GA's "fair share"

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
But that's already how landing fees work for rental aircraft--the fee is
charged to the owner, on the basis of the tail number. If the owner is an
FBO, then the FBO in turn charges the renter who had the plane when the
fee
was incurred. It doesn't seem very difficult.

This doesn't seem difficult compared to a fuel tax? Surely there must
be some political hack who is trying to carve out lifetime employement
for his children. I can just imagine the entire building with hundreds
and hundreds of gov't accounting types charging aircraft owners for
their usages, along with accountants at FBOs trying to figure out who
flew at 1pm and who flew at 2pm. Its just hard to imagine that anyone
finds this "easier* than a fuel tax.

No, I didn't say it's easier. It's just not much more difficult; and no it's
different that what's already done for landing fees (or for Canadian user
fees for US aircraft that cross the border).

It's trivial for software to automatically bill the right user for the fees.
Such software may not be widely used by FBOs yet, but it would be if user
fees were adopted; so the bookkeeping burden isn't a big deal.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
No, I didn't say it's easier. It's just not much more difficult; and no
it's different that what's already done for landing fees

Urk, that should say "and it's no different than". Gotta type more slowly.


--Gary

No, I didn't say it's easier. It's just not much more difficult...

That something is "just a little" worse doesn't reccomend it.

It's trivial for software to automatically bill the right user for the fees.
Such software may not be widely used by FBOs yet, but it would be if user
fees were adopted; so the bookkeeping burden isn't a big deal.

Somebody will make the money on this software. Care to write it?

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

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.

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

by "Robert M. Gary" Nov 8, 2005 at 01:41 PM


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

But the thing is, it IS broke, at least according to the FAA. Doesn't
matter much what you or I think....

Administrative complexities are definitely an issue in any new fee
structure. They could make it simple, but this is probably the exception.
On the other hand, when I flew out of FRG there didn't seem to be any
problem in administering the landing fees (I think it was $5 then), so
touch and goes were done about 30 miles east at an "uncontrolled"
facility. (It was definitely uncontrolled when I was trying to line up
the runway!)