"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

Business & Commercial Aviation

. Because traditions tend to linger and vested interests will
work vigorously to protect them, U.S. aircraft operators fly within a
national aviation system that is largely paid for by the general
populace, the logic being that the citizenry benefits directly (as
passengers, shippers or suppliers) or indirectly (as consumers) from
the national aviation system.


On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:00:27 -0700, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Actually, since 11% of the people are paying over 65% of the taxes,

That statistic seems to overlook income taxes paid by US corporations
(or don't they do that any more). :-(

the "general populace" isn's paying for the aviation infrastructure, they aren't
paying for much of anything.

The article mentions both aviation related taxes and general tax
revenues as sources for US aviation infrastructure funding.
Unfortunately it fails to provide any idea of the proportion
contributed by each.

"Especially in the United States, aviation underpinnings --
airways, navaids and air traffic management services; rules
enforcement and aircraft and personnel certification; and
financial aid to airports -- have traditionally been paid for
largely out of general tax revenues. (Fuel taxes, Aviation Trust
Fund assessments and airport passenger facility charges --
essentially, user taxes -- contribute a portion to funding
supporting facility infrastructure and Airport Improvement
Program grants, but much of the FAA's funding is dipped out of
general tax revenues.) This "share-the-pain" philosophy -- i.e.,
spreading the burden of support among the widest possible tax
base, as opposed to just the users of a specific facility or
service -- owes its origins to the American tradition of providing
federal seed money for the specific purpose of encouraging the
development of certain industries or the establishment of
infrastructure to support them."


I don't object to user fees on principal,

It would depend how user fees were structured. If they were
implemented in a way that placed a price on safety related services,
that would be a mistake. Then there's the issue of the cost of
equitably collecting them ...

I object to user fees AND high income taxes.

You must be among the 11% who (you contend) pay 65% of US taxes. :-)

Seriously, the equitable distribution of aviation infrastructure costs
should be paid by those who benefit from the fruits of aviation
activity, both directly and indirectly, which includes most everyone
in today's modern world. But, if European governments traditionally
subsidizes aviation infrastructure, doesn't that reasonably obligate
the US do the same, or face a relative decline in US aviation
viability?

I agree with the article that we could very well have additionaly
fees in the US.

Mike
MU-2


It's seldom indeed, that expenses diminish over time. But, I fear the
consequences of privatizing ATC will mirror the massive damage caused
by deregulating electricity in California. There would likely be too
grand an opportunity for big business to price gouge the public; one
would expect the government to lack such avaricious motives.