Obama to impose $100-per-flight Skydiving Tax

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

JR, when you blatantly and misleadingly click-bait your thread topics, it lowers your credibility.

Yes, those kinda acts do make a person loose credibility.


http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4007047;search_string=SEAL;#4007047

BTW still waiting for an answer there

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You have friends without guns? That surprises me.

Yes, do you have friends that own guns?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Pretty much every price increase does already get passed on to the consumer (you).

Why do you not have this comment when talking about other industries?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Pretty much every price increase does already get passed on to the consumer (you).

Why do you not have this comment when talking about other industries?

Because many Liberals have different standards when it comes to spending their own money as opposed to other peoples money.

[billvon 3,116]

>Why would that surprise you? Do you have some kind of stereotype of gun owners in
>which you believe that they're all white rednecks who only hang out with each other?

Coming from the guy who thinks that all liberals have to agree with each other - that's funny! Can you really not see anyone's side but your own?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Coming from the guy who thinks that all liberals have to agree with each other...

Where did you see me say that?

Ah yes, just another made-up straw-man argument, so you can take a poke at me. Well, at least you didn't resort to personal insults like Amazon does, when you have no argument. But you're still a few rungs short of the top of the ladder when it comes to high ground.

[billvon 3,116]

>Where did you see me say that?

"Oh my gosh, a liberal criticizing another liberal. Is the world coming to an end? "

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Where did you see me say that?

"Oh my gosh, a liberal criticizing another liberal. Is the world coming to an end? "

Right, that was about the context of this forum discussion, with two hard-core liberals disagreeing with each other. That's a long way from what you claim; "the guy who thinks that all liberals have to agree with each other." "All" does not equal "two".

Oh well, good try at extrapolation, bvn. Don't try to stretch it so far next time. Any claim that is absolute using words like "all", is bound to fail.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Why do you not have this comment when talking about other industries?

I do have that viewpoint, you apparently have not read my threads and my couple of essays. i have never once said that anything is free. I just disagree with what we should be funding, i.e. wars versus education and healthcare. It is not an 'industry specific' philosophy, it is a societal philosophy.

How to pay for it? Taxes mostly. corporate and personal. They may as well ALL be personal since every deficit any country has, as a total, corporate, and government is borne by the people. It is a cost to society. ie Greece.

So do we need $100/flight to fund the FAA? No we do not. Therefore I will argue against it. Do we need $100/flight to pay for healthcare? Maybe we do, but that is a specific funding issue that could be addressed when it arises (which it has not)

I am not just a liberal, I am also fiscally conservative in many ways. We spend too much on wars. When we build a building, we force society (and the private sector) to bear unbelievable costs due to regulation, ie fire codes for one, which I now have a personal vested interest in. When we build roads and intersections we put up WALK/DON'T WALK lights where no human being ever walks because some fucking rule says we have to. These are VERY FINANCIALLY WASTEFUL things that actually come from a conservative viewpoint.

We Fund the NIH for diabetes research because people are too fucking fat, yet we will not fund bicycle lanes when we build a road.....or public education on the subject. (conservative viewpoint)

I believe in welfare reform. If you are getting a check and you are capable, then you can work at a soup kitchen or pick up garbage, or paint over grafitti - there is always something you could be doing. (conservative viewpoint)

BUT, we could and should be funding education through to the Bachelor degree level. We should be scrapping free trade and putting up walls (tariffs) to protect our manufacturing infrastructure. We should be funding universal healthcare or similar variation of it. (liberal viewpoint)

And when that gets put on the table, the tax discussion will come up, and you will see my support for those programs.

[mirage62 0]

TK,

I read most your post, I disagree with most of them BUT I read them because you do (normally) lay out a somewhat reasonable view.

I'm not SURE where the $100 charge would be going. I agree that the gas tax is plenty BUT if the $100 charge was going to pay for the health care you'd be happy....(liberal) and you would happily pass the cost along to the jumpers. But if the $100 charge ISN'T going to where you think it should your pissed.

I don't know that the FAA couldn't use some more money. I'd rather see it spent there than for health care. We all don't have to fly...........

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

you apparently have not read my threads and my couple of essays

Not true.

Quote

So do we need $100/flight to fund the FAA? No we do not. Therefore I will argue against it. Do we need $100/flight to pay for healthcare?

So you would be fine if the 100 dollars went to healthcare?

[tkhayes 348]

Read the next sentence in my post -- I stated it clearly

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

you apparently have not read my threads and my couple of essays

Not true.

Quote

So do we need $100/flight to fund the FAA? No we do not. Therefore I will argue against it. Do we need $100/flight to pay for healthcare?

So you would be fine if the 100 dollars went to healthcare?

Perhaps as a way to cover all those irresponsible types who do NOT have health insurance yet skydive... or persist in many other dangerous activities with that cloak of invincibility around them.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Read the next sentence in my post -- I stated it clearly

Not really. I asked if you would be fine with it. The next sentence said "maybe" and we could discuss it later "if it comes up".

"Maybe we do, but that is a specific funding issue that could be addressed when it arises (which it has not) "

My question to you was simple.... would you support the 100 tax IF the money went to HC?

Simple question about your position.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

you apparently have not read my threads and my couple of essays

Not true.

Quote

So do we need $100/flight to fund the FAA? No we do not. Therefore I will argue against it. Do we need $100/flight to pay for healthcare?

So you would be fine if the 100 dollars went to healthcare?

Perhaps as a way to cover all those irresponsible types who do NOT have health insurance yet skydive... or persist in many other dangerous activities with that cloak of invincibility around them.

OK, but I'd give a credit to skydivers who showed proof of having insurance.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Perhaps as a way to cover all those irresponsible types who do NOT have health insurance yet skydive... or persist in many other dangerous activities with that cloak of invincibility around them.

See, I see it a a freedom issue. I don't think it is a good idea to skydive (or any other higher risk activity) without health insurance. And I will not do it, and my wife will not either.

BUT, that does not mean I think I have the right to tell YOU what YOU should do.

I DO think that if you engage in a higher risk activity without health care coverage... That you should NOT expect the best care available without being willing to pay for it.

That does not mean if you femur in that we just leave you there if you do not have HC... But we provide basic life saving services and not the 100k dollar rod in the leg walking in two weeks super surgery. Leg set and in a cast... You might have a limp afterward.

You want the 100k surgery? Then you ask for it and you get billed for it. And you can't just claim bankruptcy and walk away from the bills.

If TK and other DZO's really cared about this situation... they would REQUIRE HC to jump there. That would be fine by me.

In the end it boils down to personal freedom and personal responsibility. You are free to do as you please as long as you don't hurt someone else, but that also means you are responsible for your actions.

You want to wake and bake? Cool, but do not expect society to pay for your drug issues.

You want to drink yourself into a stupor? Fine, but don't expect to live in a bottle and off the govts teat.

You want to not pay for HC and do dangerous things? Fine, but don't expect society to pour tons of money to make sure you don't have a limp.

In the end, if HC ends up like some want... Where we are single payer... then yes. I think Skydiving and every other high risk activity should be taxed to help pay for it. I think that cigarettes and booze should be taxed to help pay for those health issues. I think that beaches should be taxed to help pay for skin cancer. I think that junk food should be taxed to pay for problems with obesity.

AND I think that if we have a single payer system that mandatory workout programs be created. You would HAVE to show up or you would lose your HC.

This however is NOT the life I want. I do not want people meddling in my affairs and I don't want their affairs to be meddled in.... I'd much rather the individual take the initiative and not act foolish.

I have friends with children that were looking for some life and disability insurance. I hooked them up with a friend in the business. They claimed that it was too expensive.... Yet I see them making 20-30 jumps a month and going on trips to the windtunnel.

I know skydivers that have no HC, yet manage to go to the Nationals every year and are on a team.

Both are just glaring examples of people that COULD afford health coverage, but choose not to have it. All of these people also support a single payer HC system.... any surprise?

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

I don't know that the FAA couldn't use some more money. I'd rather see it spent there than for health care. We all don't have to fly...........

Opposite. Everyone does not have to fly, but everyone DOES need health care.

Aviation is already expensive. An aluminum box mounted to the bottom of a C-182 engine that could be made for $100 by a local shop costs $1200 at the minimum. We run airplanes on 1950's designs, yet it remains about the safest form of transportation in the world, self proclaimed by the aviation industry and the FAA. So why would it need more money?

We could drastically LOWER the cost of aviation by reducing the standards and deregulating much of the parts industry. (just as one example) There I go again, talking like a conservative position.

if aviation had ten times as many accidents every year than it has today, it would still be the safest way to travel. It would be deemed 'unfortunate', but it would also be a fact. I am not sure why it would be unacceptable. Same for the cost of cars. side impact airbags adding thousands of dollars to the cost of a car. Better driver training might yield the same results, but we have never pursued that avenue.

We are willing to spend endless amounts of money to save one 'aviation life' yet refuse as a society to save tens of thousands of lives every year from disease (and at a lower cost).

We spend billions to fight a war to avenge the deaths of 3000 people when we have killed 6000 soldiers and hundreds of thousands of others in the process. I side with Ron Paul on that one. (conservative again)

So would I be OK with the $100/flight to pay for health care? Given that there are about 10M commercial flights every year in the USA, it would generate some $1B in revenue. I guess that would be one way to pay for part of it.

Another way to generate $1B would be to tax everyone equally to generate it, which would make more sense, since those are the people that directly use it.

As I have said, these are all hypothetical, and hence have absolutely no meaning despite everyone's attempt to somehow back me into a corner on the issue. The proposed FAA tax is NOT being generated to pay for health care.

I maintain, and I still maintain, that health care (and wars and education) costs money. We first decide on whether or not we want it, then we tax the masses to pay for it. Since we are already 'taxing' a large portion of the population through health insurance policies to pay for those that are not paying their share of the 'insurance', it seems to make sense that if you want everyone to pay their fair share by creating a system where everyone is taxed and everyone gets the benefit.

Now you tell me - is that a conservative or a liberal viewpoint - ??

[tkhayes 348]

read my post above for clarification if you wish..

Quote

My question to you was simple.... would you support the 100 tax IF the money went to HC?

Simple question about your position.

maybe, it's not black and white answer as are most subjects. If you want a yes or no answer, you're not getting one from me.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

If TK and other DZO's really cared about this situation... they would REQUIRE HC to jump there. That would be fine by me.

Not true. If you do not have health insurance, it does not directly affect my operation or my bottom line (in directly it might). I have no incentive to require skydivers to carry health insurance.

I can care about health care and not require that just like I can care about safe driving, yet not require proof of auto insurance for all my skydiving customers.

Your point is not actually a point, it is a silly example.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Not true. If you do not have health insurance, it does not directly affect my operation or my bottom line (in directly it might). I have no incentive to require skydivers to carry health insurance.

If you were really concerned about people being healthy, you would not let them engage in higher risk activities without HC.

If you were really concerned about people going bankrupt due to an injury and not having HC, you would not let them engage in a higher risk activity.

So, you either:

1. Don't really care if a person is injured and can't get medical care or goes bankrupt.

2. Care, but not if it will hurt your pocket book.

[tkhayes 348]

Well bullshit- you are shortening the cost issue and healthcare into nothing more than two points and only two points.

And two points of your choice - so your 'point' is quite invalid.

I have stated many times what my stance is- I can't help it if you don't get it.

I have more concern about people falling down the stairs and going bankrupt than I am about the higher risk activities. Using your logic, any activity that results in an injury would therefore have to be deemed high risk and therefore banned

Now try to stay on topic FaA taxes - did you write your congressman today? Cause I did again?

[Anvilbrother 0]

Why?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Zep 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is the world coming to an end?

Better buy more guns.

I've got enough to take care of myself, and to loan some to friends who aren't as well prepared. If you want on my emergency gun loan list, I'll put you down at the bottom - that may get you only an old German mauser. But better than nothing.

I'll put that down to a typo on your part as I'm sure a GEW98 wouldn't be on your loan list.

Gone fishing

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Attachments: jr.jpg (79.2 KB)

I'm not.

Why are you attributing an emotion to me that is not in evidence?

Why are you running around posting your stupid image in multiple forums?

Make an intelligent comment, or go away.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

I've got enough to take care of myself, and to loan some to friends who aren't as well prepared. If you want on my emergency gun loan list, I'll put you down at the bottom - that may get you only an old German mauser. But better than nothing.

I'll put that down to a typo on your part as I'm sure a GEW98 wouldn't be on your loan list.

Well, I have several, and you would get the crappiest one.

I have a Mauser model 1871, but ammo for that is really hard to come by, and I'd be afraid to shoot it. Then there's a Gewer 88 Commission rifle with the weird barrel shroud, a Gewer 98, and a Karabiner 98. Only the last two are really shootable.