GA's "fair share"

Andrew Gideon wrote:
jim rosinski wrote:
But I think in principle user fees are a
good idea because then our fun can be on our own dime.

I can drive for the purpose of "fun" too, but the government (ie. the
taxpayers) funds roads, legal enforcement of driving regulation, the
automobile inspection mechanism, etc.

Apples and oranges. Driving is ubiquitous and pretty near a necessity
while personal flying is a tiny, niche market mostly for fun.

Folks here have indicated that GA taxes cover only a small fraction of
the actual costs of running all the FAA stuff it uses. I wonder how
that compares to taxes on automobile fuel and their share of the cost of
maintaining roads, etc. Dunno--but I was happy to see that many were
disgusted with the "drunken sailor" approach that Congress and Bush took
to the recently passed federal highway bill.

Jim Rosinski

"You're making it a thousand times harder than it needs to be. User fees
will not be on a per use basis, you will pay a yearly fee most probably
based on the weight of your plane. Canada has user fees. Your typical
single engine spamcan pays less than $50 per year for his user fees.
That's Canadian money of course. So even if the average US owner got a
bill each year for $50 it is trivial to the cost of flying."

But Boyer produced the video of the meter running! Maybe he doesn't know
about Canada's simple fee system.

Skylune wrote:
"You're making it a thousand times harder than it needs to be. User fees
will not be on a per use basis, you will pay a yearly fee most probably
based on the weight of your plane. Canada has user fees. Your typical
single engine spamcan pays less than $50 per year for his user fees.
That's Canadian money of course. So even if the average US owner got a
bill each year for $50 it is trivial to the cost of flying."

But Boyer produced the video of the meter running! Maybe he doesn't know
about Canada's simple fee system.

Done for effect. Even the pro user fee types realize you cannot charge
on a per use fee. The revenue collected would be far outweighed by the
collection process.

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

Many elected politicians are AOPA members, as Boyer loves to point out
whenever this fact helps his current argument.


I'm trying to find out how many members of the congress are licensed
private
pilots (I already know it will be disproportionate, relative to the
population).

(this little factoid comes in handy when pilots claim that only a highly
skilled, select, elite subset of the population possesses the necessary
skill set to fly, while at the same time (1) bemoaning the stupidity of
the government and (2)claiming that anyone who proposes tougher
regulations on GA is just jealous. Both statements are of course
ludicrous, and repeated often on this site!)

by Newps Nov 8, 2005 at 10:36 AM


Skylune wrote:
"You're making it a thousand times harder than it needs to be. User
fees
will not be on a per use basis, you will pay a yearly fee most probably

based on the weight of your plane. Canada has user fees. Your typical

single engine spamcan pays less than $50 per year for his user fees.
That's Canadian money of course. So even if the average US owner got a

bill each year for $50 it is trivial to the cost of flying."

But Boyer produced the video of the meter running! Maybe he doesn't
know
about Canada's simple fee system.

Done for effect. Even the pro user fee types realize you cannot charge
on a per use fee. The revenue collected would be far outweighed by the
collection process."

Boyer and his cronies should use an intellectually honest approach, rather
than the stupid stuff his organization produces when they object to ADIZ
("I fly a C-150, fear me!") or user fees (the running meter video). The
sound bite stuff from AOPA is really dumb. I guess he knows that an
honest assessment would show the true state of affairs: very heavy
subsidies for light GA.

Minetta knows this: don't let the recent love fest fool you all. That's
why he kept on using the "in my view" qualifying language at the recent
EXPO. (Even the AOPA has picked up on this huge qualifier.)

An honest assessment would start with the $$ GA pays into the system, and
then attempt to quantify the resources used by GA, including capital (the
airports themselves, including runways, towers, lighting, electronics,
etc) and operations (ATC services mostly).

The revenue collected would be far outweighed by the collection process.

This never stops a bureaucracy. Witness highway tolls.

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

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:37:56 -0700, Newps wrote:

You're making it a thousand times harder than it needs to be. User fees
will not be on a per use basis, you will pay a yearly fee most probably
based on the weight of your plane. Canada has user fees. Your typical
single engine spamcan pays less than $50 per year for his user fees.
That's Canadian money of course. So even if the average US owner got a
bill each year for $50 it is trivial to the cost of flying.

I used to pay $25/year to the IRS for the aircraft use tax. That tax
was dropped in the early 1980s because, as was reported at the time,
it cost the IRS more to collect than it brought in. Except for the
inconvenience of filling out an IRS form, I wouldn't mind paying
$50/year.

But that's not the proposal that has had me lying awake at night. I
remember reading a proposal from the Reason Foundation, which has been
a major advocate for user fees, in the Wall Street Journal. As I
recall, that proposal included fees of $50 per touch and go and
$100/hour for IFR operations. That's an unbearable expense, making ATC
cost more far more than gas, depreciation, or insurance.

I think the push for user fees is thinly-veiled attempt at wealth
redistribution. They consider private pilots to be idle rich playboys.
Certain politicians have referred to them as such. The idea of user
fees is to strip them of their ill-gotten riches, acquired only by
stealing from the hard-working poor. These proposals are intended
serve as an interim measure to deal with idle rich playboy pilots, who
do no work and contribute nothing to society, until the worker revolt
finally comes and provides a permanent solution to inequality.

That's why President Clinton proposed FAA user fees with the money
being earmarked for social programs. If the FAA actually needs money
to operate, then why did he even mention social programs? This
proposal completely exposed the purpose of user fees. It's obvious
that the FAA has nothing to do with it.

RK Henry

by RK Henry Nov 8, 2005 at 06:31 PM


On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:37:56 -0700, Newps wrote:

You're making it a thousand times harder than it needs to be. User fees

will not be on a per use basis, you will pay a yearly fee most probably
based on the weight of your plane. Canada has user fees. Your typical
single engine spamcan pays less than $50 per year for his user fees.
That's Canadian money of course. So even if the average US owner got a
bill each year for $50 it is trivial to the cost of flying.

I used to pay $25/year to the IRS for the aircraft use tax. That tax
was dropped in the early 1980s because, as was reported at the time,
it cost the IRS more to collect than it brought in. Except for the
inconvenience of filling out an IRS form, I wouldn't mind paying
$50/year.

But that's not the proposal that has had me lying awake at night. I
remember reading a proposal from the Reason Foundation, which has been
a major advocate for user fees, in the Wall Street Journal. As I
recall, that proposal included fees of $50 per touch and go and
$100/hour for IFR operations. That's an unbearable expense, making ATC
cost more far more than gas, depreciation, or insurance.

I think the push for user fees is thinly-veiled attempt at wealth
redistribution. They consider private pilots to be idle rich playboys.
Certain politicians have referred to them as such. The idea of user
fees is to strip them of their ill-gotten riches, acquired only by
stealing from the hard-working poor. These proposals are intended
serve as an interim measure to deal with idle rich playboy pilots, who
do no work and contribute nothing to society, until the worker revolt
finally comes and provides a permanent solution to inequality.

That's why President Clinton proposed FAA user fees with the money
being earmarked for social programs. If the FAA actually needs money
to operate, then why did he even mention social programs? This
proposal completely exposed the purpose of user fees. It's obvious
that the FAA has nothing to do with it.

RK Henry"

The Reason Foundation is a influential Washington think tank that is
dedicated to free markets. It generally opposes pork spending, including
bridges to nowhere in alaska, subsidies to mass transit, subsidies to GA,
etc. It eschews redistribution of wealth. Politically, it is usually
slotted as "conservative." Here is their web site:




http://www.reason.org/

"RK Henry" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:37:56 -0700, Newps wrote:

You're making it a thousand times harder than it needs to be. User fees
will not be on a per use basis, you will pay a yearly fee most probably
based on the weight of your plane. Canada has user fees. Your typical
single engine spamcan pays less than $50 per year for his user fees.
That's Canadian money of course. So even if the average US owner got a
bill each year for $50 it is trivial to the cost of flying.

I used to pay $25/year to the IRS for the aircraft use tax. That tax
was dropped in the early 1980s because, as was reported at the time,
it cost the IRS more to collect than it brought in. Except for the
inconvenience of filling out an IRS form, I wouldn't mind paying
$50/year.

But that's not the proposal that has had me lying awake at night. I
remember reading a proposal from the Reason Foundation, which has been
a major advocate for user fees, in the Wall Street Journal. As I
recall, that proposal included fees of $50 per touch and go and
$100/hour for IFR operations. That's an unbearable expense, making ATC
cost more far more than gas, depreciation, or insurance.

I think the push for user fees is thinly-veiled attempt at wealth
redistribution. They consider private pilots to be idle rich playboys.
Certain politicians have referred to them as such. The idea of user
fees is to strip them of their ill-gotten riches, acquired only by
stealing from the hard-working poor. These proposals are intended
serve as an interim measure to deal with idle rich playboy pilots, who
do no work and contribute nothing to society, until the worker revolt
finally comes and provides a permanent solution to inequality.

That's why President Clinton proposed FAA user fees with the money
being earmarked for social programs. If the FAA actually needs money
to operate, then why did he even mention social programs? This
proposal completely exposed the purpose of user fees. It's obvious
that the FAA has nothing to do with it.

RK Henry

Hello, its President Bush that is proposing user fees.

Mike
MU-2

by "Mike Rapoport" Nov 8, 2005 at 06:44 PM


"RK Henry" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:37:56 -0700, Newps wrote:

You're making it a thousand times harder than it needs to be. User
fees
will not be on a per use basis, you will pay a yearly fee most probably
based on the weight of your plane. Canada has user fees. Your typical
single engine spamcan pays less than $50 per year for his user fees.
That's Canadian money of course. So even if the average US owner got a
bill each year for $50 it is trivial to the cost of flying.

I used to pay $25/year to the IRS for the aircraft use tax. That tax
was dropped in the early 1980s because, as was reported at the time,
it cost the IRS more to collect than it brought in. Except for the
inconvenience of filling out an IRS form, I wouldn't mind paying
$50/year.

But that's not the proposal that has had me lying awake at night. I
remember reading a proposal from the Reason Foundation, which has been
a major advocate for user fees, in the Wall Street Journal. As I
recall, that proposal included fees of $50 per touch and go and
$100/hour for IFR operations. That's an unbearable expense, making ATC
cost more far more than gas, depreciation, or insurance.

I think the push for user fees is thinly-veiled attempt at wealth
redistribution. They consider private pilots to be idle rich playboys.
Certain politicians have referred to them as such. The idea of user
fees is to strip them of their ill-gotten riches, acquired only by
stealing from the hard-working poor. These proposals are intended
serve as an interim measure to deal with idle rich playboy pilots, who
do no work and contribute nothing to society, until the worker revolt
finally comes and provides a permanent solution to inequality.

That's why President Clinton proposed FAA user fees with the money
being earmarked for social programs. If the FAA actually needs money
to operate, then why did he even mention social programs? This
proposal completely exposed the purpose of user fees. It's obvious
that the FAA has nothing to do with it.

RK Henry

Hello, its President Bush that is proposing user fees.

Mike
MU-2"

Mike: User fees are being proposed by the FAA under the Bush
administration. Earlier efforts were made under the Clinton
administration. The Reason Foundation has publicized the various
subsidies differing modes of transportation receive for many years. They
are on record as proposing user fees (based on an equity argument) years
before the current funding crisis occurred. Here is a link to one of
their recent statements:


http://www.reason.org/outofcontrol/a...etting_su.html