Owning in retirement

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

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

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

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
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.

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

"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 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

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

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