GA's "fair share"

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.

-Robert

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.

The Reason Foundation is a influential Washington think tank that
is
dedicated to free markets...opposes...subsidies to GA,

Is there a credible study somewhere as to how much is this subsidy
really is? If you start with FAA's waste of billions to get their
systems to work (documented by GAO), then you may indeed get IFR
flights at a $100 each. But ban GA completely, and how much does
ATC staffing go down, if at all? Go to fligthaware.com, pick
random airports of all sizes, and see whose doing the GA IFR. It's
mostly jets and turboprops, and the hefty fuel taxes they pay are
lost, for perhaps a net loss to gov't if ATC costs are reduced only
somewhat.

The avg recreational flyer does 30+ hours a year, perhaps $50 in
fed fuel taxes. Many of these guys avoid ATC and even FSS, by using
the Weather Channel on a nice day and a local flight. Ban them,
and gov't loses $50 a pop profit per year. So, how much is the
subsidy -- on a proper, marginal cost computation?

Fred F.

I think the push for user fees is thinly-veiled attempt at wealth
redistribution.

I humbly disagree.

I think the biggest push for user fees is coming from the airlines, to
make shared jet ownership and other corporate travel less attractive.

I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, however.

-jav

GA's
by "TaxSrv" Nov 8, 2005 at 02:55 PM


The Reason Foundation is a influential Washington think tank that
is
dedicated to free markets...opposes...subsidies to GA,

Is there a credible study somewhere as to how much is this subsidy
really is? If you start with FAA's waste of billions to get their
systems to work (documented by GAO), then you may indeed get IFR
flights at a $100 each. But ban GA completely, and how much does
ATC staffing go down, if at all? Go to fligthaware.com, pick
random airports of all sizes, and see whose doing the GA IFR. It's
mostly jets and turboprops, and the hefty fuel taxes they pay are
lost, for perhaps a net loss to gov't if ATC costs are reduced only
somewhat.

The avg recreational flyer does 30+ hours a year, perhaps $50 in
fed fuel taxes. Many of these guys avoid ATC and even FSS, by using
the Weather Channel on a nice day and a local flight. Ban them,
and gov't loses $50 a pop profit per year. So, how much is the
subsidy -- on a proper, marginal cost computation?

Fred F."

The opening post on this thread has the Federal DOT site, which has the
data the Reason Foundation uses. They use the operating subsidy per
passenger mile statistic, so I think it is somewhat biased in favor of
long-range (airplane) transportation. Nonetheless, their data and
methodology are transparent, so it can be used for a serious debate.

The AOPA stuff is just nonsense on a stick. No data, no statistics, no
anything. Just "don't raise our taxes, cut the FAA budget." SOP, a
boring, and ultimately losing argument...

Just a request to Skylune - since your quoting doesn't quite work, at
least manually put two arrows before and after what you are quoting.


for example, this would be quoted


Even if it isn't internet style, it sets a quote apart from the rest,
and is fairly easy to do even in plain text.

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

by Greg Farris Nov 6, 2005 at 03:13 AM


I appreciate the humor - this is a very funny, "Action-Direct" kind of
approach. Your tax dollars at sleep. Of course, we will have to be
prepared
to accept the intrinsic economic repercussions - every tick on the meter
and
you trip to Tahiti just went up a penny, as well as the LLBean sweater
you

mail ordered. By the end of a month or so your vacation has gone from
$600

to $1200 and the $60 sweater cost $120 to deliver - 50% surcharge to the
land of "Live Free or Die".

Skylune doesn't want to face the fact that General Aviation is an
intrinsic
part of the structure of the US economy, and that shifting the expenses
elsewhere will not solve anything. If politicians can get it, I'm stunned

there are still individuals who cannot.

G Faris"

Greg: Thanx. Glad you realized I wasn't serious, esp about the automatic
fuel cutoff.
Runway landings should not be discouraged by financial considerations!
Everyone can probably agree on that point (maybe).

As far as the price increases if user fees are imposed: I don't think that
is automatically true. Assuming (and this is a big assumption considering
the federal budget deficit, the social security dilemma, problems at the
PBGC, etc.) that user fees are SUBSTITUTED for General Fund tax subsidies,
I might pay less elsewhere. The Reason Foundation's philosophy: The cost
of goods SHOULD reflect the true cost of production and transportation.

Problem is, the government won't substitute, they will just impose this in
addition to other taxes, etc. So my LL Bean flannel shirts, corncob pipe,
and overalls may indeed wind up costing more.

Also, there are so many subsidies built into the system and so many
special interest groups (AOPA for example) that everyone fights tooth and
nail for "their" subsidy. No cost benfit analysis is done.

Also, also, also: every politician wants to bring home the bacon,
regardless of cost or need. Thus, we will a have bridge in Ketchikan
Alaska that will serve a few hundred people at best. But the bridge will
employ many construction workers, maintenance personnel, etc. The cost
will then be part of the DOTs baseline budget for highways. And everyone
will wonder why federal spending is out of control.

The best part about the Ketchikan bridge: Senator Stevens (appointed to
office by Governor Stevens, who used to be Senator Stevens before he
became Governor Stevens) will get votes, win re-election, and then seek
more dollars for more projects.

"by Jose Nov 8, 2005 at 08:47 PM


Just a request to Skylune - since your quoting doesn't quite work, at
least manually put two arrows before and after what you are quoting.


for example, this would be quoted


Even if it isn't internet style, it sets a quote apart from the rest,
and is fairly easy to do even in plain text.

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

Sorry 'bout that, Jose. The "newsreaders" (I think they are called that)
seem to do that automatically, whereas my talkaboutaviation.com site
doesn't automatically put stuff in context when I hit "Post a Reply." I
tried cutting and pasting and putting quotes before the post I'm
responding to (like this). I know that's not protocol, but its a real
pain to put arrows and double arrows, etc. in manually.

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)

No attempt necessary; public record. The airport grant money goes
big time to air carrier airports; smaller amount to GA airports
(and the small fraction who receive grants). And they favor big
city "reliever airports" for grant money. This is to take the
burden off the big airports during rush hour, delaying the air
carriers. An important part of FAA's mission, the latter. And the
grant money for small fields also favors safety improvements,
another FAA mission. And BTW, nothing in FAA's mission is to
foster the GA aircraft industry, nor Boeing. That stuff was
removed from their mission statement years ago.

Fred F.

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.

And all these are collected on the spot, like a gas tax and none are
collected weeks later, like as proposed. The point is if the FBO has to
come back later and track down who owes which fees, it is much more
difficult than fees that are collected from the pilot on the spot (like
landing fees, tie down fees etc). It also takes more effort on the
gov't side to compute the amount of the charges, report them and mail
you the bill. If someone can tell me why the more complicated way is
better, than fine. Otherwise, I'll continue to say that the fuel tax is
far easier and cheaper to implement than user fees. If it aint broke...

-Robert