gmcsmoke wrote: Why do 60+ people think they're entitled to special treatment?
If you can't afford a regular fishing license at that age you've made some poor choices in life.
Because we are special. After 60+ years of putting up with everyone elses******we deserve a break. So there.
If your traveling it could get real expensive buying fishing license. An out of state license cost upward of $70. Some but not all states have limited time license like 3 day or 10 day which is perty cheap. Hunting license is another story. They go from $70 to several hundred. It dont cost them any more to print an out of state license, but ther sure ding you and their fish taste no better than the ones at home nore are they any easyer to catch
2000 Ford F-350 SRW 4X4 PSD Jayco Super Lite 29.5RKS (31') 5th wheel 50 gal X-ferflow in the bed tank. Banks big exhaust and Stinger kit.
bigdogger wrote: Instead of offering it to retired seniors offer it to people who are under 65 and are already paying for retirees' medicare, medicade, social security, underfunded pensions etc. Using net worth as a guideline as to how much someone should pay it should be noted that those over 65 have the highest net worth of any age group. In the interest of fairness, perhaps their licenses should cost more than anyone else's. The fact is, for every benefit or discount someone receives, someone else has to pay for it. Lunch isn't free.
What?? You just fall off the boat, or something? We seniors paid into Medicare and Social Security all our lives, and still pay $100 a month for it, whether we use it or not ... ever look at your paycheck, or you too busy complaining - you get deducted for YOUR benefit so it's there when you get here!
Got news for you. Totally incorrect. The current generation of retirees have not paid in an amount anywhere equal to what they are going to withdraw. I would gladly withdraw from all government benefit programs right now if the government would stop taking money from me to fund those programs for others. Send me the paperwork to let me leave Social Security, medicare and all the other entitlement programs, stop taking money from me and the government can keep what they have already collected from me. Just let me go. But you know what, it cannot happen because they need my money now to pay the current retirees benefits. The previous generations of politicians have spend all the money that has been collected in the past and are using todays collections (from the working) to pay today's beneficiaries.
bigdogger wrote: Instead of offering it to retired seniors offer it to people who are under 65 and are already paying for retirees' medicare, medicade, social security, underfunded pensions etc. Using net worth as a guideline as to how much someone should pay it should be noted that those over 65 have the highest net worth of any age group. In the interest of fairness, perhaps their licenses should cost more than anyone else's. The fact is, for every benefit or discount someone receives, someone else has to pay for it. Lunch isn't free.
What?? You just fall off the boat, or something? We seniors paid into Medicare and Social Security all our lives, and still pay $100 a month for it, whether we use it or not ... ever look at your paycheck, or you too busy complaining - you get deducted for YOUR benefit so it's there when you get here!
Got news for you. Totally incorrect. The current generation of retirees have not paid in an amount anywhere equal to what they are going to withdraw. I would gladly withdraw from all government benefit programs right now if the government would stop taking money from me to fund those programs for others. Send me the paperwork to let me leave Social Security, medicare and all the other entitlement programs, stop taking money from me and the government can keep what they have already collected from me. Just let me go. But you know what, it cannot happen because they need my money now to pay the current retirees benefits. The previous generations of politicians have spend all the money that has been collected in the past and are using todays collections (from the working) to pay today's beneficiaries.
After all these years on forums & message boards I'm often still surprised at the responses an OP gets. The way I read a lot of the replies here it would only be right that a driver's license is good only in one's state of residence. Live in Texas and want to see the Grand Canyon? Buy licenses for NM & AZ...and pay an exorbitant, higher price for the privilege.
dcmac214 wrote: After all these years on forums & message boards I'm often still surprised at the responses an OP gets. The way I read a lot of the replies here it would only be right that a driver's license is good only in one's state of residence. Live in Texas and want to see the Grand Canyon? Buy licenses for NM & AZ...and pay an exorbitant, higher price for the privilege.
apples and oranges. there is general reciprocity among the states when it comes to driver's licenses. out-of-state drivers pay state sales and state and federal motor fuel taxes which, in theory anyway, are used to maintain the roads on which they drive. there is no comparable tax paid by the general public to support fishing. do you believe that the general public would support such a tax? would you support such a tax? i know that i would not. and why stop with a fishing license? lets make any sort of user fee paid in one state good in all states. driver's license reciprocity also enhances interstate commerce which benefits everyone. a universal fishing license benefits only the fishermen.
remember, the states are separate, sovereign entities and not merely administrative districts of the federal governent. it's up to the states to decide how to manage fishing and hunting within their borders.
73,
rich, n9dko www.bananaboatbytes.com
I know a guy who's addicted to brake fulid. He says he can stop anytime.
_________________________________
2000 Itasca Suncruiser 35U
'46 Willys CJ2A
'03 Jeep Wrangler TJ
'10 Jeep Liberty KK
Way off topic here, from fishing license to overdraw Soc Sec we all earned and paid into, despite words to the contrary here. Probably a good discussion for elsewhere so you complainers can learn something about it.
For now, the fishing license fees that promote a significantly higher amount for out of state are a little bit of gouging by states for 'travelers', much like the room tax for travelers. Each state wants to extract as many dollars as possible from anyone passing through. I'd bet travelers would spend more time and more money if the fishing license fee was equal to the residents fee. By it's very nature, out of state fishing, immediately tells which wallet it's aimed at. No guesswork there?
So, the issue is more about "higher fees" for out of state anglers, than it is about each state having a license requirement. That's simply gouging out of state fishermen (fisher-people?) Nothing wrong with charging a fee to support the sport, but to charge one fee for residents and another for out-of-state folks is shooting the goose.
* This post was
edited 07/07/12 08:43am by monkey44 *
bigdogger wrote: Instead of offering it to retired seniors offer it to people who are under 65 and are already paying for retirees' medicare, medicade, social security, underfunded pensions etc. Using net worth as a guideline as to how much someone should pay it should be noted that those over 65 have the highest net worth of any age group. In the interest of fairness, perhaps their licenses should cost more than anyone else's. The fact is, for every benefit or discount someone receives, someone else has to pay for it. Lunch isn't free.
What?? You just fall off the boat, or something? We seniors paid into Medicare and Social Security all our lives, and still pay $100 a month for it, whether we use it or not ... ever look at your paycheck, or you too busy complaining - you get deducted for YOUR benefit so it's there when you get here!
Got news for you. Totally incorrect. The current generation of retirees have not paid in an amount anywhere equal to what they are going to withdraw. I would gladly withdraw from all government benefit programs right now if the government would stop taking money from me to fund those programs for others. Send me the paperwork to let me leave Social Security, medicare and all the other entitlement programs, stop taking money from me and the government can keep what they have already collected from me. Just let me go. But you know what, it cannot happen because they need my money now to pay the current retirees benefits. The previous generations of politicians have spend all the money that has been collected in the past and are using todays collections (from the working) to pay today's beneficiaries.
And I bet those of us who won't be retiring for another 20 years or so won't see squat in social security benefits, just like we got robbed of pensions as well. We will be working likely til the day we die. No full timing in our future.
Quote: .... a universal fishing license benefits only the fishermen.
Nope.
States I'm not a resident of get NOTHING from me for fishing in those states because I don't fish at all in those states because I don't care for the messing around and cost you have to go through to:
1) Discover where they sell licenses,
2) find the closest one of these places,
3) drive to this place,
4) then buy their short-duration and expensive out-of-state-license,
5) and then study their fishing regulations as quickly and thoroughly as possible to make sure you use legal practices for your fishing there.
They'd at least get SOMETHING from me for camping fees, buying groceries while camping, buying of fishing lures/equipment at the various local fishing spots, and a portion of the fee for a Senior U.S. Fishing Permit .... IF I had a Senior U.S. Fishing Permit right handy in my wallet that I carried along on every RV trip.
And no .... it need not take any extra state or federal personnel or offices to pull this off: Just have the states sell Senior U.S. Fishing Permits through the same channels as they currently sell their regular resident/non-resident fishing licenses. The conditions would be that you MUST buy these permits within your state of residence, that you MUST also buy your own's state's fishing license too whether you plan on fishing in your home state that year or not, and the price for the Senior U.S. Fishing Permit could be somewhat high - such as perhaps $100 - or some multiple of your state's regular annual resident fishing license fee (such as 3/4 times the regular fee). Fees collected from sales of each annual Senior U.S. Fishing Permit - minus the cost of the issueing state's regular resident fishing license - would be kept in a state fund and be building up for a annual payment to the Federal Government. ONE PERSON for a few hours each year in the Federal Government would then be responsible for disbursing 1/50th of this accounts grand total once a year back to a state government address in each state.
What's the incentive for each state selling both types of fishing licenses? They get the fee from the senior being forced to buy a residence license (which they might not have, otherwise) - and they also get this same fee again from the senior because they get to withhold that amount from the Senior U.S. Fishing Permit fee before it's put into the state account for annual payment to the Federal Government - and they also get the (1/50th of the U.S. total) annual disbursal amount back from the Federal Government.
It's not rocket science to figure out how to set up something like this. Of course getting the 50 states to agree to this would/will be impossible - unless and until state politicians (finally) do the math that shows what percentage of their voting blocks is made up of seniors.
monkey44 wrote: Way off topic here, from fishing license to overdraw Soc Sec we all earned and paid into, despite words to the contrary here. Probably a good discussion for elsewhere so you complainers can learn something about it.
For now, the fishing license fees that promote a significantly higher amount for out of state are a little bit of gouging by states for 'travelers', much like the room tax for travelers. Each state wants to extract as many dollars as possible from anyone passing through. I'd bet travelers would spend more time and more money if the fishing license fee was equal to the residents fee. By it's very nature, out of state fishing, immediately tells which wallet it's aimed at. No guesswork there?
So, the issue is more about "higher fees" for out of state anglers, than it is about each state having a license requirement. That's simply gouging out of state fishermen (fisher-people?) Nothing wrong with charging a fee to support the sport, but to charge one fee for residents and another for out-of-state folks is shooting the goose.
This is true of many other things, not just fishing licenses. It's a lot more money to get a non resident Library card too for example. It's revenue for the state or county depending on what it is you are buying. So what? Don't use the services if you don't like the non resident costs. Somethings will always get you a better seat if you are a resident, take college tuition costs for another example.
Offline
