User Fees

Well said and I think that most would generally agree with most of your
points. The difficulty is (of course) trying to implement change with the
political realities that exist. Everyone is a special interest.

Mike
MU-2


"Dude" wrote in message
...
The argument is always framed as "fair share" but there is no way to
agree on what is fair. The framers of the argument twist the facts to
support their point of view. Clearly GA isn't paying for what it
consumes since the fuel tax doesn't even cover FSS.

That is one we can fix fairly easily. If it costs X dollars to
disseminate the weather, then charge X dollars to get it (the government
has other needs for the weather, so its not an aviation expense).
However, if the goverment for its own purposes wants us all to have the
weather info and requires it, then I don't see how you can say any share
is a "fair share". When you require it, fairness goes out the window.

On the other hand, GA owners and pilots
pay income taxes and airlines do not.. On the third hand, while the
airlines don't pay income taxes (with the probable exception of
Southwest), they employ a lot of people who do and airline travel helps
facilitate economic growth which generates tax revenue.

Let's go ahead and leave out other tax revenues for simplification. Also,
one can justify ANYTHING using the economic growth argument. Governments
local, state, and federal almost uniformly make bad decisions when the
"invest" in economic growth. That's why communism failed.


When the time comes to collect the tax either through user fees or a fuel
tax the same "fairness" issues come around again. It doesn't cost any
more to provide ATC services to a larger airplane that burns more fuel,
so a fuel tax isn't "fair".

While what you state seems true on its face, in practice it is not. A
larger plane flying very quickly, with huge liability issues, and trying
to get into the same crowded international airport as all the other big
fast planes costs MANY times more to provide services to than a small prop
going from one small field to another which 90% of the time uses "see and
avoid" as its primary control system. In fact, almost the ENTIRE system
we now have is set up to allow the carriers to operate. I really can't
understand why that is never discussed or admitted in these big
conferences.


My personal point of view is that the airline business is inherently
unprofitable due to high fixed costs combined with the "tragedy of the
commons" problem. The industry will always be complaining and looking
for handouts from government.

Quit the handouts, and the ones that survive will profit.

It is also apparent thatGA, taken alone, is
subsidized from the general fund but pilots are too pig-headed to
achknowlege it.

I would be happy to acknowledge it, as I depreciated my plane. OTOH, they
let me do that to "create jobs" and get more tax revenue. Its so complex,
we really don't know do we?

This unwillingness to accept simple math is not unique to
pilots, medicare recipients don't achknowlege it either.

Its the whole government shell game that makes us all think this. The
redistribution has gotten so out of hand. One government interference
after another, and now even you are buying into this idea that we are not
paying our fair share in GA. We can't tell what the fair share is because
there is simply too much smoke.

I do know one thing, I would rather pay a private company for weather than
anyone else. Also, we could easily put a speed limit for safety that would
destroy the airlines who could never "see and avoid". Of course, the idea
of a speed limit is stupid, but it points out the fact that its not little
props that need the whole system, its the Jets.

As a point of
interest, almost everyone in our society (close to 90%) is paying less
that thier equal share of the cost of government.


And, close to 90% think they have "earned" their benefits. Its the shell
game. I pay enough in taxes to hire several people, so I must be doing a
pretty good job keeping up my end. I suspect that a good portion of pilots
are the same given the cost of the activity.

I must be a dumba$$ for not comprehending but I can get the same weather
info from DUATS that I can from flight seervice. The reason I always call
FSS for a briefing (even after I have used DUATS) is to go on record as
obtaining a weather breifing (for liability reasons???).

Now if I file IFR then FSS has to be used but why couldn't I file it on-line?
I'm not opposed to paying a fair fee for my use of DUATS (or the equivalent)
but then I should be able to file there too.

"kontiki" wrote in message
news

I must be a dumba$$ for not comprehending but I can get the same weather
info from DUATS that I can from flight seervice. The reason I always call
FSS for a briefing (even after I have used DUATS) is to go on record as
obtaining a weather breifing (for liability reasons???).

Now if I file IFR then FSS has to be used but why couldn't I file it
on-line?
I'm not opposed to paying a fair fee for my use of DUATS (or the
equivalent)
but then I should be able to file there too.


You don't have to use FSS to file IFR, you can file on-line.

kontiki wrote:

I must be a dumba$$ for not comprehending but I can get the same weather
info from DUATS that I can from flight seervice. The reason I always call
FSS for a briefing (even after I have used DUATS) is to go on record as
obtaining a weather breifing (for liability reasons???).


I thought that using DUATS did put you on rectrod as obtaining a weather
briefing.

"kontiki" wrote in message
news
I must be a dumba$$ for not comprehending but I can get the same weather
info from DUATS that I can from flight seervice. The reason I always call
FSS for a briefing (even after I have used DUATS) is to go on record as
obtaining a weather breifing (for liability reasons???).

DUATS is an official breifing same as calling FSS.

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Let's go ahead and leave out other tax revenues for simplification. Also,
one can justify ANYTHING using the economic growth argument. Governments
local, state, and federal almost uniformly make bad decisions when the
"invest" in economic growth. That's why communism failed.


Here's a prime, multi-BILLION dollar example (Denver's airport)! Only
difference from most projects is the degree.
http://fumento.com/supena.html
http://fumento.com/specpena.html

In 1982, the Grace Commission said that governement spending was AT LEAST
25% up to 40% waste. Now, and since then, they tell us every year they can't
cut the budget.

So what the hell is Congress smoking/ingesting? Should we be holding them to
"Zero Tolerence"?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO