Ralph Shumaker wrote:
Not exactly. Not only would direct tax revenue be lost on the cigarette sales themselves, but then a secondary tax loss indirectly on the manufacture and sale of drugs used to treat symptoms.
It is generally better for the economy not to have to spend the money in the first place than to collect the tax on having spent it.
Are you proposing that people be charged according to weight at time of boarding? That certainly would be incentive for frequent flyers to drop
No. I am saying that the FAA traditionally considers the average person to be 170 lbs when doing their calculations. Enough people get on a big plane that it averages out so they don't go through the hassle and embarrassment of weighing each individual. But in recent decades the average weight has gone way up. So they are having to increase the price for everyone. They have to haul more fuel to carry the extra weight which costs money both in the weight and the weight of the fuel needed to carry the extra fuel. Or they put less people/baggage on the plane which costs them profits.
So we all pay. And if you are especially overweight and cannot reasonably fit in one seat (and who hasn't sat next to that person?) they can charge you for the seat beside you and leave it empty. It isn't fair for the other passenger to have your flab falling over into their lap. Especially on a 15 hour flight to, oh, say, VIETNAM.
-- Tracy R Reed Read my blog at http://ultraviolet.org Key fingerprint = D4A8 4860 535C ABF8 BA97 25A6 F4F2 1829 9615 02AD Non-GPG signed mail gets read only if I can find it among the spam. -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
