A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Avgas in France has reached $7.50/gal !



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 22nd 05, 05:00 AM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:sp_9e.6987$WI3.4028@attbi_s71...
Jay, this is total BS. The amount raised from the tax on avgas is $60
million annually. It doesn't even begin to pay for flight service
stations nevermind airports or anything else. Even AOPA achknowleged
this in a recent magazine. If we were to support airports with a gas tax
gas would be $7.80...or more...


Allow me to re-phrase that more precisely.

In Iowa, if the Iowa legislature didn't keep spending all of the tax money
brought in by aviation on things other than aviation, we wouldn't be
scraping for money to repave our ramp. We would have ample money in the
coffers to properly maintain our airport(s).

Hell, during a recent "budget crisis" year (aren't they all?), they
eliminated ALL spending on aviation in the state. But they sure didn't
cut any taxes.



While the states should keep their promises, aviation would still be
subsidized. Aviation has a very small number of participants exclusively
using a large amount of infrastructure. I am not saying that this subsidy
is good or bad but I am merely asserting that it exists.

Mike
MU-2


  #2  
Old April 22nd 05, 05:40 AM
Bob Fry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"MR" == Mike Rapoport writes:
MR While the states should keep their promises, aviation would
MR still be subsidized. Aviation has a very small number of
MR participants exclusively using a large amount of
MR infrastructure. I am not saying that this subsidy is good or
MR bad but I am merely asserting that it exists.

The subsidy surely does exist, and it's huge. As I recall from
discussions about our local airport:

- The FAA, from the Federal Airport Improvement Program, will pay 90%
of the costs for airport improvement (runway widening or extension or
resurfacing, taxiways, aprons, and so forth). There's no way that the
Feds' AIP is paid completely by aviation related taxes.

- The remaining 10% must come from local or state. Here in California
there is a state airport department (part of the state DOT), and sure
enough the funds they collect get stolen most years to the General
Fund. But at most they would pay for 10%.

- Then the airport owner is usually required to kick in 1% to 2% so
the state doesn't pay the full 10%. In our case the Univ. of
California owns our airport, and they get airport money not from
taxes, but from hangar rentals and gasoline sales. I don't know
whether the airport is a source or sink of money for the UC.

GA is highly subsidized in the US, and like Mike I won't comment
further if that's good or bad.
  #3  
Old April 22nd 05, 12:54 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

- The FAA, from the Federal Airport Improvement Program, will pay 90%
of the costs for airport improvement (runway widening or extension or
resurfacing, taxiways, aprons, and so forth).


That's because the Feds have decided that maintaining an aviation
infrastructure is in the interest of the country, and they understand that a
local government entity is too small to pay the entire bill. Thus, they
spread the cost over many users, rather than over just the few in (for
example) Iowa City, Iowa.

Now I suppose that premise is open to debate, too -- but that's the concept
at the heart of the Federal subsidy. In that regard, runways are no
different than freeways. We all pay for them -- and we all get to use
them, if we choose.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #4  
Old April 22nd 05, 08:48 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



- The FAA, from the Federal Airport Improvement Program, will pay 90%
of the costs for airport improvement (runway widening or extension or
resurfacing, taxiways, aprons, and so forth).



The FAA pays 95% now.
  #5  
Old April 23rd 05, 05:04 AM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:8C5ae.8520$r53.7576@attbi_s21...
- The FAA, from the Federal Airport Improvement Program, will pay 90%
of the costs for airport improvement (runway widening or extension or
resurfacing, taxiways, aprons, and so forth).


That's because the Feds have decided that maintaining an aviation
infrastructure is in the interest of the country, and they understand that
a local government entity is too small to pay the entire bill. Thus,
they spread the cost over many users, rather than over just the few in
(for example) Iowa City, Iowa.

Now I suppose that premise is open to debate, too -- but that's the
concept at the heart of the Federal subsidy. In that regard, runways are
no different than freeways. We all pay for them -- and we all get to use
them, if we choose.
--
Jay Honeck


No, there is a fundemental difference. The road tax on gasoline pays for
all the roads and the taxes on aviation do not come close to paying for
airports. Most of the 90% is coming from non-aviation sources. Aviation is
heavily subsidized but so is everybody with an AGI under something between
$100K and $200K/yr which is most taxpayers. Same thing with SS, recipients
are getting way more in benefits than they paid in.

Ask your local FBO's how much fuel they sell and what the taxes are and
compare it to the airport budget then estimate the number of flights, figure
$10 per weather briefing and see how the numbers come out.

Mike
MU-2


  #6  
Old April 23rd 05, 01:40 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, there is a fundemental difference. The road tax on gasoline pays for
all the roads


are you claiming that, in the USA, the only source of funds to pay for roads is
the tax on gas? In MA we have this excise tax which I thought paid for part
of the road infrastructure.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like
  #7  
Old April 23rd 05, 03:32 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, there is a fundemental difference. The road tax on gasoline pays

for
all the roads


are you claiming that, in the USA, the only source of funds to pay for

roads is
the tax on gas? In MA we have this excise tax which I thought paid for

part
of the road infrastructure.


In many states the fuel taxes and property taxes on vehicles all goes into
the General Fund. Some of it comes back into the highway fund, but often,
not even half.


  #8  
Old April 23rd 05, 03:50 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, there is a fundemental difference. The road tax on gasoline pays for
all the roads


are you claiming that, in the USA, the only source of funds to pay for
roads is
the tax on gas? In MA we have this excise tax which I thought paid for
part
of the road infrastructure.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like


No only federal highway funding. State and county roads are funded
differently.

Mike
MU-2


  #9  
Old April 23rd 05, 08:30 PM
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

No, there is a fundemental difference. The road tax on gasoline pays for
all the roads


are you claiming that, in the USA, the only source of funds to pay for
roads is
the tax on gas? In MA we have this excise tax which I thought paid for
part
of the road infrastructure.


A tax is a tax, it makes no difference what you call it.


  #10  
Old April 23rd 05, 10:13 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Chris" wrote:

No, there is a fundemental difference. The road tax on gasoline pays for
all the roads


are you claiming that, in the USA, the only source of funds to pay for
roads is
the tax on gas? In MA we have this excise tax which I thought paid for
part
of the road infrastructure.


A tax is a tax, it makes no difference what you call it.


the name of the tax was not what I questioned.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Soaring near Paris, France (Not Texas :-) [email protected] Soaring 17 November 13th 04 06:39 PM
News from France HECTOP Piloting 12 April 1st 04 01:16 AM
Russia joins France and Germany captain! Military Aviation 12 September 9th 03 09:56 AM
France Bans the Term 'E-Mail' bsh Military Aviation 38 July 26th 03 03:18 PM
"France downplays jet swap with Russia" Mike Military Aviation 8 July 21st 03 05:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.