> little good.

You understand. Before we had gov't firefighters in the US we had
figher fighter insurance. Private companies would provide fire
protection for a fee (less than your taxes). It worked great so your
argument that only the gov't can provide fire protection is void.
-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 25, 3:55*pm, wrote:
> Better than 99% of roads are build and maintained by government agencies,
> mostly state, with a big portion of the money and standards coming from
> the Federal government.

Yes, that's the problem we need to stop. Many states allow some roads
to be built, maintained, and owned by private companies.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 3:55?pm, wrote:
> > Better than 99% of roads are build and maintained by government agencies,
> > mostly state, with a big portion of the money and standards coming from
> > the Federal government.

> Yes, that's the problem we need to stop. Many states allow some roads
> to be built, maintained, and owned by private companies.

Yes, the term for them is "Toll Road".

Since they are private, they don't have to adhere to current standards.

Locally, we just managed to get rid of one of those pieces of crap and
get it under state owenership.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "DT" == Darrel Toepfer > writes:

DT> All "hack"ers are listed in the logbooks...

So you think....
--
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to
believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
~ Douglas Adams

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:46:14 -0500, Ross > wrote:

>Oh, I am already doing that and have been for several years. I just
>wanted to know what pilots WITH airplanes were doing. My adviser is a
>tennis player not a pilot.

That's probably the best you can do, as every one has individual needs and
wants. I "wanted" to be able to own my airplane by myself. (I fly 125-160
hours/year). I enjoyed the knowledge that no one else was flying it; and
however I left it -- that's how it would be when I came back to it. I was
fortunate enough to be able to arrange things so I could afford it, in
retirement.

--ron

[Darrel Toepfer]

Bob Fry > wrote:
>
>> All "hack"ers are listed in the logbooks...
>
> So you think....

Well there was that one mouse out in the right wing...

Its only the 2nd time all of its fabric skin has come off, getting ready to
put it all back on again...

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:57:09 -0700, Bob Fry >
wrote:

>>>>>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:
>
> RG> 160 knots on 10 gal/hr is hard to best though.
>
>Any RV (except the -12) will easily best that. Buy a used one for
>less than the Mooney.

Hey he's retired . What's the rush to get there? The RV 12 will get
way better miles per gallon

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:39:00 GMT, Darrel Toepfer >
wrote:

>Bob Fry > wrote:
>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:
>
>> If you don't mind flying something an unknown person built.
>>
>> As opposed to flying a 40-year old antique that many unknown persons
>> have hacked at over the years....
>
>55 years young, but whose count'n...
>
>All "hack"ers are listed in the logbooks...
>
>I'm but the 3rd owner...

The builder planned to fly it himself

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:58:18 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Apr 24, 8:42=A0pm, Clark > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:ceadf210-c923-4f43-b70f-=
>
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 24, 2:18=A0pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> False Alternative.
>>
>> >> It also misses the proper functions of government.
>>
>> >> It also misses the nature of government.
>>
>> >> Oh-for-three!
>>
>> > Plus, I would argue that with less gov't infrastructure I would have
>> > made more money. I don't look towards the gov't to provide my
>> > necessities and in areas it does anyway; it usually does it less
>> > efficiently than I could myself.
>>
>> Nope you wouldn't. You would have to provide for security, roadways, mails=
>,
>> etc. Open your eyes and realize how much you take for granted.
>
>Yes, and all those would be more efficient than the gov't provided
>services we have today. For what I pay in state taxes I could hire a
>full time armed guard and a fireman to stand watch on my house 24x7.
>
>-Robert
Realy Let's see $10 an hour might get semi-competent workers. hardly
union wages but we'll work with it. 24x7 = 8 workers x 2040 hours a
year x $ 10 / hour = $163,200 that's only if nobody gets sick or takes
holidays. Are you going to give any training or benifits to these
workers?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 25, 5:55*pm, wrote:
> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 25, 3:55?pm, wrote:
> > > Better than 99% of roads are build and maintained by government agencies,
> > > mostly state, with a big portion of the money and standards coming from
> > > the Federal government.
> > Yes, that's the problem we need to stop. Many states allow some roads
> > to be built, maintained, and owned by private companies.
>
> Yes, the term for them is "Toll Road".
>
> Since they are private, they don't have to adhere to current standards.
>
> Locally, we just managed to get rid of one of those pieces of crap and
> get it under state owenership.

I guess you don't like anything unless you are paying more for it with
the gov't running it. Maybe they'll start making McD's for you. You
can get a $20 Big Mac and feel better about it because it certified by
the US gov't. Think about the line at DMV, that will be the line for
your Big Mac.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 25, 7:26*pm, Clark > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:e97a0d08-9af5-4d53-9478-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 8:42*pm, Clark > wrote:
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:ceadf210-c923-4f43-
> b70f-
>
> >> :
>
> >> > On Apr 24, 2:18*pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> False Alternative.
>
> >> >> It also misses the proper functions of government.
>
> >> >> It also misses the nature of government.
>
> >> >> Oh-for-three!
>
> >> > Plus, I would argue that with less gov't infrastructure I would have
> >> > made more money. I don't look towards the gov't to provide my
> >> > necessities and in areas it does anyway; it usually does it less
> >> > efficiently than I could myself.
>
> >> Nope you wouldn't. You would have to provide for security, roadways,
> mails
> > ,
> >> etc. Open your eyes and realize how much you take for granted.
>
> > Yes, and all those would be more efficient than the gov't provided
> > services we have today. For what I pay in state taxes I could hire a
> > full time armed guard and a fireman to stand watch on my house 24x7.
>
> So you insist on shallow thinking. Try again. Think of building codes, bank
> insurance, weather observation, search and rescue. The list goes on and on
> and you do own taxes for those services. Your business would not exist
> without them. In other words, WAKE UP.

You are so naive. The gov't run schools have indoctrinated you so well
into thinking only the US gov't can provide these services. They
probably make you think the UL and the Insurance Highway Safety is a
gov't organization as well. There are certainly some areas where the
gov't is the best organization to take care of things. It makes up
about 10% of our civilian gov't today. 90% of it is waste that could
be done better by private industry.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 5:55?pm, wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 25, 3:55?pm, wrote:
> > > > Better than 99% of roads are build and maintained by government agencies,
> > > > mostly state, with a big portion of the money and standards coming from
> > > > the Federal government.
> > > Yes, that's the problem we need to stop. Many states allow some roads
> > > to be built, maintained, and owned by private companies.
> >
> > Yes, the term for them is "Toll Road".
> >
> > Since they are private, they don't have to adhere to current standards.
> >
> > Locally, we just managed to get rid of one of those pieces of crap and
> > get it under state owenership.

> I guess you don't like anything unless you are paying more for it with
> the gov't running it. Maybe they'll start making McD's for you. You
> can get a $20 Big Mac and feel better about it because it certified by
> the US gov't. Think about the line at DMV, that will be the line for
> your Big Mac.

Bunch of babbling, irrelevant, nonsense.

Public roads are built and maintained at cost.

Private roads need to show an ROI on the capital construction cost,
plus return a profit higher than the maintenance costs.

In addition, you still get to pay the taxes.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:

RG> You understand. Before we had gov't firefighters in the US we
RG> had figher fighter insurance. Private companies would provide
RG> fire protection for a fee (less than your taxes). It worked
RG> great

Even a simpleton should be able to understand why, in fact, it didn't
work great: house A pays the fee, house B doesn't. B catches fire,
it's allowed to burn, then catching A on fire, which is put out, but
with B completely destroyed and A partly.

Putting out fires, like so many things in civil society, works a lot
better (read: cheaper overall) when everybody is involved, not just
some.

In fact government can and does many things more efficiently than
for-profit private. Here in Sacramento the public utility SMUD has
much cheaper electric rates than the for-profit PG&E.
--
I read about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest,
'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' 'No,' said
the priest, 'not if you did not know.' 'Then why,' asked the Eskimo
earnestly, 'did you tell me?'
~ Annie Dillard

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "DD" == Drew Dalgleish > writes:

DD> Hey he's retired . What's the rush to get there? The RV 12
DD> will get way better miles per gallon

Not necessarily. It's been demonstrated often that RVs with different
size engines get similar mpg when operated at the same power (hp)
settings. What the bigger engine gets you is a much better reserve for
climb and cruise, if you want to use it.
--
Why can't the ant and the caterpillar just get along? One eats
grass, the other eats Caterpillars... Oh, I see now.
- Jack Handey

[Dave[_19_]]

Probably a couple of dozen people built my Cherokee..

......and then got somebody else to test fly it..

:)

Dave


On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:55:56 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:39:00 GMT, Darrel Toepfer >
>wrote:
>
>>Bob Fry > wrote:
>>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:
>>
>>> If you don't mind flying something an unknown person built.
>>>
>>> As opposed to flying a 40-year old antique that many unknown persons
>>> have hacked at over the years....
>>
>>55 years young, but whose count'n...
>>
>>All "hack"ers are listed in the logbooks...
>>
>>I'm but the 3rd owner...
>
>The builder planned to fly it himself

[Paul kgyy]

I retired a couple of years ago, but after an unusually expensive
annual on my Arrow, just decided to work enough part time to cover my
flying cost so the flying wouldn't hit my investment income/social
security.

[Ross]

Paul kgyy wrote:
> I retired a couple of years ago, but after an unusually expensive
> annual on my Arrow, just decided to work enough part time to cover my
> flying cost so the flying wouldn't hit my investment income/social
> security.

I started the post and I am coming to the same conclusion.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[CriticalMass]

Ross wrote:
> We in TX do not pay state income tax either.

Nor the coveted and much sought-after "use tax".

That's got to be the most abhorrent money-grab ever conceived by man.

[CriticalMass]

Clark wrote:
> Nope, that's not my reasoning at all. All I'm saying is that
> government does
> have value and so we do owe some taxes. Don't even try to read anything more
> into it.
>

Yes. We need them to build and maintain our interstate highway system
and keep the country secure from the towelheads and anyone else who
wants to do us in.

But that's it. All the rest of the crap they try (and usually fail) to
do, we ought NOT to be paying for that.