home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.boats
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!enterpoop.mit.edu!linus!progress!gerard
- From: gerard@progress.COM (Gerard Bras)
- Subject: Re: Coast Guard user fee repealed!
- Message-ID: <1992Dec28.150046.14779@progress.com>
- Sender: usenet@progress.com (Mr. Usenet)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: tahiti
- Organization: Progress Software Corp.
- References: <1h5esvINNe1j@leela.CS.ORST.EDU> <Bzp3I7.B7L@idm.com> <1hda8nINNgsl@leela.CS.ORST.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:00:46 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- youngqd@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Dean Youngquist) writes:
-
- ...regarding who pays for SAR
-
- >There are 4 funding options here:
- >1) Charge each boater each time he is rescued.
- >2) Charge all boaters is case of needed rescue.
- >3) Charge all US citizens in case boater (or skier) needs rescuing.
- >4) Charge all people in the world for the recreatinal saftey of some US citizens
-
- Personally I like #1. As a practical matter I think potential users should
- contribute enough to cover standing costs of maintaining the capability. Actual
- users should pay cost plus. The more actual users pay the less the potential
- users will need to cough up.
-
- I know people out there are going to start screaming about how harsh and "unfair"
- this is. But when it costs a couple of hundred bucks minumum to holler for the
- Coast Guard more people will check thier gas tanks and carry spare parts.
- As someone else correctly pointed out, the marine equivalents of AAA are
- already springing up. Proof that the system can be made to work.
-
- In summary, I see nothing more unfair than asking the public to underwrite
- the recreational activities of individuals. The analogy to funding of the
- ski patrol is right on the money.
-
- >Number 2 seems to be the most workable and fair tax base.
-
- > Dean
-