Could it happen he The High Cost of Operating in Europe

"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.

Larry Dighera wrote:

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.

Years ago, the majority of this came from the general fund. This was because
the politicos felt that it was advantageous to keep a large aviation "Trust
Fund" surplus on the books. It made to budget deficits look better. The trust
fund was taken off line during the Clinton administration. Although groups
like AOPA had pushed for it to be taken off the books to allow some of it to
be spent for airport improvements (arguably its intended purpose), the
politicos started fundind the FAA primarily from this source, and the fund
has been seriously depleted. I believe that C.J. Campbell quoted the balance
as being 80% from the fuel and ticket taxes.

The lesson is that it is VERY important for you to find out when one of these
articles was written. If it was written more than about 10 years ago, it will
no longer be factual (if it ever was).

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news


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.




It is always difficult to come up with a "fair" system. What is fair?
Equal pay for equal service? Taxation that produces equal pain? Everybody
paying an equal percentage? All are fair. All are unfair.

If we go to a user fee system, how will we price it? Should the same flight
by a 172 and a 747 be charged the same? It costs the same to separate each
blip.

I disagree with the notion that people shouldn't have to pay for services
that add safety. Why not? Should everyone venturing into the woods be
provided with a satellite phone and locator beacon at government expense?

My personal philosophy on whether I should pay user fees is that I am
already paying $10K/week in taxes and that should cover all the services
that I recieve, particularly since they don't even deliver the mail to my
house.

Unfortunately, if we go to a user fee system, it will probably be written
mostly by/for the airlines who pay no taxes and are bailed out on a regular
basis at taxpayer expense.

Mike
MU-2