GA's "fair share"

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Would you feel comfortable renting your aircraft to someone who is
going to leave the country in a month and possibly leave you with a big
"user fee" bill? FBOs like to have clean books and don't have huge
accounting offices. This is a MASSIVE paperwork problem. The fact that
the FBO doesn't know what to really charge the renter for a month or
more is just crap.

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.

Or similarly, if you fly a rented plane to Canada (as I did recently),
various user fees, landing fees, and customs fees will be charged to the FBO
that owns the plane.

--Gary

Robert M. Gary wrote:

I"m not so worried about user fees directly. What I don't understand is
how in the world they will collect them. Do you read a credit card over
the radio before getting your approach clearance?

In Canada, we pay a flat Nav Canada fee of about CAD 65/year for a
light plane (about USD 55/year). It's a slight annoyance, but no big
deal -- the bill comes in the mail every spring, and you pay it.
Originally it was going to be a few hundred dollars, but COPA beat them
down.

All aircraft owners are required to pay, even if they don't use air
traffic services (i.e. a farmer who flies a Cub around her own field),
so it's properly a tax than a fee. U.S. pilots who fly to Canada also
get a Nav Canada bill, but it's by the quarter (i.e. you don't have to
pay for a full year if you're just coming once).


All the best,


David

Chris wrote:

Cannot be arsed to rework the numbers - we have fireworks going off here at
the moment, its like being in a war zone. Its impossible to concentrate.
Fireworks will be going all weekend.

Happy Guy Fawkes Day.


All the best,


David

Doug wrote:

At the rate the govt is going now, might as well just eliminate ALL
taxes and run the Federal govt on the deficit. Pretty much what we are
doing now anyway.

Not really. But the numbers are pretty sobering nonetheless.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0 says:

2004 US government spending: $2.3 trillion
2004 US government income: $1.9 trillion
------------
2004 US government deficit: $412 billion

Even just the discretionary portion of the budget was almost $900
billion. We are nowhere near "running the Federal govt on the deficit",
not even the discretionary part of it. But surprise, surprise: the 2005
projections are worse.

Jim Rosinski

jim rosinski wrote:

the 2005 projections are worse.

Oops, my bad. The projected 2005 deficit is actually slightly *less*
than that for 2004. I was reading the wrong column.

Jim Rosinski

"David Megginson" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chris wrote:

Cannot be arsed to rework the numbers - we have fireworks going off here
at
the moment, its like being in a war zone. Its impossible to concentrate.
Fireworks will be going all weekend.

Happy Guy Fawkes Day.


All the best,

Not so happy for Guy Fawkes though. Today is the 400th anniversary of his
attempt to blow up Parliament as part of a Catholic plot to kill the
establishment.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:29:52 -0500, "Skylune"
wrote:

Current contribution is shown below. Increased AVGAS tax rates or user
fees are a given!

http://www.house.gov/transportation/...04-05memo.html


The problem as I see it is thay want to tax ATC and ATC interaction is
safety. People are less likely to use ATC and safety suffers. Taxes
in general are regressive but simple. Even a moron politican can
think their way through them.

The problem is that GA pilots demand for ATC is elastic. They don't
NEED ATC. Commercial operations do. They have schedule and have to
be at places at certain times and they all like to arrive at the same
time. I have the liesure of taking off and landing as I please and
tend to avoid crowded areas.

The obvious tax solution is to increase costs to commercial operators,
but that's not good for the industry. My suggestion.

Reduce costs radically. GPS is here to stay so decommision NDB's and
VOR's. Quickly. Give a tax credit to pilot's to purchase new nav
equipment. It will gave GA a much needed shot in the arm. Hell, they
did it for SUV's. Start steering people into the new technologies.
Wait two years then start charging user fees for VOR/NDB based IFR
interaction and non-WAAS approaches. Charge user fees for support of
legacy technology. This is not regressive.

Accelerate ADS-B and SATS implementation. These are workable
technologies that pay for themseleves by reducing ATC workload and
allowing high aviation traffic densities. Plus they have the ability
to widen the scope of GA, increase participation and futher fuel the
industry.

eh? What do I know. I'm still a student. :P



Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

Airlines that make money pay income tax.

Mike Schumann

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "Mike Rapoport" Nov 4, 2005 at 07:10 PM


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Current contribution is shown below. Increased AVGAS tax rates or user
fees are a given!

http://www.house.gov/transportation/...04-05memo.html


GA is also the only user that pays income tax."

What the ????? There is no income tax on general aviation. Maybe you
mean the personal income tax, which everyone pays?



Yes that is what I meant. The airlines pay no income taxes. They report
a tax liability under GAAP accounting but there is an adjustment in the
cash flow statement. I am all for user fees if it applies equally to
everyone for everything since my total tax bill would decline by a huge
percentage.

Mike
MU-2

I appreciate the humor - this is a very funny, "Action-Direct" kind of
approach. Your tax dollars at sleep. Of course, we will have to be prepared
to accept the intrinsic economic repercussions - every tick on the meter and
you trip to Tahiti just went up a penny, as well as the LLBean sweater you
mail ordered. By the end of a month or so your vacation has gone from $600
to $1200 and the $60 sweater cost $120 to deliver - 50% surcharge to the
land of "Live Free or Die".

Skylune doesn't want to face the fact that General Aviation is an intrinsic
part of the structure of the US economy, and that shifting the expenses
elsewhere will not solve anything. If politicians can get it, I'm stunned
there are still individuals who cannot.

G Faris



In article
outaviation.com,
says...


Technological solutions already exist. Creative solutions are called for.
User fees need not be difficult to administer!

For example, the EZ pass electronic transponder system for autos could be
easily be extended to small planes. Aircraft owners would be required to
pay a small annual fee for the transponder, say $10,000. As you pass by
the OMNIs, charges to your credit card could be automatically posted.
During takeoffs and landings, the same transponder detection equipment
could be utilized to charge. Perhaps a first missed approach would be on
the house. For subsequent missed approaches, a 50% landing fee would be
charged.

Your radios could also be equipped with electronic debiting software, to
charge the card in the event you request flight following or need to
contact ATC. Newer planes could be factory equiped with instrumentation
(like the Hobbs) that would show how much you're racking up on the AMEX
card. If you reach your charge limit while aloft, a fuel shut off switch
could be automatically engaged, thereby encouraging timely payment of the
user fees. If you are at sufficient altitude, there should be time to
contact AMEX to get the credit limit lifted in order to accomplish an
runway landing.

Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Newps" wrote
You're making it a thousand times harder than it needs to be. User fees
will not be on a per use basis, you will pay a yearly fee most probably
based on the weight of your plane. Canada has user fees. Your typical
single engine spamcan pays less than $50 per year for his user fees.
That's Canadian money of course. So even if the average US owner got a
bill each year for $50 it is trivial to the cost of flying.

My objection to this idea goes back to the give an inch, take a mile
argument. Open the door and there's always the chance someone will run a
stampede through it...

This and the "camel's nose under the tent" argument heard elsewhere in
this thread sidestep the question of why taxpayers should subsidize our
(GA pilots) fun. No doubt the gov't can think of a way to implement
user fees in a screwed up way. But I think in principle user fees are a
good idea because then our fun can be on our own dime. Thanks to other
responders who have made excellent points such as how much GA's share
should be compared to airlines, and whether GA use of ATC in class B
should be charged at all.

Jim Rosinski