How effective would a letter campaign or petitions in casinos
be asking that congress increase slot winnings to at least
$5000 (or whatever figure y'all think is appropriate) before
W2's are generated.
It seems patently unfair that large amounts can be won at
table games without incurring such taxes that slots do.
Besides, one should consider inflation to raise the limit.
If it is phrased like this, I doubt that it would be terribly
successful. The big problem is that you are supposed to pay taxes on
ALL of your winnings, regardless of how and where. The only thing
that is different is that, with a big jackpot, it must be reported to
the IRS by the casino, but a number of smaller wins does not. YOU are
supposed to report everything.
In a way, I think this approach of the IRS is unfair, because most
people do not keep good records, although they might AFTER a big win.
So anyone who wins a big jackpot is an easy victim, even though they
have most likely lost far more than they have ever won.
- John
George Lee wrote:
How effective would a letter campaign or petitions in casinos
be asking that congress increase slot winnings to at least
$5000 (or whatever figure y'all think is appropriate) before
W2's are generated.It seems patently unfair that large amounts can be won at
table games without incurring such taxes that slots do.
Besides, one should consider inflation to raise the limit.
It is the wrong question. The central question why is the United
States the only major English speaking country that taxes
recreational gambling - Canada, the UK and Austrailia do not. Anti-
gambling sentiment in Congress is high, witness the internet
gambling ban - the only practical way to get to yax relief is
because Harry Reid is in a position of power, know you need to get
him to use it. While normally a grass roots efforts on this would
not work, because the grass roots strength of the Christian right
that hates gambling is more powerful, Nevada residents because it is
s small state that is gambling dependent should lobby Harry Reid to
get relief from some burdens as part of a larger tax bill. Such a
bill is currently up for consideration, and Reid is holding up the
bill because he does not like the estate provisions etc. Reid should
trade his support for at a minimum raising the W2-g threshold. What
would really be desireable though is substituting an excise tax on
extradinory high jackpots like those that pay over 10,000 to 1 like
a Megabucks where someone won $12 million with a $3 bet this week
for the current income tax on most gambling, because unlike the AP
people on these boards most of the public does not win anyway and
enforcement on non-machine forms of gambling are impossible so table
game players and poker players don't pay what they should when they
win - how many players playing low limit hold em games are keeping
records and reporting to IRS ? The actual tax on gambling raises in
the end very little money because most people deduct their losses
and have no net - so yes there are some that the AGI triggers raise
some revenue and some that like a tourist who gets lukcy might not
have losses to deduct, etc - but most of the money ends with the
casinos and they pay corporate taxes on their profits so most
gambling profits are already being taxed. Meanwhile the
admimistrative burden on casinos and their customers is enormous.
If it is phrased like this, I doubt that it would be terribly
successful. The big problem is that you are supposed to pay taxes
on
ALL of your winnings, regardless of how and where. The only thing
that is different is that, with a big jackpot, it must be reported
to
the IRS by the casino, but a number of smaller wins does not. YOU
are
supposed to report everything.
In a way, I think this approach of the IRS is unfair, because most
people do not keep good records, although they might AFTER a big
win.
So anyone who wins a big jackpot is an easy victim, even though
they
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "murphyfields" <jkludge@...> wrote:
have most likely lost far more than they have ever won.
- John
George Lee wrote:
>
> How effective would a letter campaign or petitions in casinos
> be asking that congress increase slot winnings to at least
> $5000 (or whatever figure y'all think is appropriate) before
> W2's are generated.
>
> It seems patently unfair that large amounts can be won at
> table games without incurring such taxes that slots do.
> Besides, one should consider inflation to raise the limit.
>
caplatinum wrote:
It is the wrong question. The central question why is the United
States the only major English speaking country that taxes
recreational gambling - Canada, the UK and Austrailia do not. Anti-
gambling sentiment in Congress is high, witness the internet
gambling ban - the only practical way to get to yax relief is
because Harry Reid is in a position of power, know you need to get
him to use it. While normally a grass roots efforts on this would
not work, because the grass roots strength of the Christian right
that hates gambling is more powerful, Nevada residents because it is
s small state that is gambling dependent should lobby Harry Reid to
get relief from some burdens as part of a larger tax bill. Such a
bill is currently up for consideration, and Reid is holding up the
bill because he does not like the estate provisions etc. Reid should
trade his support for at a minimum raising the W2-g threshold. What
would really be desireable though is substituting an excise tax on
extradinory high jackpots like those that pay over 10,000 to 1 like
a Megabucks where someone won $12 million with a $3 bet this week
for the current income tax on most gambling, because unlike the AP
people on these boards most of the public does not win anyway and
enforcement on non-machine forms of gambling are impossible so table
game players and poker players don't pay what they should when they
win - how many players playing low limit hold em games are keeping
records and reporting to IRS ? The actual tax on gambling raises in
the end very little money because most people deduct their losses
and have no net - so yes there are some that the AGI triggers raise
some revenue and some that like a tourist who gets lukcy might not
have losses to deduct, etc - but most of the money ends with the
casinos and they pay corporate taxes on their profits so most
gambling profits are already being taxed. Meanwhile the
admimistrative burden on casinos and their customers is enormous.
Your general sentiments concerning gaming taxation of individuals is
dead on. No question about that. But I think you set your sights in
the wrong direction for action.
I don't think there's any need to cite the "Christian right" as the
barrier to a grass roots initiative. Frankly, mainstream America is a
bit prude and has a firm foundation in the Puritan work ethic. There
simply isn't broad based support for a reform of gambling taxation.
It's not on the radar of most and it would be very difficult to raise
the necessary consciousness to put it there. In most people's eyes,
if you attempted to explain the situation and it's unfairness, I'd
expect they'd look at it as simply another "sin" tax. It doesn't
stand alone.
As far as Washington is concerned, the issue isn't a vote getter (nor
will anyone likely lose appreciable votes for failing to push such an
initiative). With regard to Harry Reid, I don't think you can look
for him to tack a gambling provision onto the Pension bill under
consideration that you note.
If there's a ray of hope, you hint at it in your closing sentence.
Casinos are the interest with political clout that has a motiviation
to push for reform in this area.
However, like any smart actor on the political field, they're going to
selectively pick their battles. The one they favor is that which will
eventually give them free access to operation in all 50 states. W-2G
reporting is a nuisance far smaller than dealing with payroll tax.
- Harry
Harry,
Your facts are good but your conclusion might not hold up. If Reid
was interested, he could put in some kind of provision under the
same rules that allow pork and other budget-busting garbage. (Not
that I think this would be a budget-buster, it would probably
increase revenue.)
Considering items like the "Bridge To Nowhere" that Ted Stevens snuck
in in the middle of the night, then was removed by public outrage
then restored by a backdoor to little public notice Senator Reid,
although in the minority, might get something done this session.
If the Democrats regain control of both Houses we might well push for
some relief in the next Congress.
B
At 05:28 AM 8/1/2006, you wrote:
caplatinum wrote:
> It is the wrong question. The central question why is the United
> States the only major English speaking country that taxes
> recreational gambling - Canada, the UK and Austrailia do not. Anti-Your general sentiments concerning gaming taxation of individuals is
dead on. No question about that. But I think you set your sights in
the wrong direction for action.I don't think there's any need to cite the "Christian right" as the
barrier to a grass roots initiative. Frankly, mainstream America is a
bit prude and has a firm foundation in the Puritan work ethic. There
simply isn't broad based support for a reform of gambling taxation.It's not on the radar of most and it would be very difficult to raise
the necessary consciousness to put it there. In most people's eyes,
if you attempted to explain the situation and it's unfairness, I'd
expect they'd look at it as simply another "sin" tax. It doesn't
stand alone.As far as Washington is concerned, the issue isn't a vote getter (nor
will anyone likely lose appreciable votes for failing to push such an
initiative). With regard to Harry Reid, I don't think you can look
for him to tack a gambling provision onto the Pension bill under
consideration that you note.If there's a ray of hope, you hint at it in your closing sentence.
Casinos are the interest with political clout that has a motiviation
to push for reform in this area.However, like any smart actor on the political field, they're going to
selectively pick their battles. The one they favor is that which will
eventually give them free access to operation in all 50 states. W-2G
reporting is a nuisance far smaller than dealing with payroll tax.- Harry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I don't even think it would take a Democratic majority for this to get
passed. When have Republicans ever opposed people with large amounts of
disposable income paying lower taxes?
Even guardians of morality like Bill Bennett would line up in favor.
</snark>
And Bill, you're wrong about the Bridge to Nowhere - the public outcry was
there, but it stayed in the bill. In fact, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
threatened to quit the Senate altogether if it was removed.
What a baby.
On 8/1/06, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@cox.net> wrote:
Harry,
Your facts are good but your conclusion might not hold up. If Reid
was interested, he could put in some kind of provision under the
same rules that allow pork and other budget-busting garbage. (Not
that I think this would be a budget-buster, it would probably
increase revenue.)Considering items like the "Bridge To Nowhere" that Ted Stevens snuck
in in the middle of the night, then was removed by public outrage
then restored by a backdoor to little public notice Senator Reid,
although in the minority, might get something done this session.If the Democrats regain control of both Houses we might well push for
some relief in the next Congress.B
At 05:28 AM 8/1/2006, you wrote:
>caplatinum wrote:
> > It is the wrong question. The central question why is the United
> > States the only major English speaking country that taxes
> > recreational gambling - Canada, the UK and Austrailia do not. Anti-
>
>Your general sentiments concerning gaming taxation of individuals is
>dead on. No question about that. But I think you set your sights in
>the wrong direction for action.
>
>I don't think there's any need to cite the "Christian right" as the
>barrier to a grass roots initiative. Frankly, mainstream America is a
>bit prude and has a firm foundation in the Puritan work ethic. There
>simply isn't broad based support for a reform of gambling taxation.
>
>It's not on the radar of most and it would be very difficult to raise
>the necessary consciousness to put it there. In most people's eyes,
>if you attempted to explain the situation and it's unfairness, I'd
>expect they'd look at it as simply another "sin" tax. It doesn't
>stand alone.
>
>As far as Washington is concerned, the issue isn't a vote getter (nor
>will anyone likely lose appreciable votes for failing to push such an
>initiative). With regard to Harry Reid, I don't think you can look
>for him to tack a gambling provision onto the Pension bill under
>consideration that you note.
>
>If there's a ray of hope, you hint at it in your closing sentence.
>Casinos are the interest with political clout that has a motiviation
>to push for reform in this area.
>
>However, like any smart actor on the political field, they're going to
>selectively pick their battles. The one they favor is that which will
>eventually give them free access to operation in all 50 states. W-2G
>reporting is a nuisance far smaller than dealing with payroll tax.
>
>- Harry[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--
Jay Fenster
jayfenster@gmail.com
--
aim: JayFensterV1 /// tel. 703.328.2674
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Just to set the record straight the appropriation for the bridge was
removed. It was replaced by a discretionary funding that happened to
be exactly the same amount. Isn't it amazing that this worked?
At 12:58 PM 8/1/2006, you wrote:
I don't even think it would take a Democratic majority for this to get
passed. When have Republicans ever opposed people with large amounts of
disposable income paying lower taxes?Even guardians of morality like Bill Bennett would line up in favor.
</snark>And Bill, you're wrong about the Bridge to Nowhere - the public outcry was
there, but it stayed in the bill. In fact, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
threatened to quit the Senate altogether if it was removed.What a baby.
On 8/1/06, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Harry,
>
> Your facts are good but your conclusion might not hold up. If Reid
> was interested, he could put in some kind of provision under the
> same rules that allow pork and other budget-busting garbage. (Not
> that I think this would be a budget-buster, it would probably
> increase revenue.)
>
> Considering items like the "Bridge To Nowhere" that Ted Stevens snuck
> in in the middle of the night, then was removed by public outrage
> then restored by a backdoor to little public notice Senator Reid,
> although in the minority, might get something done this session.
>
> If the Democrats regain control of both Houses we might well push for
> some relief in the next Congress.
>
> B
>
>
> At 05:28 AM 8/1/2006, you wrote:
> >caplatinum wrote:
> > > It is the wrong question. The central question why is the United
> > > States the only major English speaking country that taxes
> > > recreational gambling - Canada, the UK and Austrailia do not. Anti-
> >
> >Your general sentiments concerning gaming taxation of individuals is
> >dead on. No question about that. But I think you set your sights in
> >the wrong direction for action.
> >
> >I don't think there's any need to cite the "Christian right" as the
> >barrier to a grass roots initiative. Frankly, mainstream America is a
> >bit prude and has a firm foundation in the Puritan work ethic. There
> >simply isn't broad based support for a reform of gambling taxation.
> >
> >It's not on the radar of most and it would be very difficult to raise
> >the necessary consciousness to put it there. In most people's eyes,
> >if you attempted to explain the situation and it's unfairness, I'd
> >expect they'd look at it as simply another "sin" tax. It doesn't
> >stand alone.
> >
> >As far as Washington is concerned, the issue isn't a vote getter (nor
> >will anyone likely lose appreciable votes for failing to push such an
> >initiative). With regard to Harry Reid, I don't think you can look
> >for him to tack a gambling provision onto the Pension bill under
> >consideration that you note.
> >
> >If there's a ray of hope, you hint at it in your closing sentence.
> >Casinos are the interest with political clout that has a motiviation
> >to push for reform in this area.
> >
> >However, like any smart actor on the political field, they're going to
> >selectively pick their battles. The one they favor is that which will
> >eventually give them free access to operation in all 50 states. W-2G
> >reporting is a nuisance far smaller than dealing with payroll tax.
> >
> >- Harry
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>--
Jay Fenster
jayfenster@gmail.com
--
aim: JayFensterV1 /// tel. 703.328.2674[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To further set the record straight, the original phrase "Bridge to
Nowhere" was coined in Washington state in the 1930s when they received
federal funding for a bridge that did go nowhere. Today that bridge has
thousands of cars that use it daily.
Bob
Bill Coleman wrote:
Just to set the record straight the appropriation for the bridge was
removed. It was replaced by a discretionary funding that happened to
be exactly the same amount. Isn't it amazing that this worked?>I don't even think it would take a Democratic majority for this to get
>passed. When have Republicans ever opposed people with large amounts of
>disposable income paying lower taxes?
>
>Even guardians of morality like Bill Bennett would line up in favor.
></snark>
>
>And Bill, you're wrong about the Bridge to Nowhere - the public
outcry was
>there, but it stayed in the bill. In fact, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
>threatened to quit the Senate altogether if it was removed.
>
>What a baby.
>
> >
> > Harry,
> >
> > Your facts are good but your conclusion might not hold up. If Reid
> > was interested, he could put in some kind of provision under the
> > same rules that allow pork and other budget-busting garbage. (Not
> > that I think this would be a budget-buster, it would probably
> > increase revenue.)
> >
> > Considering items like the "Bridge To Nowhere" that Ted Stevens snuck
> > in in the middle of the night, then was removed by public outrage
> > then restored by a backdoor to little public notice Senator Reid,
> > although in the minority, might get something done this session.
> >
> > If the Democrats regain control of both Houses we might well push for
> > some relief in the next Congress.
> >
> > B
> >
> >
> > >caplatinum wrote:
> > > > It is the wrong question. The central question why is the United
> > > > States the only major English speaking country that taxes
> > > > recreational gambling - Canada, the UK and Austrailia do not.
Anti-
> > >
> > >Your general sentiments concerning gaming taxation of individuals is
> > >dead on. No question about that. But I think you set your sights in
> > >the wrong direction for action.
> > >
> > >I don't think there's any need to cite the "Christian right" as the
> > >barrier to a grass roots initiative. Frankly, mainstream America is a
> > >bit prude and has a firm foundation in the Puritan work ethic. There
> > >simply isn't broad based support for a reform of gambling taxation.
> > >
> > >It's not on the radar of most and it would be very difficult to raise
> > >the necessary consciousness to put it there. In most people's eyes,
> > >if you attempted to explain the situation and it's unfairness, I'd
> > >expect they'd look at it as simply another "sin" tax. It doesn't
> > >stand alone.
> > >
> > >As far as Washington is concerned, the issue isn't a vote getter (nor
> > >will anyone likely lose appreciable votes for failing to push such an
> > >initiative). With regard to Harry Reid, I don't think you can look
> > >for him to tack a gambling provision onto the Pension bill under
> > >consideration that you note.
> > >
> > >If there's a ray of hope, you hint at it in your closing sentence.
> > >Casinos are the interest with political clout that has a motiviation
> > >to push for reform in this area.
> > >
> > >However, like any smart actor on the political field, they're
going to
> > >selectively pick their battles. The one they favor is that which will
> > >eventually give them free access to operation in all 50 states. W-2G
> > >reporting is a nuisance far smaller than dealing with payroll tax.
> > >
> > >- Harry
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Jay Fenster
>jayfenster@gmail.com <mailto:jayfenster%40gmail.com>
>--
>aim: JayFensterV1 /// tel. 703.328.2674
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
<http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
At 12:58 PM 8/1/2006, you wrote:
>On 8/1/06, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@cox.net > <mailto:vphobby2%40cox.net>> wrote:
> > At 05:28 AM 8/1/2006, you wrote:
>And Bill, you're wrong about the Bridge to Nowhere - the public
outcry was
>there, but it stayed in the bill.
The term "bridge to nowhere" and statements like "only 40 people live
on thtat island" are prime examples of how political partisans are so
adeot at misleading the public. This is what they don't tell you: THE
KETCHIKAN AIRPORT IS ON THE ISLAND.
Wanna flyl in or out of Ketchikan? Well then tote your luggage down to
the ferry, then tote your luggage off the ferry. Never mind that it is
raining and the wind is blowing 40 mph. Do you get seasick? Nothing
like getting seasick going to or from the airport. The people are tired of
it and want a bridge.
If you want to complain about something, complain about all that oil
laying under ANWR while you are paying $3 a gallon for gas.
Yours truly,
The Alaskan Fremont Street Commando
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote:
Hi Mickey,
It's good to hear from you again! I've missed reading about your
interesting gambling adventures! Please, do write us about your
recent exploits.
BTW, WHERE can you find gas for "ONLY $3 a gallon"? Here, in
Chicagoland, we are now paying a minimum of $3.25 for unleaded.
Most stations are higher than that.
Best regards.
~Babe~
==========================================
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
The term "bridge to nowhere" and statements like "only 40 people
live on thtat island" are prime examples of how political
partisans are so adeot at misleading the public............... This
laying under ANWR while you are paying $3 a gallon for gas.
Yours truly,
The Alaskan Fremont Street Command
So you want to pay more taxes (or better yet borrow more for your
children to repay) in order to provide access to a tiny airport near
a tiny village. How about letting them move the airport or pay for
the bridge themselves.
I don't care if a Republican or Democrat had pissed away my taxes
with this boondoggle. You neocons want small gov't unless your
partisans want big gov't.
For shame!
At 08:23 AM 8/5/2006, you wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote:
> >And Bill, you're wrong about the Bridge to Nowhere - the public
outcry was
> >there, but it stayed in the bill.The term "bridge to nowhere" and statements like "only 40 people live
on thtat island" are prime examples of how political partisans are so
adeot at misleading the public. This is what they don't tell you: THE
KETCHIKAN AIRPORT IS ON THE ISLAND.Wanna flyl in or out of Ketchikan? Well then tote your luggage down to
the ferry, then tote your luggage off the ferry. Never mind that it is
raining and the wind is blowing 40 mph. Do you get seasick? Nothing
like getting seasick going to or from the airport. The people are tired of
it and want a bridge.If you want to complain about something, complain about all that oil
laying under ANWR while you are paying $3 a gallon for gas.Yours truly,
The Alaskan Fremont Street Commando
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BTW, WHERE can you find gas for "ONLY $3 a gallon"?
Here, in
Chicagoland, we are now paying a minimum of $3.25
for unleaded.
Most stations are higher than that.Best regards.
~Babe~--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm"
<mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
This
laying under ANWR while you are paying $3 a gallon
for gas.
--- jackessiebabe <jackessiebabe@yahoo.com> wrote:
___________________________________
___________________________________
This is what I use when checking for lowest gas price
in Vegas:
http://www.vegasgasprices.com/
[Regular unleaded cost at this moment ranges from a
low of $2.85/ gal to a high of $3.05.]
And, this what I check if I want to know the price
anywhere in the US and Canada:
[Regular unleaded price seems to be lowest in San
Antonio (TX) at $2.49].
ElTi
mickeycrimm wrote:
The term "bridge to nowhere" and statements like "only 40 people live
on thatisland" are prime examples of how political partisans are so
adeot at misleading the public. This is what they don't tell you:
THE KETCHIKAN AIRPORT IS ON THE ISLAND.
Well, Mickey, as I read the facts take the $223 mil cost of the bridge
and amortize it over 30 years at 7% interest, and the fact that there
are fewer than 10 flights a day (and I'll make the assumption that
this equates to less than 10 arrivals and 10 depatures, just to be
safe), then you're looking at a layout of about $2K+ a flight for the
bridge ($1.2 mil/mo.)
Now, I don't know, but I'd expect these are largely puddle jumpers.
If you allow for a generous average of 20 passengers per flight,
that's something like $100+ per passenger. Tell you what: There has
to be some enterprising soul who'll offer executive transportion by
ferry to and from the mainland for $75 pp each way. Hell, let's make
that hydroplane. What d'ya say we put this out to bid and save the
feds $50 mil?
Guess that's chump change, though, compared to the Alaskan oil rev.
- Harry
Oh, you neocons!
Bill Coleman wrote:
You neocons want small gov't unless your partisans want big gov't.
Skip
Mickey-- How many people use the Ketchikan airport yearly??? I once flew
with a pilot (commercial) that lived in Ket and he liked it for that reason! "Kept the crowds out" he said. . . . . . Of course a little 40mph wind wasn't anything to him because before he flew planes he flew helicopter rescue! I'm just wondering. . . JH
mickeycrimm <mickeycrimm@yahoo.com> wrote:--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman wrote:
And Bill, you're wrong about the Bridge to Nowhere - the public
outcry was>there, but it stayed in the bill.
The term "bridge to nowhere" and statements like "only 40 people live
on thtat island" are prime examples of how political partisans are so
adeot at misleading the public. This is what they don't tell you: THE
KETCHIKAN AIRPORT IS ON THE ISLAND.
Wanna flyl in or out of Ketchikan? Well then tote your luggage down to
the ferry, then tote your luggage off the ferry. Never mind that it is
raining and the wind is blowing 40 mph. Do you get seasick? Nothing
like getting seasick going to or from the airport. The people are tired of
it and want a bridge.
If you want to complain about something, complain about all that oil
laying under ANWR while you are paying $3 a gallon for gas.
Yours truly, The Alaskan Fremont Street Commando
Jean H--
You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes.
You can steer yourself any direction you choose.
You're on your own. And you know what you know.
And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go.... Dr. Suess
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Guess that's chump change, though, compared to the Alaskan oil rev.
- Harry
And that Alaskan oil revenue is what they should use to build
worthless bridges. Give their people less money for several years.
BTW: My sister does live in Alaska.
dipy911
Don't know about all the logistical problems you mentioned, but at
the time this was prominently in the news, I read that one could have
a helicopter service available to ferry people in and out of the
island at an annual cost less than the annualized capital cost of the
bridge.
On another point, is someone forcing people to live on that island,
with all the problems you mention?
The term "bridge to nowhere" and statements like "only 40 people
live on thtat island" are prime examples of how political partisans
are so adeot at misleading the public. This is what they don't tell
you: THE
KETCHIKAN AIRPORT IS ON THE ISLAND.
Wanna flyl in or out of Ketchikan? Well then tote your luggage
down to the ferry, then tote your luggage off the ferry. Never mind
that it is raining and the wind is blowing 40 mph. Do you get
seasick? Nothing like getting seasick going to or from the airport.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
The Alaskan Fremont Street Commando
Skip Hughes
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 12:20 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: XVP: Bridge to Nowhere. Was: higher limits for
slots
Oh, you neocons!
---Yeah, what/who is that? I don't think I've ever heard the word.
Scot
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@...>
wrote:
Hi Mickey,
It's good to hear from you again! I've missed reading about your
interesting gambling adventures! Please, do write us about your
recent exploits.
Hi, Babe. I'm still on the road and the ole laptop is still in storage. So I'm
stuck using internet cafes and such and don't have alot of time to post. I'm
playing alot of poker these days with a little VP mixed in and haven't made
all the stops I want to make this summer. I still want to make it to
Washington before August is through to play poker at Tulalip and other
rooms around the Seattle area. The weather is great there in August.
Maybe this winter i'll hunker down somewhere with the laptop and will be
able to make more posts. There are lots of things I want to write about.
Good Luck and Happy Cheap Gas Hunting.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
mickeycrimm wrote:
> The term "bridge to nowhere" and statements like "only 40 people
live
> on thatisland" are prime examples of how political partisans are so
> adeot at misleading the public. This is what they don't tell you:
> THE KETCHIKAN AIRPORT IS ON THE ISLAND.Well, Mickey, as I read the facts take the $223 mil cost of the bridge
and amortize it over 30 years at 7% interest, and the fact that there
are fewer than 10 flights a day (and I'll make the assumption that
this equates to less than 10 arrivals and 10 depatures, just to be
safe), then you're looking at a layout of about $2K+ a flight for the
bridge ($1.2 mil/mo.)Now, I don't know, but I'd expect these are largely puddle jumpers.
If you allow for a generous average of 20 passengers per flight,
that's something like $100+ per passenger. Tell you what: There has
to be some enterprising soul who'll offer executive transportion by
ferry to and from the mainland for $75 pp each way. Hell, let's make
that hydroplane. What d'ya say we put this out to bid and save the
feds $50 mil?Guess that's chump change, though, compared to the Alaskan oil rev.
- Harry
Hi, Harry. From reading all the posts in response to my post about
the "bridge to nowhere" it looks like my big mouth opened up a big can
of worms.
The flights in and out of Ketchikan are Alaska Airlines 737's. There are
smaller planes too that fly around Southeast Alaska to villages and
such. Alaskan's fly more per capita than anywhere else in the country.
It's a necessity considering distances, terrain, etc.
The Prudhoe Bay field that the pipeline was built for was projected to
supply oil for 30 years. It started pumping in 1974. There were able to
tie some smaller fields into the pipeline to keep it busy but it is probably
only doing maybe 25% of capacity now. Contrary to popular belief,
Alaska is not a rich state but rather suffers from a boom and bust
economy. The state receives a 12.5% royalty from the wellhead price
of the oil. The money is badly needed for roads, schools, infrastructure.
I admit that the cost of the bridge is high but the cost is high to do
anything in Alaska simply because of where it is. Alaska has 2 Senators
and one congressman. If we had 30 or 40 Congressmen like some
states the oil under ANWR would already be coming out. Alaskans are
over 80% for the oil to flow. So it is not controversial there, just in the
lower 48. Good luck.