![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article
outaviation.com, "Skyloon" wrote: I think subsidies make alot of sense for some states, esp remote rural airstrips in AK or WY. What is the cost of remote rural airstrips in AK or WY? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
by "Steven P. McNicoll" Apr 11, 2006 at 04:09
PM In article outaviation.com, "Skyloon" wrote: What is the cost of remote rural airstrips in AK or WY? Capital costs would obviously depend upon the length of the runway, number of runways, equipment, etc. Operating costs would depend on towered vs. nontowered, number of maintenance personnel, etc. So it would vary. The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT airports), some sort of subsidy would be required. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic
volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT airports), some sort of subsidy would be required. Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there shouldn't depend on me for support. Right? Jose -- The price of freedom is... well... freedom. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 05:52 PM
The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT airports), some sort of subsidy would be required. Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there shouldn't depend on me for support. Right? Jose Back to form! I think those are legitimate questions. As I mentioned though, I think if those towns want access THEY should provide local tax (or state tax) subsidies, not you or I. On the other hand, I do think there is some national interest in being able to get stuff (people or supplies) to remote areas of the country that are otherwise inaccessible. The Reason Foundation (libertarian leanings, in sync with my own political philosophy) has interesting publications on their view of subsidies (generally against) that you might be interested in. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On the other hand, I do think
there is some national interest in being able to get stuff (people or supplies) to remote areas of the country that are otherwise inaccessible. What if I never go there, or order stuff from there? Why should I pay? I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program. It is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea. You are taking two completely disparate views and conflating them, making arguments for one from the other. ON the one hand, you don't like airplane noise (but don't seem to mind leafblower noise). On the other hand you don't like GA "subsidies" but don't mind automotive subsidies. This leads to arguments that are inconsistant, and an excuse for inconsistancy that does not wash. Jose -- The price of freedom is... well... freedom. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jose" wrote in message t... I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program. It is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea. The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program? I don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of libraries, but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not believe libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that serves a valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion that serves pure science. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of libraries,
but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees... You are correct, I was imprecise. However the result would be quite similar. It would eliminate the public libraries we all (or most of us) know and love. It would eliminate support for pure science (and the part of the space program that generates results accessible to the public) Jose -- The price of freedom is... well... freedom. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
by "Steven P. McNicoll" Apr 11, 2006 at 06:31
PM The libertarian view would eliminate libraries and the space program? I don't think so. It would certainly eliminate taxpayer support of libraries, but I don't think libertarians are opposed to the funding of libraries by the Andrew Carnegies of the world or by user fees. I also do not believe libertarians are opposed to the portion of the space program that serves a valid defense need, but they would certainly eliminate that portion that serves pure science. Yes. In general, user fees that do not distort economic behaviour are favored over general tax support. If I provide a subsidy for something, more of it will be created than the economics justify. For that reason, taxes should only be levied for things that are purely in the interest of the public at large. Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and should therefore be 100% funded by the participants. At a local airport, they charge no landing fees, charge only about $600 per year for a tie down, and thats it. Overnight tie-down is $5. Yet, they receive millions of dollars in AIP grants (derived from general taxpayer dollars and commercial airline ticket taxes), $150K annual operating subsidy, state subsidies, etc. They even wanted the city to kick in some $$ so as not to "burden" airport users. Hey, who subsidizes my boating: It costs $3500 per year for the slip; transient slips will cost upwards of $75 per night, etc. Yet, a marina has minimal infrastructure compared to an active GA airport. Tax subsidies make GA flying artificially cheap. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 06:20 PM
What if I never go there, or order stuff from there? Why should I pay? I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program. It is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea. You are taking two completely disparate views and conflating them, making arguments for one from the other. ON the one hand, you don't like airplane noise (but don't seem to mind leafblower noise). On the other hand you don't like GA "subsidies" but don't mind automotive subsidies. This leads to arguments that are inconsistant, and an excuse for inconsistancy that does not wash. I agree that libertarianism taken to an extreme would result in no roads, libraries, health care, etc. I don't want to live in a society that is like the wild west, nor would most others I think. Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors. Aircraft noise is an externality that has no cost to the aviator. The victims cannot even identify the fliers, and if they do, no one is responsible. A classic catch-22: the FAA says the airport is responsible, the airport says the FAA is responsible, and most of the fliers simply say "F- You: Its my right to make noise" or silly variants like the airport was there first. The cost of noise pollution is borne 100% by those on the ground, and they have little to no political recourse (in most places). As I said before, there are laws on the books in most communities that target noise pollution: Only plane noise is exempt. There are no automotive subsidies at the federal level. Federal gasoline taxes exceed subsidies provided for road projects. So there are in fact negative subsidies. See the BTS study I posted for info. You might find the Reason Foundation study interesting, and you'll see its not that harsh on nonbusiness GA (see pp. 31- from below link). They propose keeping the current GA avgas tax as the preferred funding method, even though correctly stating that it generates only 3% of Trust Fund $$. (They also debunk some absurd Boyerisms, but then come down largely on his side for funding of FSS, for e.g.). http://www.reason.org/ps332.pdf |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors. Huh? That doesn't stop the noise. And usually the noise is coming from whoever they hired, who aren't going to stop either. And it drones on hour after hour, when one neighbor stops, the other starts. And it's a whine that is very piercing (all the energy is located in a narrow band of the spectrum) so a mile away even at low volume it is annoying. Neighbors who blow leaves basically have the attitude "Its my right to make noise" coupled with the "need" to blow the leaves instead of raking. There are no automotive subsidies at the federal level. Federal gasoline taxes exceed subsidies provided for road projects. The gas tax subsidizes the trains. Why shouldn't the subway riders pay the full cost of the subway, even if it means ten dollars a ticket? (There are reasons, and they are similar in nature to the GA arguments) My point in any case is not that GA is or is not subsidized (or should or should not be). It is that you are inconsistant in your reasoning, and your choice of target. Jose -- The price of freedom is... well... freedom. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cirrus chute deployment -- an incredible story | Michael182/G | Instrument Flight Rules | 48 | July 14th 05 03:52 PM |
Small plane crash lands on freeway in LA area | Skywise | Piloting | 17 | June 24th 05 04:37 AM |
My first lesson | Marco Rispoli | Aerobatics | 3 | May 17th 05 08:23 AM |
My first aerobatic lesson | Marco Rispoli | Piloting | 6 | April 13th 05 02:21 PM |
Plane down - NASCAR team plane crashes... | Chuck | Piloting | 10 | October 28th 04 12:38 AM |