by "Robert M. Gary" Nov 8, 2005 at 11:26 AM


No, I didn't say it's easier. It's just not much more difficult;

I just don't agree. How many gov't employees are employeed to collect
the gas tax? How many would be required to collect the use tax? I would
guess it to be at **least** a hundred fold increase, maybe a thousand
fold.

It's trivial for software to automatically bill the right user for the
fees.

How many FBOs have front desk people who can just use Word? This seems
like a burden on the FBO. In the U.S. user fees are **very** rare so
most FBOs have never has exposure to them. I just can't understand how
any of this is easier or beter than gas tax. In fact, I can't think of
anytime I've ever been charged a user fee in the U.S. other than the
landing fee that is automatically added to the parking fee. The only
user fee I've **ever** received in the mail has been from Canada."

Examples of user fees include highway and bridge tolls, tickets on mass
transit, tickets on commercial airline flight (e.g. the $3 security fee
tack on -- in addition to taxes), park fees, paying municipal trash
collection fees (some jurisdictions build this into tax rates, others
charge a fee), water and or/sewer fees, car license fees, car registration
fees, etc. Tuitions at public colleges and community college districts are
also examples of user fees. Some schools charge kids an athletic fee.

The Reason Foundation argues (correctly, in my political point of view)
that fees should be charged to cover activities without a benefit to the
public as a whole.

AHA! you say. GA does benefit the public at large. The Reason
Foundation agrees. The point is how large a subsidy should GA receive.
They point out that recreational GA uses less of the air traffic
infrastructure than does heavier GA (jets and turboprops).

I think this is what AOPA would argue if it was politically able to do so.
Problem is, that would divide the GA community and I don't think they want
to do that at this point. Hence the silliness from AOPA.