First fairly long XC since ownership.

Dave wrote:

You guys are so lucky.

We certainly are in that regard. AOPA periodically informs us of the situation
you guys face there and in Europe and works very hard to keep it from happening
here.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Dave wrote:

You guys are so lucky.

We certainly are in that regard. AOPA periodically informs us of the
situation
you guys face there and in Europe and works very hard to keep it from
happening
here.

80% of the amount we pay is taxation

Dave wrote:
: We certainly are in that regard. AOPA periodically informs us of the
: situation
: you guys face there and in Europe and works very hard to keep it from
: happening
: here.
:
: 80% of the amount we pay is taxation

As unpopular (and thus practically impossible) to do here,
gasoline *should* be taxed much more than it is. Of course, this money
should go to research for alternate fuels, etc, and not blown in a general
fund for more B.S. spending.

The aerodiesels seems to be promising. Fuel burn, power/weight
improvements, and turbocharging make them look great for performance. In
the US where 100LL and Jet-A are roughly the same price, running
auto-diesel would as good of a cost-savings as autogas STCs. Also,
compression ignition engines are more robust to fuels, so I'd imagine less
concern about fuel quality than with autogas I can imagine they'll be
*really* great across the pond for you guys by the liter, er, litre...

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

In article ,
writes:

As unpopular (and thus practically impossible) to do here,
gasoline *should* be taxed much more than it is. Of course, this money
should go to research for alternate fuels, etc, and not blown in a general
fund for more B.S. spending.

You are one of the very few that think this way (I'm another). MY "plan", that
also is impossible to implement, is to place an additional tax of purhaps $.05
per year for the next 10 years. This gives the gas guzzler owners and
manuyfacturers time to recover. Then use the moneys to develop the tar sands
in the west.

I heard a talk by Dixie Ray Lee ( or was that Dixie Lee Ray) who said that if
we could stand off and look at our world - past, present, and future. One of
the things that we would say about the present is "This is the 100 years that
we used fossil fuels for energy". It's been about 100 years, so she was a
little off on the timing but the idea is still there.

Chuck

(PaulaJay1) wrote in message ...
In article ,
writes:

As unpopular (and thus practically impossible) to do here,
gasoline *should* be taxed much more than it is. Of course, this money
should go to research for alternate fuels, etc, and not blown in a general
fund for more B.S. spending.

You are one of the very few that think this way (I'm another). MY "plan", that
also is impossible to implement, is to place an additional tax of purhaps $.05
per year for the next 10 years. This gives the gas guzzler owners and
manuyfacturers time to recover. Then use the moneys to develop the tar sands
in the west.

I heard a talk by Dixie Ray Lee ( or was that Dixie Lee Ray) who said that if
we could stand off and look at our world - past, present, and future. One of
the things that we would say about the present is "This is the 100 years that
we used fossil fuels for energy". It's been about 100 years, so she was a
little off on the timing but the idea is still there.

I agree with you in principal. It would be great to add a small tax
to fuel to help us develop other resources - no matter what they a
(gas/oil, hybrid, electic, etc).

The problem is our govt has shown time and time again that tax money
gets used for something else than its intended purpose.

-Nathan

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
om...
(PaulaJay1) wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:

As unpopular (and thus practically impossible) to do here,
gasoline *should* be taxed much more than it is. Of course, this money
should go to research for alternate fuels, etc, and not blown in a
general
fund for more B.S. spending.

You are one of the very few that think this way (I'm another). MY
"plan", that
also is impossible to implement, is to place an additional tax of
purhaps $.05
per year for the next 10 years. This gives the gas guzzler owners and
manuyfacturers time to recover. Then use the moneys to develop the tar
sands
in the west.

I heard a talk by Dixie Ray Lee ( or was that Dixie Lee Ray) who said
that if
we could stand off and look at our world - past, present, and future.
One of
the things that we would say about the present is "This is the 100 years
that
we used fossil fuels for energy". It's been about 100 years, so she was
a
little off on the timing but the idea is still there.

I agree with you in principal. It would be great to add a small tax
to fuel to help us develop other resources - no matter what they a
(gas/oil, hybrid, electic, etc).

The problem is our govt has shown time and time again that tax money
gets used for something else than its intended purpose.

Our government (uk) does not support hypothecation of taxes. It all goes
into a big pot and dished out for every wasteful thing you can think about
(except the National Health Service).

There is just no question of a tax being raised for something special then
being dropped. Make a tax its there forever.