Maine does away with aircraft sales taxes

Posted June 22, 2011, at 1:27 p.m.
Last modified June 22, 2011, at 5:53 p.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this  
Aircraft mechanic Will Andrews of Windham works on a plane at Northeast Air in Portland on Wednesday, June 22, 2011. Aviation companies are applauding a new law that eliminates sales taxes on aircraft sales and parts starting July 1. Plane enthusiasts say business should grow now that Maine is on equal footing with other New England states that have similar tax exemptions.
Pat Wellenbach | AP
Aircraft mechanic Will Andrews of Windham works on a plane at Northeast Air in Portland on Wednesday, June 22, 2011. Aviation companies are applauding a new law that eliminates sales taxes on aircraft sales and parts starting July 1. Plane enthusiasts say business should grow now that Maine is on equal footing with other New England states that have similar tax exemptions.
Planes are seen lined up at Northeast Air in Portland on Wednesday, June 22, 2011. Aviation companies are applauding a new law that eliminates sales taxes on aircraft sales and parts starting July 1. Plane enthusiasts say business should grow now that Maine is on equal footing with other New England states that have similar tax exemptions.
Pat Wellenbach | AP
Planes are seen lined up at Northeast Air in Portland on Wednesday, June 22, 2011. Aviation companies are applauding a new law that eliminates sales taxes on aircraft sales and parts starting July 1. Plane enthusiasts say business should grow now that Maine is on equal footing with other New England states that have similar tax exemptions.
A reflection of a worker is seen on the nose of a plane being worked on at Northeast Air in Portland on Wednesday, June 22, 2011. Aviation companies are applauding a new law that eliminates sales taxes on aircraft sales and parts starting July 1. Plane enthusiasts say business should grow now that Maine is on equal footing with other New England states that have similar tax exemptions.
Pat Wellenbach | AP
A reflection of a worker is seen on the nose of a plane being worked on at Northeast Air in Portland on Wednesday, June 22, 2011. Aviation companies are applauding a new law that eliminates sales taxes on aircraft sales and parts starting July 1. Plane enthusiasts say business should grow now that Maine is on equal footing with other New England states that have similar tax exemptions.

PORTLAND, Maine — A new law eliminating sales taxes on aircraft and parts should give aviation businesses a boost and improve Maine’s image as a tax-hungry state prowling after out-of-staters who fly in for visits.

Buried deep in the state’s new 620-page budget is a single sentence that provides tax relief for plane buyers, pilots who fly to Maine and people having their aircraft worked on in the state. The exemptions go into effect July 1.

The tax breaks put Maine on a level playing field with other states, said Mark Goodwin, vice president of Northeast Air, an aircraft maintenance company in Portland. No other New England state has a sales tax on aircraft parts, according to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, in Frederick, Md. Other than Vermont, all other New England states have tax exemptions on aircraft sales.

“It’s just a breath of fresh air for us trying to make business go in the state of Maine when all the states below us all have had exemptions for all those same things for years,” Goodwin said. “We’ve been battling as an island on our own with a sales tax that’s kept aircraft owners from coming to Maine because they can have the work done cheaper elsewhere.”

Now that the taxes are being eliminated, Maine Aviation Corp. in Portland is planning to build two new hangars for the increased business it anticipates, said owner Allyn Caruso. He expects his work force to expand from 60 to 100 in the next two years, and for the aircraft sales arm of his business to grow.

“This is going to push us over the top,” Caruso said. “We know our business is going to go up.”

Maine has long had a poor reputation among plane owners for its aggressive tax collectors who tracked down out-of-state plane owners and sent them hefty bills — some topping $100,000 — demanding payment of the state’s “use” tax.

For planes, state law allowed Maine Revenue Services to collect a 5 percent use tax from people who didn’t pay sales taxes on their planes they bought elsewhere if they brought their planes to Maine for more than 20 days, excluding time for maintenance, in the first year of ownership.

At the same time, companies that work on planes have had to charge aircraft owners 5 percent for parts, putting their businesses at a competitive disadvantage with companies in nearby states.

Aircraft parts are expensive. A heated windshield on a small jet or midsized propeller plane can run almost $30,000, meaning the owner could save $1,500 in taxes by having the work done elsewhere, Goodwin said. An engine overhaul on a small jet can cost $350,000 in parts alone, which would result in $17,500 in taxes — enough to drive people to bring their plane elsewhere to have work done, he said.

“They’ll bring it to New Hampshire or Massachusetts or Rhode Island,” Goodwin said.

The new tax law should also benefit the former Brunswick Naval Air Station as it undergoes redevelopment. The former base, which shut down for good this spring, has attracted an aircraft manufacturing company and hopes to lure other aviation-related businesses, said Jeff Jordan, deputy director of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, which is responsible for the site.

The tax exemptions will cost the state about $608,000 a year in taxes that otherwise would have been collected, according to the Office of Fiscal and Program Review.

Studies show that other states that have enacted tax exemptions on aircraft sales and parts have benefited, said Mark Kimberling, director of state government affairs for the Aircrafts Owners and Pilots Association. AOPA has more than 400,000 members nationwide and 2,100 in Maine.

After Connecticut exempted aviation parts from sales taxes, it became a hub of aircraft maintenance, he said. The state now has 101 aircraft maintenance companies and 7,000 aircraft mechanics, he said.

“Now you have more companies, more jobs, more revenues and more places for people to work with good livable wages,” Kimberling said.

With Maine Revenue Services no longer collecting use taxes from out-of-state plane owners, more pilots should feel free to fly to Maine without the fear of getting a tax bill in the mail, said Portland attorney Jon Block, who has represented out-of-state plane owners who contested the tax bills over the years.

“This should change Maine’s image in aviation circles,” he said.

“Maine’s gotten a very negative reputation. People were afraid to fly their planes here. And this will totally change that.”

 

Similar articles:

BDN Marketplace News

Marketplace Businesses

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    ‘Children and the elderly freezing in the dark’ in three… two…..

  • Anonymous

    ‘Children and the elderly freezing in the dark’ in three… two…..

  • Anonymous

    Finally.  Maine is finally showing some common sense.  This change will add to the State’s tourist dollars and will benefit Fixed Base Operators (FBO) and the aircraft maintenance industry in the State.  The gains in business and employment will more than offset the loss of tax revenues directly associated with the elimination of the sales taxes on aircraft and parts.

  • Anonymous

    …will cost the state about $608,000 a year …And who do you think is gonna make this up.. the good tax fairy?  The pension savings?   the state employees contract?

  • Anonymous

    Finally, common sense prevails.  It is well-established that the net increase in indirect and direct tax revenue from jobs and productivity created by the abrogation of the airplane tax will more than offset the loss of this recidivistic tax.  Their have been several case studies showing the direct and indirect impact of aviation on a State’s economy (see AOPA.org for fact based examples and studies).  I’m delighted to see that Augusta has finally gotten the message and gotten to work.
     
    This bill was the work of both Republicans and Democrats dedicated to making Maine a place to do business.  And make no mistake–the only thing that will bring a modicum of prosperity to Maine is jobs. Shame on the prior Democratic legislators for killing this bill in the appropriations committee 4 years ago (and leaving in place the tax exemption for Chellie Pingree-Sussman’s excutive jet).  My son-in-law, who owns a construction consulting business now plans to buy a twin engine airplane that will allow him to get around Maine and the Northeast a lot faster, take on more projects and hire more people to work for him.  I have yet to see a social program that is able to do that.

  • Anonymous

    Finally, common sense prevails.  It is well-established that the net increase in indirect and direct tax revenue from jobs and productivity created by the abrogation of the airplane tax will more than offset the loss of this recidivistic tax.  Their have been several case studies showing the direct and indirect impact of aviation on a State’s economy (see AOPA.org for fact based examples and studies).  I’m delighted to see that Augusta has finally gotten the message and gotten to work.
     
    This bill was the work of both Republicans and Democrats dedicated to making Maine a place to do business.  And make no mistake–the only thing that will bring a modicum of prosperity to Maine is jobs. Shame on the prior Democratic legislators for killing this bill in the appropriations committee 4 years ago (and leaving in place the tax exemption for Chellie Pingree-Sussman’s excutive jet).  My son-in-law, who owns a construction consulting business now plans to buy a twin engine airplane that will allow him to get around Maine and the Northeast a lot faster, take on more projects and hire more people to work for him.  I have yet to see a social program that is able to do that.

  • Anonymous

    This is an Excellent catalyst for business job growth.
    With more monies coming into the state, more money will be spent and circulated for a Positive multiplier effect.
    Tax revenues will Grow from the taxes on the subsequent spending down the line.
    Now let’s do the same for the marine boat, forestry and agricultural  industries for more jobs across the state.
    Thank You for Common Sense !

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    VOLDENUIT2 asks
    “…will cost the state about $608,000 a year …And who do you think is gonna make this up..”Well – me for one.  I have not flown to Maine since 2007 when this tax became common knowledge.  Before that I visited Maine often buying fuel, food and often staying overnight and buying gifts and such. Three weeks ago my wife and I flew to Montreal and spend thousands of dollars over four days.  Two weeks ago we flew to Vermont for another four days and spent several thousands on hotel, car rental, fuel and restaurants.  I am going to celebrate this new law by flying to Maine for the first time in years.  THATS where the money is going to come from.  My tourist dollars and other airplane owners repair dollars. I suspect Maine will collect far more in taxes on the purchases of airplane owners than this tax ever did.

  • EDWIN STEWART

    Now I can fly to MAINE where I was born to vist friends and family . Thank you. ED Stewart

  • EDWIN STEWART

    Yes .Now I can fly to  MAINE where Iwas born to see friends and family . Thank you Who ever got this to happen.  ED 

  • EDWIN STEWART

    Yes .Now I can fly to  MAINE where Iwas born to see friends and family . Thank you Who ever got this to happen.  ED 

  • EDWIN STEWART

    Yes .Now I can fly to  MAINE where Iwas born to see friends and family . Thank you Who ever got this to happen.  ED 

  • Anonymous

    My son-in-law will help fill that gap, while creating jobs–see my above post.  No pension raid needed–the prior uni-party legislature under Baldacci did that.

  • Anonymous

    My son-in-law will help fill that gap, while creating jobs–see my above post.  No pension raid needed–the prior uni-party legislature under Baldacci did that.

  • Anonymous

     Looking at data collected by the AOPA from other states that have passed similar laws, the additional income from the increase in business is much higher than the amounts the states were collecting in taxes.

    What the article failed to mention is that the $608k figure was the taxes collected in the FIRST year of this tax.  The amount collected has been dropping dramatically as the pilot community is increasingly doing business with the other New England states that do not have the tax.  If I am remembering correctly from the Legislative session I attended, last year they collected under $200k from this tax, and the trend was clear that it would continue downwards.

  • Anonymous

    JFK supported reduced taxation:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVwGIeD9i3I

    What’s YOUR problem? 

  • Anonymous

    Why stop there, us common folks could use a Tax break on our Automobile parts!
     
       What makes a Rich Man Entitled to have his mode of Transportation Exempt from the same law the rest of us have to pay?
     
    Buried deep in the state’s new 620-page budget is a single sentence that provides tax relief for plane buyers, pilots who fly to Maine and people having their aircraft worked on in the state. The exemptions go into effect July 1.
     
    Whealthy Corporations are writing legislation for themsleves at the expense of the general public. They go State to State and hold each hostage to the other!
     
    http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Model_Legislation1

    This is criminal! 

  • Anonymous

    Why stop there, us common folks could use a Tax break on our Automobile parts!
     
       What makes a Rich Man Entitled to have his mode of Transportation Exempt from the same law the rest of us have to pay?
     
    Buried deep in the state’s new 620-page budget is a single sentence that provides tax relief for plane buyers, pilots who fly to Maine and people having their aircraft worked on in the state. The exemptions go into effect July 1.
     
    Whealthy Corporations are writing legislation for themsleves at the expense of the general public. They go State to State and hold each hostage to the other!
     
    http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Model_Legislation1

    This is criminal! 

  • Anonymous

    I think yacht sales were helped also.

  • Anonymous

    I think yacht sales were helped also.

  • Anonymous

    I think yacht sales were helped also.

  • Anonymous

    I think yacht sales were helped also.

  • Anonymous

    I think yacht sales were helped also.

  • Anonymous

    I think yacht sales were helped also.

  • Anonymous

    I think yacht sales were helped also.

  • Anonymous

    Sure shift the Tax Burden away from Buisness onto the worker and call it a gain!

    Then cry about the Social Security Entitlements to the workers.

    What it really is, is an Entitlement Mentality to the Rich! 

    (But we are the job creators!)

    Save it!    Its Pathetic!

  • Anonymous

      They tax my gmc  pickup  parts, I go where I have to regardless of the Tax! I’m glad to see your having fun jetting around America, but I doubt your sincerity that the Tax was stopping you from your destinations! This is just a give away, and you are boasting about your whealth and influence.

      I really don’t care if you buy 100.00 cheesseburgers, other than if you can afford them you can afford to pay your share of  the Tax .

    Keep your darn plane outta my airspace you are polluting it with arrogance.

  • Anonymous

    He also thought it was a good idea to put the top down!

  • Anonymous

    Why should an aircraft and its parts be free of sales taxes when automobiles are not? Or anything for that matter? Why should some, the few, be ‘exceptional? 

  • Anonymous

    Flash!! Maine is open for business again after decades of anti-business legislation from the socialists!

  • Anonymous

    Its the Golden Rule,

    Those with the gold make the rules!

  • http://twitter.com/FairFreeMarket ABT

    I am private pilot and I lived in Maine for many years. I have so many good friends and great memories of my time there. But the state tax code is designed as an unfriendly one. When I move to PA, I started to realize how much tax Maine collects to subsidize so many social programs that promotes a social class that drains the coffers of the state. Having so many people working for the government and giving them full salary pensions to those workers is formula for disaster. I remember paying thousands of dollars for my car’s registration, in PA we pay $36.00 a year, no more, regardless how much money your car is worth. When the state stops subsidizing social programs for lazy people and starts promoting entrepreneurship and job creation, maybe Maine will have a chance to come out of the depress economy you see it in. There are so many hidden taxes that you don’t know until you incur into them. Example: We were planning to keep our house in Maine so we can go and visit and spend time with family and friends, later we find out that Maine taxes your house, if you decide to sale it, in the amount of 10% in you have not lived there 2 out of the last 5 years. This tax alone, made our decision to sell the house within the next two years, and since then we have been there a handful of times. Instead of spending our vacation time there, now we are going to some other states, spending our money and revenue that otherwise will go to Maine. Maine is taxing themselves to death.

  • Tax All Liberals

    Do the drug induced stooges ever read the articles before they comment?

  • Tax All Liberals

    You don’t pay squat in taxes.

  • Tax All Liberals

    That is almost like you asking why you can’t get a job given that we’ve been to the moon and back several times.

  • Tax All Liberals

    First year numbers?

  • Anonymous

    Lazy has no Economic boundries, their are Lazy Rich as well as Lazy poor!

       Expecting the working class to to pay your way while you fly around for fun kind of illustrates that description.

      Pension! I am sure its ok for you to have one!

  • Anonymous

     Hiview, I think you missed the entire point.  The crux of the matter is that Maine was not collecting much tax from aircraft because pilots have been doing their business in other states instead of here, and that collected amount was decreasing every year.  Without the tax, Maine will do more aircraft related business, and will ultimately collect MORE taxes due to the other types of spending that happen when pilots visit – ie, they need a rental car, need to eat, buy fuel, do “vacation” stuff, etc.  This has been clearly shown by the data from other states that have passed similar laws.  This is a WIN-WIN for everyone involved. 

    I wish you had attended the Legislative session in Augusta where this was discussed, including a couple of dozen presentations by members of the public.  Not one single person spoke out against the Bill, and the majority of people that presented were most definitely NOT rich, but were people just like you and me that happen to have a passion for aviation. 

    On a separate but related note, you don’t have to be rich to enjoy aviation, you just have to have a passion for it much like with boating, snowmobiling, motorcycling, etc.  If you have the passion, you’ll find a way to fly within your budget, by sharing a plane, joining a flying club, renting, and other ways.

    On the other hand, some people that fly ARE rich, and they like to fly their airplanes to go on vacation.  Would you rather have them fly to Maine and spend their money here, or stop in NH?  I can tell you from the various aviation mailing lists that I am on that they were indeed stopping in NH because they didn’t want to pay the tax in Maine, thus we were losing a LOT of money.

  • Anonymous

     The only working class person paying for me to fly is myself.  I don’t eat out much, I don’t go to movies, I don’t go out drinking in bars, etc., and do everything I can to save my money to go fly for a few hours a month.  No one pays my way to fly but me.

    Because I don’t have a lot of money to support my aviation passion, if I want to buy something aviation related, I’ll shop around for the best deal.  If it saves me money to buy it across the border in NH, I’ll do it, and I have the feeling you do the same for things that you buy.  With the tax gone, there a a MUCH higher chance that I’ll buy those things here instead of in NH.

  • Anonymous

      I respect that, I have my recreational passions as well, but lets not follow into the legislative trap of  one gets Tax Breaks and the other doesn’t because the forces from out of State legislation.

      Aviation is Historically an Expensive Hobby and the forces that be in any State favour the Rich. It is Inevetable I guess that Maine would be forced to follow the lead, but that lead has been manipulated for special interests.

    Good luck with your hobby, I have allways wished to be involved in Aviation but as a young man with a family Economics barred me from the pursuit, and as an old man health became the issue.

  • Anonymous

    The gains in business and employment will more than offset the loss of tax revenues directly associated with the elimination of the sales taxes on aircraft and parts

    Maby, Maby not!

  • Anonymous

    The gains in business and employment will more than offset the loss of tax revenues directly associated with the elimination of the sales taxes on aircraft and parts

    Maby, Maby not!

  • Anonymous

    The gains in business and employment will more than offset the loss of tax revenues directly associated with the elimination of the sales taxes on aircraft and parts

    Maby, Maby not!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Abrams/545283011 David Abrams

    I don’t think you get it.  Flying is my hobby.  Yes I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do it, I see no reason to apologize for that.   (If you merely want to rant against the fact that some people have more money than others there is not much I can say to you.)  Also, I was not boasting, I was trying to honestly, with specific examples,  answer a poster who asked who would make up the revenue lost from the tax.   Finally, I was not commenting on the parts tax, I was referring to the 5% tax on the purchase price of the airplane if flown into Maine too many times —  I suspect you might be upset if you drove to Massachusetts a few times as a tourist  and got hit with a bill for 5% of the purchase price of your GMC pickup.

     You may doubt my sincerity, but I fly every weekend if possible.  It is what I like to do  (some people golf other sail, I fly).  You are right that the tax did not stop me from my destinations because I fly for fun – I did not have to be anywhere specific, but there were some very nice destinations in Maine I liked to visit.  Before 2007 I often flew to Maine destinations: Sandford for breakfast, Bar Harbor for lobster, Agusta for the wonderful house of pancakes.  After that, I avoided Maine but continued to fly as much as always.  My point is — Maine lost out. 

    You claim  that I can afford to pay the tax.  Whether that is true or not, I live in Massachusetts, own property only in Massachusetts, pay what I feel is a lot of tax in Massachusetts and I am not about to fly to Maine if it exposes me to a $30,000 tax bill for the privileged of begin a tourist and spending money in the state, especially if Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire do not threaten to penalized me for visiting.  I think you confuse common sense with arrogance. 

    PS – I am not “jetting”  around anywhere. Maine exempted jets from the tax.  It only applies to smaller propeller airplanes.  Had I jet I would not have had to avoid flying to Maine.

  • Anonymous

       Your looking at the wrong person for sympathy for hiding your Airplane in Massachusets and using it in Maine to escape a sales tax when I have to pay a Sales Tax for my hobbies. Maby if all the States Taxed on an equal basis this conversation wouldn’t exist. But somehow forces have allowed these other States to  favour these expensive hobbies. Taxation is enevitable unless you have special interest clout.

      I am not Ranting about the Division  of Income. I am however Ranting about the Entitlement Mentality that comes with it!

  • Anonymous

    It’s rather funny that I read the article and it clearly states that those who buy a plane, and that would include in Maine, and those that buy airplane parts, including inside Maine, do not have to pay a tax on those products. Now, in New Hampshire there is no sales tax anyway so that argument is moot. But why should on particular item be exempt from the in-state sales tax. I am not referring to someone buying a plane elsewhere and being taxed for having their plane in Maine on an extended visit either. I’ll be waiting for a logical, coherent argument with some backing if need be. Please, give it your best shot. 

  • Anonymous

    LePlague’s friends must be buying a lot of planes…

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business

BDN Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business
ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business