No response needed

I just want the world to know.
Dear Senator,

My wife and I have a small store where we have been selling shrimp from for
11 years. Our store is actually a boat in St. Andrews Marina. Everyday
fishermen hired by BP are going out in search of oil. I see 30 to 50 boats
leave every morning. Many (it should be most*) of these are fishermen that
have lost there means of making a living. BP has hired them and is paying
them well. At this time we have no oil in Panama City.

MY FIRST POINT, don't do anything that will affect the financial viability
of BP. You should encourage purchase of BP fuel, you need to keep BP healthy
so the stock price can rise, this makes BP stronger so it can continue to
pay cleanup crews and claims.

I am on this marina everyday and I know most of the fishermen, the fisherman
are thrilled with the pay from BP.

A small boat of 20ft gets $1000 dollars day, This is $250,000 a year for a 5
day work week. Fuel and supplies are paid by BP. The larger the boat the
higher the pay, $3000 a day is the highest I have heard. That's $750,000 a
year, and the expenses are paid. Deckhands are getting $200 dollars a day,
that is $50,000 a year. Most of these deckhands never saw $20,000 a year in
there life.

The pay is so high that the shrimpers are stopping shrimping and going to
work for BP, on oil patrol. The same is happening in Apalachicola Fl, (about
100 miles SE of me) the oyster capitol of this area. Our local oyster bar
had to find a new source for oysters, his oystermen went to work for BP.

A quote from our local newspaper,

"APALACHICOLA - With compensation checks easily available, oystering has
slowed to a crawl on Apalachicola Bay. ...Seafood houses across the county
say they are able to obtain barely 10 percent of their normal allotment of
oysters. There are plenty of oysters. ( just know one to harvest them)

Same with Apalachicola shrimpers, There is no oil and plenty of shrimp.

Panama City Beach is a tourist area, when the oil gets here the thousands of
hotel rooms will not have tourists, the housekeepers won't have work, the
restaurants won't have customers and waitresses tips will dwindle. All
business will be affected. Real estate is already greatly affected, people
don't want to buy with oil coming and some know prices will be lower in 3 or
4 months.

Now back to my situation, for the last 7 years we have been open 10 hrs a
day, 7 days a week, 363 days a year.

We will continue working until we can't. The plan was 7 to 10 more years,
now I don't know if it will be one more month or one more year. At this
point I am confident BP will pay for any losses that I may have in the
future, but they need to continue to be financially strong.

I'm sure you're aware that the BP stock price is down 44% since the spill
started. This means they have lost 73 billion in market capitalization. It
is time to help the company recover rather than do anything that could
affect the price further.

Many retirees rely on BP dividends for retirement income. If you push the
idea to create an escrow fund and cause the dividend to be unpaid, this will
lower the stock price, further weakening the company. Without those
dividends the retirees will find other stocks to get there income**.

This could cause BP to fail.

If you allow BP to stay strong, the 15 to 20 billion dollars of profit they
generate every year will be more

than enough to pay cleanup and claims.

Please stay focused on the unintended consequences of creating an escrow
fund.

Sincerely,

Mike Knowlton

**Recreational fisherman are jumping on this gravy train, it should have
been commercial

fishermen first. Retirees are supplementing their retirement with their
recreational fishing boat.





** ( starting with 44% less money)

"News" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
> amdx wrote:
>> I just want the world to know.
>
>
> Thanks, Tony.

Who is Tony?

>Write early, write often

If you mean that, I have a list of rants I can get going on.

BP and the Environmentalists and NIMBYs

The Boarder

Government social programs

On our constitution and capitalism

English should be the official language of the United States.

The top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of all federal taxes,

50% of wages earners pay no federal taxes.

Political correctness

Mike

"amdx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:66894$4c18a380$18ec6dd7$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I just want the world to know.
> Dear Senator,
>
> My wife and I have a small store where we have been selling shrimp from
> for 11 years. Our store is actually a boat in St. Andrews Marina. Everyday
> fishermen hired by BP are going out in search of oil. I see 30 to 50 boats
> leave every morning. Many (it should be most*) of these are fishermen that
> have lost there means of making a living. BP has hired them and is paying
> them well. At this time we have no oil in Panama City.
>
> MY FIRST POINT, don't do anything that will affect the financial viability
> of BP. You should encourage purchase of BP fuel, you need to keep BP
> healthy so the stock price can rise, this makes BP stronger so it can
> continue to pay cleanup crews and claims.

A clear misunderstanding of the dynamics of BP's world view and economics.
BP's 'performance' is based on screwing the next guy, always has always will
be.

> I am on this marina everyday and I know most of the fishermen, the
> fisherman are thrilled with the pay from BP.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and what reality is this world
you live in?

> A small boat of 20ft gets $1000 dollars day, This is $250,000 a year for a
> 5 day work week. Fuel and supplies are paid by BP. The larger the boat the
> higher the pay, $3000 a day is the highest I have heard. That's $750,000 a
> year, and the expenses are paid. Deckhands are getting $200 dollars a day,
> that is $50,000 a year. Most of these deckhands never saw $20,000 a year
> in there life.

I've extended family and friends in the sea food industry in and around NOLA
and the MS gulf coast. I don't know where you're getting your numbers but
they are not on the ground, real world. Regardless if there is no oil why
is BP paying anyone to collect oil.

> The pay is so high that the shrimpers are stopping shrimping and going to
> work for BP, on oil patrol. The same is happening in Apalachicola Fl,
> (about 100 miles SE of me) the oyster capitol of this area. Our local
> oyster bar had to find a new source for oysters, his oystermen went to
> work for BP.

The shrimpers in this end of the gulf are going to work for BP because there
is no other game in play.

> A quote from our local newspaper,

Name of the paper with date and a link would carry some weight.
>
> "APALACHICOLA - With compensation checks easily available, oystering has
> slowed to a crawl on Apalachicola Bay. ...Seafood houses across the county
> say they are able to obtain barely 10 percent of their normal allotment of
> oysters. There are plenty of oysters. ( just know one to harvest them)
>
> Same with Apalachicola shrimpers, There is no oil and plenty of shrimp.
>
> Panama City Beach is a tourist area, when the oil gets here the thousands
> of hotel rooms will not have tourists, the housekeepers won't have work,
> the restaurants won't have customers and waitresses tips will dwindle. All
> business will be affected. Real estate is already greatly affected, people
> don't want to buy with oil coming and some know prices will be lower in 3
> or 4 months.
>
> Now back to my situation, for the last 7 years we have been open 10 hrs a
> day, 7 days a week, 363 days a year.

Fishing out of season I see. Shows how much you really know about the
business.

>
> We will continue working until we can't. The plan was 7 to 10 more years,
> now I don't know if it will be one more month or one more year. At this
> point I am confident BP will pay for any losses that I may have in the
> future, but they need to continue to be financially strong.

Yes Virginia there is a Santa Clause.
>
> I'm sure you're aware that the BP stock price is down 44% since the spill
> started. This means they have lost 73 billion in market capitalization. It
> is time to help the company recover rather than do anything that could
> affect the price further.

BP's stock price has no impact on the value of BP's assets. The down tern
is more a reflection of the markets opinion of the ability of BP's
management to manage.
>
> Many retirees rely on BP dividends for retirement income. If you push the
> idea to create an escrow fund and cause the dividend to be unpaid, this
> will lower the stock price, further weakening the company. Without those
> dividends the retirees will find other stocks to get there income**.

Investing is a risk, when you buy stocks you buy into the potential reward
and the inherent risk. Does ENRON and MCI ring a bell?

> This could cause BP to fail.

Very unlikely.
>
> If you allow BP to stay strong, the 15 to 20 billion dollars of profit
> they generate every year will be more than enough to pay cleanup and
> claims.

There is a clear indication that they intend to 'avoid' any and all $
responsibility to the best of their ability.
>
> Please stay focused on the unintended consequences of creating an escrow
> fund.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mike Knowlton
>
> **Recreational fisherman are jumping on this gravy train, it should have
> been commercial fishermen first. Retirees are supplementing their
> retirement with their recreational fishing boat.

Make up your mind: previously you were very concerned about the plight of
retirees now you want preference give to commercial elements. Am I to
assume you're anti-family farm and pro-agribusiness. Same logic applies.

An aside: Why haven't we had the advantage of Dick Cheney's knowledge and
wisdom in this affair. He was, according to reports once upon a time a well
placed upper manager in one of the biggest oil fields service companies in
the world. Since he is known to speak with authority (just ask him) why is
he so silent with what should be his main skill set?

"amdx" <
>
> The top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of all federal taxes,
>
> 50% of wages earners pay no federal taxes.
>

Warren Buffet's secretary pays more taxes by percentage than he does and
that's just one example.

In <(E-Mail Removed)> Kurt Ullman <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>> Warren Buffet's secretary pays more taxes by percentage than he does and
>> that's just one example.

> n still equal to 1.

Hey, if I were a gazillionaire, I could easily set up
my portfolio so that I'd pay zero [a] in taxes.

A simple investment in "triple tax free municipal bonds",
or a similar purchase, would pay off without a single
cent going to taxes.

Of course the yield I'd be getting on those bonds
would be just a fraction of what regular, taxable,
ones would be giving.

[a] I'm not sure how the AMT works in this regard...

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
(E-Mail Removed)
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

"Kurt Ullman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> In article <hvat2i$126$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "NotMe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "amdx" <
>> >
>> > The top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of all federal taxes,
>> >
>> > 50% of wages earners pay no federal taxes.
>> >
>>
>> Warren Buffet's secretary pays more taxes by percentage than he does and
>> that's just one example.
>
> n still equal to 1.

Which means what exactly?

"Kurt Ullman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> In article <hvat2i$126$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "NotMe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "amdx" <
>> >
>> > The top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of all federal taxes,
>> >
>> > 50% of wages earners pay no federal taxes.
>> >
>>
>> Warren Buffet's secretary pays more taxes by percentage than he does and
>> that's just one example.
>
> n still equal to 1.
>
So what!
If she pays $15,000 and he pays $9,000,000, do you think
she got screwed?

"Kurt Ullman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JcydnWrrxq-xlITRnZ2dnUVZ_r-(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <hvavdr$b93$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "NotMe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "Kurt Ullman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>> > In article <hvat2i$126$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> > "NotMe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "amdx" <
>> >> >
>> >> > The top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of all federal taxes,
>> >> >
>> >> > 50% of wages earners pay no federal taxes.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Warren Buffet's secretary pays more taxes by percentage than he does
>> >> and
>> >> that's just one example.
>> >
>> > n still equal to 1.
>>
>> Which means what exactly?
>
> Stat saying noting that a study with an "n" (as in number) equal to one
> is useless. Think of it as anecdote is the not the singular of data.

No one claimed it was a study or a statistic or that it was unique. It's a
fact and more common than many would suspect.

I know personally a number of people that have gross income in excess of
$250K and pay no income tax legitimately. Their employees OTOH do pay taxes
and given the numbers presented by Buffet himself they pay more as a % of
income than Buffet.

"amdx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:d2056$4c19224e$45013905$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Kurt Ullman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>> In article <hvat2i$126$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> "NotMe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> "amdx" <
>>> >
>>> > The top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of all federal taxes,
>>> >
>>> > 50% of wages earners pay no federal taxes.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Warren Buffet's secretary pays more taxes by percentage than he does and
>>> that's just one example.
>>
>> n still equal to 1.
>>
> So what!
> If she pays $15,000 and he pays $9,000,000, do you think
> she got screwed?

If you defined this as she paying 20% and his paying 10% she does come out
on the short end of the stick.

"amdx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:d2056$4c19224e$45013905$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Kurt Ullman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>> In article <hvat2i$126$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> "NotMe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> "amdx" <
>>> >
>>> > The top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of all federal
>>> > taxes,
>>> >
>>> > 50% of wages earners pay no federal taxes.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Warren Buffet's secretary pays more taxes by percentage
>>> than he does and
>>> that's just one example.
>>
>> n still equal to 1.
>>
> So what!
> If she pays $15,000 and he pays $9,000,000, do you think
> she got screwed?
>
No! Buffet paid her a salary (and a lot of other people as
well) that she would not have if Buffet had no money.

David