Owning in retirement

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

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

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

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

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" 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)

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.

"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!

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

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.