GA's "fair share"

"Jimbob" wrote in message
...


On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:29:52 -0500, "Skylune"
wrote:

Current contribution is shown below. Increased AVGAS tax rates or user
fees are a given!

http://www.house.gov/transportation/...04-05memo.html


The problem as I see it is thay want to tax ATC and ATC interaction is
safety. People are less likely to use ATC and safety suffers. Taxes
in general are regressive but simple. Even a moron politican can
think their way through them.

The problem is that GA pilots demand for ATC is elastic. They don't
NEED ATC. Commercial operations do. They have schedule and have to
be at places at certain times and they all like to arrive at the same
time. I have the liesure of taking off and landing as I please and
tend to avoid crowded areas.

The obvious tax solution is to increase costs to commercial operators,
but that's not good for the industry. My suggestion.

Reduce costs radically. GPS is here to stay so decommision NDB's and
VOR's. Quickly. Give a tax credit to pilot's to purchase new nav
equipment. It will gave GA a much needed shot in the arm. Hell, they
did it for SUV's. Start steering people into the new technologies.
Wait two years then start charging user fees for VOR/NDB based IFR
interaction and non-WAAS approaches. Charge user fees for support of
legacy technology. This is not regressive.

Accelerate ADS-B and SATS implementation. These are workable
technologies that pay for themseleves by reducing ATC workload and
allowing high aviation traffic densities. Plus they have the ability
to widen the scope of GA, increase participation and futher fuel the
industry.

eh? What do I know. I'm still a student. :P

Ahh, but this would all require our government to actually be competent.

For a guy with the handle taxsrv, I am surprised that you don't know the
difference between GAAP and tax accounting and that you can't reconcile the
cash flow statement with the earnings statement

Mike, if their 10K (GAAP) reports expenses for taxes, its a good bet
they are paying income tax.

-Robert

But that's already how landing fees work for rental aircraft--the fee is
charged to the owner, on the basis of the tail number. If the owner is an
FBO, then the FBO in turn charges the renter who had the plane when the fee
was incurred. It doesn't seem very difficult.

This doesn't seem difficult compared to a fuel tax? Surely there must
be some political hack who is trying to carve out lifetime employement
for his children. I can just imagine the entire building with hundreds
and hundreds of gov't accounting types charging aircraft owners for
their usages, along with accountants at FBOs trying to figure out who
flew at 1pm and who flew at 2pm. Its just hard to imagine that anyone
finds this "easier* than a fuel tax.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
But that's already how landing fees work for rental aircraft--the fee is
charged to the owner, on the basis of the tail number. If the owner is an
FBO, then the FBO in turn charges the renter who had the plane when the
fee
was incurred. It doesn't seem very difficult.

This doesn't seem difficult compared to a fuel tax? Surely there must
be some political hack who is trying to carve out lifetime employement
for his children. I can just imagine the entire building with hundreds
and hundreds of gov't accounting types charging aircraft owners for
their usages, along with accountants at FBOs trying to figure out who
flew at 1pm and who flew at 2pm. Its just hard to imagine that anyone
finds this "easier* than a fuel tax.

No, I didn't say it's easier. It's just not much more difficult; and no it's
different that what's already done for landing fees (or for Canadian user
fees for US aircraft that cross the border).

It's trivial for software to automatically bill the right user for the fees.
Such software may not be widely used by FBOs yet, but it would be if user
fees were adopted; so the bookkeeping burden isn't a big deal.

--Gary

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message oups.com...
But that's already how landing fees work for rental aircraft--the fee is
charged to the owner, on the basis of the tail number. If the owner is an
FBO, then the FBO in turn charges the renter who had the plane when the fee
was incurred. It doesn't seem very difficult.

This doesn't seem difficult compared to a fuel tax? Surely there must
be some political hack who is trying to carve out lifetime employement
for his children. I can just imagine the entire building with hundreds
and hundreds of gov't accounting types charging aircraft owners for
their usages, along with accountants at FBOs trying to figure out who
flew at 1pm and who flew at 2pm. Its just hard to imagine that anyone
finds this "easier* than a fuel tax.

-Robert


Annual registration fees should go up based on number of seats or max TO gross weight or similar also....

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
No, I didn't say it's easier. It's just not much more difficult; and no
it's different that what's already done for landing fees

Urk, that should say "and it's no different than". Gotta type more slowly.


--Gary

Sorry but that is not true. The income statement is based on GAAP which is
different from tax accounting. If you go to the cash flow statement you
will see an adjustment for taxes since they did not pay the amount in the
income statement.

Mike
MU-2


"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
For a guy with the handle taxsrv, I am surprised that you don't know the
difference between GAAP and tax accounting and that you can't reconcile
the
cash flow statement with the earnings statement

Mike, if their 10K (GAAP) reports expenses for taxes, its a good bet
they are paying income tax.

-Robert

".Blueskies." wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
But that's already how landing fees work for rental aircraft--the fee is
charged to the owner, on the basis of the tail number. If the owner is an
FBO, then the FBO in turn charges the renter who had the plane when the
fee
was incurred. It doesn't seem very difficult.

This doesn't seem difficult compared to a fuel tax? Surely there must
be some political hack who is trying to carve out lifetime employement
for his children. I can just imagine the entire building with hundreds
and hundreds of gov't accounting types charging aircraft owners for
their usages, along with accountants at FBOs trying to figure out who
flew at 1pm and who flew at 2pm. Its just hard to imagine that anyone
finds this "easier* than a fuel tax.

-Robert


Annual registration fees should go up based on number of seats or max TO
gross weight or similar also....

Why?

Mike
MU-2

..Blueskies. wrote:

Annual registration fees should go up based on number of seats or max TO gross weight or similar also....

Seems to me that fuel taxes will go up by the same factors. Larger planes burn
more gas.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

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

That something is "just a little" worse doesn't reccomend it.

It's trivial for software to automatically bill the right user for the fees.
Such software may not be widely used by FBOs yet, but it would be if user
fees were adopted; so the bookkeeping burden isn't a big deal.

Somebody will make the money on this software. Care to write it?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.