User Fees

[Dude]

Where is all this user fee flak coming from?

Do the fuel taxes not get routed back to the system? If not, let's raise a
big stink.

Are the budgets not big enough? Okay, I might be convinced that this is
true, and I may even be willing to look past the fact that the system is
where it is due to seriously bad decisions over the past 20 years just in
the name of getting a solution over wasting time pointing fingers.

Still, what complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc. etc.
etc. thinks user fees are a fix?

Don't they realize the incredible inefficiency of having to bill us? Don't
they realize the money they need to fix the system will instead get used
trying to create a billing system and manage the accounts. This will cost
tens of millions and likely require that everyone get a discreet transponder
id for it to ever work. Meanwhile, they are still using vacuum tube crap to
keep us from crashing!!!

AFAIK, the big traffic increases are coming from increased use of business
jets trying to join in where the scheduled players are already trying to
crowd each other out in order to lose money on every flight. Let's say we
want a $20 fee per flight for using the IFR system. Would it not be easier
just to raise the fuel tax a penny or two? That would raise the same amount
would it not?

And then we could use the money to buy gear and pay controllers instead of
creating an all new department to manage the fee system!

[Dave S]

Glenn Jones wrote:
> In article >,
> "Dude" > wrote:
>
>
>>AFAIK, the big traffic increases are coming from increased use of business
>>jets trying to join in where the scheduled players are already trying to
>>crowd each other out in order to lose money on every flight. Let's say we
>>want a $20 fee per flight for using the IFR system. Would it not be easier
>>just to raise the fuel tax a penny or two? That would raise the same amount
>>would it not?
>
>
> I fly VFR, rarely use ATC beyond the control tower. heh heh heh.

Dont expect the existing fuel taxes to be repealed in favor of user fees...

Dave

[Bob Noel]

In article . net>,
Dave S > wrote:

> Dont expect the existing fuel taxes to be repealed in favor of user fees...

in fact, they will probably be raised to pay for the cost of implementing
and collecting user fees.

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

[Paul kgyy]

Support AOPA, they are our best protection against this. Economically,
I suspect that the tax money raised from our bugsmasher fuel usage
doesn't really cover the cost of service for FSS, VOR maintenance, ATC,
etc etc. But the result of fees will be that fewer people use the
system, which is part of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Support AOPA, they are our best protection against this. Economically,
> I suspect that the tax money raised from our bugsmasher fuel usage
> doesn't really cover the cost of service for FSS, VOR maintenance, ATC,
> etc etc. But the result of fees will be that fewer people use the
> system, which is part of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
>

The total revenue raised from the fuel tax is about $60 million. I do not
recall if this was for avgas alone or included GA jet fuel use too. The
cost of FSS is about $600 million (there is some dispute about this figure).
This information was in AOPA Pilot in the "Presidents Position" section
within the past year.

Mike
MU-2

[Dude]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Support AOPA, they are our best protection against this. Economically,
>> I suspect that the tax money raised from our bugsmasher fuel usage
>> doesn't really cover the cost of service for FSS, VOR maintenance, ATC,
>> etc etc. But the result of fees will be that fewer people use the
>> system, which is part of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
>>
>
> The total revenue raised from the fuel tax is about $60 million. I do not
> recall if this was for avgas alone or included GA jet fuel use too. The
> cost of FSS is about $600 million (there is some dispute about this
> figure). This information was in AOPA Pilot in the "Presidents Position"
> section within the past year.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>

Is the "fair share" argument what this is really about? The majors think
they are paying too much because their planes use more fuel?

We have had this discussion before, and I would rather not rehash it. If we
could get a better FAA by raising the fuel tax, I would support it. I just
want to know what the extra will actually get us. Otherwise, I would just
as soon see the whole thing go libertarian. All we in GA really need are the
GPS satellites, and a few gadgets. AMR, United, and the rest can pack up
and go home for all I care.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Support AOPA, they are our best protection against this. Economically,
>>> I suspect that the tax money raised from our bugsmasher fuel usage
>>> doesn't really cover the cost of service for FSS, VOR maintenance, ATC,
>>> etc etc. But the result of fees will be that fewer people use the
>>> system, which is part of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
>>>
>>
>> The total revenue raised from the fuel tax is about $60 million. I do
>> not recall if this was for avgas alone or included GA jet fuel use too.
>> The cost of FSS is about $600 million (there is some dispute about this
>> figure). This information was in AOPA Pilot in the "Presidents Position"
>> section within the past year.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>
> Is the "fair share" argument what this is really about? The majors think
> they are paying too much because their planes use more fuel?
>
> We have had this discussion before, and I would rather not rehash it. If
> we could get a better FAA by raising the fuel tax, I would support it. I
> just want to know what the extra will actually get us. Otherwise, I would
> just as soon see the whole thing go libertarian. All we in GA really need
> are the GPS satellites, and a few gadgets. AMR, United, and the rest can
> pack up and go home for all I care.

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. 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.

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".

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. It is also apparent thatGA, taken alone, is
subsidized from the general fund but pilots are too pig-headed to
achknowlege it. This unwillingness to accept simple math is not unique to
pilots, medicare recipients don't achknowlege it either. 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.

Mike
MU-2

[Dude]

> 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.

[Mike Rapoport]

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.
>
>
>

[kontiki]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.

[xyzzy]

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.

[Dave Stadt]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

[Vaughn]

"Glenn Jones" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dude" > wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, the big traffic increases are coming from increased use of business
>> jets trying to join in where the scheduled players are already trying to
>> crowd each other out in order to lose money on every flight. Let's say we
>> want a $20 fee per flight for using the IFR system.

Would that not tempt some to fly through clouds without benefit of a
clearance? Would you bother with a VFR flight plan or flight following if it
cost money?

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

"Dude" wrote:

> Still, what complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc.
> etc. etc. thinks user fees are a fix?

The complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc. etc. etc.
administration we elected.


Then "Dude" wrote:

> Let's say we want a $20 fee per flight for using the IFR system. Would
> it not be
> easier just to raise the fuel tax a penny or two? That would raise the
> same
> amount would it not?

Do you burn 2000 gallons of fuel on a typical IFR flight?

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Dude]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Glenn Jones" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Dude" > wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, the big traffic increases are coming from increased use of
>>> business
>>> jets trying to join in where the scheduled players are already trying to
>>> crowd each other out in order to lose money on every flight. Let's say
>>> we
>>> want a $20 fee per flight for using the IFR system.
>
> Would that not tempt some to fly through clouds without benefit of a
> clearance? Would you bother with a VFR flight plan or flight following if
> it cost money?
>
> Vaughn

Another good reason to avoid the fees. The whole point of the present
system is NOT to keep you from running into me or another prop plane. Not a
big deal to them, really. However, let you run into a jet and kill someone
"important" or a bunch of commercial passengers and instead of - "Oops, we
shouldn't have charged for that!" it will be - "Those idiots are dangerous,
and we should make it even HARDER for them to use OUR sky."

Yes, it is the 21st century and psychologists and economists have been
writing theories for decades, yet it is still not common knowledge that
people will avoid spending money if they can. Even to their own peril.

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> And then we could use the money to buy gear and pay controllers instead of
> creating an all new department to manage the fee system!
>

Up here in Taxachusetts there's a long-standing feud over tolls on the
Massachusetts Turnpike. The law that authorized the bond issue to build the
pike said, tolls will be charged until the bonds are paid off, then the
tolls shall end. Well, the bonds were paid off more than 10 years ago, but
the tollbooths persist. A couple years back when the debate flared up, the
tollbooth defenders said, "well, if we quit collecting tolls, the state will
need to come up with that $200 million some other way." Funny part is, the
accountants opened the books and figured that staffing and maintaining the
tollbooths cost the state about 60 cents on every dollar of tolls they
collected. So the net cost to the state of shutting down the tolls would be
only $80 million.

Of course, the tollbooths remain. I feel quite certain that long after the
nuclear war with China, when the whole world devolves into a Mad Maxian
opera of barbarity, the last functioning piece of the government of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be running the tollbooths on the
Masspike...

-cwk.

[Dude]

> wrote in message
news:4fK_d.12274$oa6.4378@trnddc07...
> "Dude" wrote:
>
>> Still, what complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc.
>> etc. etc. thinks user fees are a fix?
>
> The complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc. etc. etc.
> administration we elected.
>

Oh, let's not be partisan. Can't we agree both sides have demonstrated
enough foolishness?

>
> Then "Dude" wrote:
>
>> Let's say we want a $20 fee per flight for using the IFR system. Would
>> it not be
>> easier just to raise the fuel tax a penny or two? That would raise the
>> same
>> amount would it not?
>
> Do you burn 2000 gallons of fuel on a typical IFR flight?
>
> --
> -Elliott Drucker

Yes, when its IMC, I mostly take Southwest. Besides, my per passenger fuel
use is similar to Southwest's, so what's the difference?

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Is the "fair share" argument what this is really about? The majors
think
> > they are paying too much because their planes use more fuel?
> >

Well, the majors are not a business, they're a political interest group. I
used to think that Southwest was able to profit by cherrypicking, but now
that they're the #2 carrier it's pretty hard to deny that the majors are
simply businesses with a failed model. For airline travel to evolve we need
to let Darwin play his cards and thin the herd.

Then there's the fact that the airlines write off fuel costs. And it's not
as though the only cost of an airliner is ATC. Those major metropolitan
airports cost a pretty penny to run, and then there's that little thing
called the TSA.

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

Yes, which makes the left's chant that the rich "aren't paying their fair
share" deliciously ironic.

There has never been a sustained constituency for smaller government. You
can always rile up an angry mob to prevent cutting program A and another mob
for program B, but only in rare moments of crisis will people rally around a
general tightening, as with Thatcher or Reagan. Even in those cases, I would
argue it was really more of a moral issue than accounting, as with the
welfare debate. Aid to Families with Dependent Children cost in the
neighborhood of 20-30bn a year, not a major item in the federal budget.
People wanted it cut not because it cost too much, but because it corrupted
people and in turn society. Of course, no one is really talking now about
how taxing the pants off young people trying to buy their first car, house,
have a kid to buy drugs for elderly people who are as a group much sounder
financially. They paid 1980s taxes on 1980s income but will get 2010
benefits that cost 2010 money. But hey, it's only fair, right?

-cwk.

[Vaughn]

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> Up here in Taxachusetts there's a long-standing feud over tolls on the
> Massachusetts Turnpike. The law that authorized the bond issue to build the
> pike said, tolls will be charged until the bonds are paid off, then the
> tolls shall end. Well, the bonds were paid off more than 10 years ago, but
> the tollbooths persist.

Same deal here in Florida. Florida's turnpike was paid off about a decade
ago, the promise was always that the tolls would go away when the bonds were
paid. The reality was that they instead drastically increased the tolls.

The basic lesson here is that there is no such thing as a temporary tax.

Vaughn

[George Patterson]

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
>
> Up here in Taxachusetts there's a long-standing feud over tolls on the
> Massachusetts Turnpike. The law that authorized the bond issue to build the
> pike said, tolls will be charged until the bonds are paid off, then the
> tolls shall end. Well, the bonds were paid off more than 10 years ago, but
> the tollbooths persist. A couple years back when the debate flared up, the
> tollbooth defenders said, "well, if we quit collecting tolls, the state will
> need to come up with that $200 million some other way." Funny part is, the
> accountants opened the books and figured that staffing and maintaining the
> tollbooths cost the state about 60 cents on every dollar of tolls they
> collected. So the net cost to the state of shutting down the tolls would be
> only $80 million.

The same thing is going on here in New Jersey, only they figured the cost of
collecting the tolls at over 80 cents on the dollar. When you figure in the
Federal highway funds that they can't get because the GSP and NJT are toll
roads, the State would make a net *profit* by eliminating the toll booths.

The problem is that the State set up a bureaucracy decades ago to run the toll
roads. This group knows that their jobs and power base disappears if the roads
become free, so they are continually borrowing money to "improve" the toll
system. These loans could not legally be repaid with Federal highway funds. Four
years ago it was "EZPass." The latest effort is to remove half the toll stations
in one direction, expand those in the other direction, and double the tolls.

The signs say "The inconvenience is temporary -- the improvements permanent." So
are the tolls, it seems.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Montblack]

("George Patterson" wrote)
<snip>
> The signs say "The inconvenience is temporary -- the improvements
> permanent." So
> are the tolls, it seems.


I think Denver to Boulder (30 miles?) got rid of their booths after that
toll road was paid off. My sister lives in Boulder - it was my first toll
road experience when I drove out for a visit. We don't have toll roads (yet)
in Minnesota.

We had a private party buy a 100 year old railroad-over-the-top-cars-on
the-bottom (single lane) swing bridge across the Mississippi River in the
80's. He charged a toll (only toll both in the state at the time).

That trusty old wooden decked bridge closed for good a few years ago. I
loved "The Old Bridge." <sniff> in my hometown of <sniff> St Paul Park -
downriver from St. Paul about 10 miles.

<sniff, sniff. I'm ok, sniff>

Hope I'm on the money with my Colorado Toll Freeway facts :-)


Montblack

[[email protected]]

> > "Dude" wrote:
> >
> >> Still, what complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc.
> >> etc. etc. thinks user fees are a fix?

I wittily replied:
> >
> > The complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc. etc. etc.
> > administration we elected.
> >

"Dude" retorted:
>
> Oh, let's not be partisan. Can't we agree both sides have demonstrated
> enough foolishness?

To which I say:

Not partisan, just the facts. In our democracy, we get the government we
elect. If we elect morons, why are we surprised that they govern (and set
FAA policy) moronically?


>
> >
> > Then "Dude" wrote:
> >
> >> Let's say we want a $20 fee per flight for using the IFR system.
> >> Would it not be
> >> easier just to raise the fuel tax a penny or two? That would raise the
> >> same amount would it not?
> >
> > Do you burn 2000 gallons of fuel on a typical IFR flight?


And the ever-clever "Dude", noted:

> Yes, when its IMC, I mostly take Southwest. Besides, my per passenger
> fuel use is similar to Southwest's, so what's the difference?


Upon which I am happy to point out to "Dude":

Actually, if you fill a couple of seats in a single engine piston airplane
you are probably below Southwest's average fuel per occupied seat-mile by a
good margin.

That said, a $.01/gallon extra tax on aviation fuel will not cover the cost
of the ATC system, which in any case is far more than an average of $20 per
IFR flight. I also agree with you (and many other posters) that user fees
are a very bad idea, primarily because they will discourage the safety
benefits of IFR operation.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> The problem is that the State set up a bureaucracy decades ago to run the
toll
> roads. This group knows that their jobs and power base disappears if the
roads
> become free, so they are continually borrowing money to "improve" the toll
> system. These loans could not legally be repaid with Federal highway
funds. Four
> years ago it was "EZPass." The latest effort is to remove half the toll
stations
> in one direction, expand those in the other direction, and double the
tolls.

Ah yes, nothing like digging holes and filling them back up again. Here in
Mass. a senior toll collector can collect up into the low 80k range with
overtime plus state-worker bennies and union rules. For what this costs they
could easily equip every car in New England with an EZ Pass unit and cut the
cost of collection by probably 90%. Then again, now that most gas stations
are self-serve it's pretty much up to the state to provide jobs for people
willing to work but not skilled enough to get ahead.

-cwk.

[Prime]

"Colin W Kingsbury" > posted the exciting
message link.net:

...."now that most gas stations are self-serve it's pretty much up
> to the state to provide jobs for people willing to work but not
> skilled enough to get ahead.


That's a great, but pathetically sad, post!

Prime Factor

[Marty Shapiro]

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in
link.net:

>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> And then we could use the money to buy gear and pay controllers
>> instead of creating an all new department to manage the fee system!
>>
>
> Up here in Taxachusetts there's a long-standing feud over tolls on the
> Massachusetts Turnpike. The law that authorized the bond issue to
> build the pike said, tolls will be charged until the bonds are paid
> off, then the tolls shall end. Well, the bonds were paid off more than
> 10 years ago, but the tollbooths persist. A couple years back when the
> debate flared up, the tollbooth defenders said, "well, if we quit
> collecting tolls, the state will need to come up with that $200
> million some other way." Funny part is, the accountants opened the
> books and figured that staffing and maintaining the tollbooths cost
> the state about 60 cents on every dollar of tolls they collected. So
> the net cost to the state of shutting down the tolls would be only $80
> million.
>
> Of course, the tollbooths remain. I feel quite certain that long after
> the nuclear war with China, when the whole world devolves into a Mad
> Maxian opera of barbarity, the last functioning piece of the
> government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be running the
> tollbooths on the Masspike...
>
> -cwk.
>
>

Has anyone ever taken the Massachussetts to court about keeping the tolls?
Many years ago there was a 10 cent toll on the Southern State Parkway on
Long Island, NY just before it reached the Cross County Parkway. One day
they raised the toll to 25 cents. One of the commuters was a lawyer who
looked up the statute authorizing the toll. The toll was supposed to go
away once the parkway had been paid for. It had. He sued. The toll booth
was removed.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Bob Noel]

In article <4fK_d.12274$oa6.4378@trnddc07>, wrote:

> > Still, what complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc.
> > etc. etc. thinks user fees are a fix?
>
> The complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc. etc. etc.
> administration we elected.

yep - the Clinton administration was looking at user fees.

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

[Dave Stadt]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> >
> > Up here in Taxachusetts there's a long-standing feud over tolls on the
> > Massachusetts Turnpike. The law that authorized the bond issue to build
the
> > pike said, tolls will be charged until the bonds are paid off, then the
> > tolls shall end. Well, the bonds were paid off more than 10 years ago,
but
> > the tollbooths persist.
>
> Same deal here in Florida. Florida's turnpike was paid off about a
decade
> ago, the promise was always that the tolls would go away when the bonds
were
> paid. The reality was that they instead drastically increased the tolls.
>
> The basic lesson here is that there is no such thing as a temporary
tax.
>
> Vaughn

Same story in Illinois.

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
news:GpM_d.9280$GI6.1852@trnddc05...
> > > "Dude" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Still, what complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted
etc.
> > >> etc. etc. thinks user fees are a fix?
>
> I wittily replied:
> > >
> > > The complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc. etc.
etc.
> > > administration we elected.
> > >
>
> "Dude" retorted:
> >
> > Oh, let's not be partisan. Can't we agree both sides have demonstrated
> > enough foolishness?
>
> To which I say:
>
> Not partisan, just the facts. In our democracy, we get the government we
> elect. If we elect morons, why are we surprised that they govern (and set
> FAA policy) moronically?

If something other than a moron ran for public office I would gladly vote
for them.

[Matt Barrow]

"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

[Chris]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> > wrote in message
> news:GpM_d.9280$GI6.1852@trnddc05...
>> > > "Dude" wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Still, what complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted
> etc.
>> > >> etc. etc. thinks user fees are a fix?
>>
>> I wittily replied:
>> > >
>> > > The complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc. etc.
> etc.
>> > > administration we elected.
>> > >
>>
>> "Dude" retorted:
>> >
>> > Oh, let's not be partisan. Can't we agree both sides have demonstrated
>> > enough foolishness?
>>
>> To which I say:
>>
>> Not partisan, just the facts. In our democracy, we get the government we
>> elect. If we elect morons, why are we surprised that they govern (and
>> set
>> FAA policy) moronically?
>
> If something other than a moron ran for public office I would gladly vote
> for them.

The ultimate paradox of democracy. Only people unfit to have power put
themselves forward to be elected and we give them the power.

This debate on user fees is interesting and having gone through the same
experience in Europe where the airlines are claiming that they subsidise GA,
I know the way it going to turn out.

What never gets taken into the math is the money spend by ordinary people
through GA training themselves to be pilots which the airlines cherry pick.

Imagine what it would be like if the airlines had to pay all the costs of
pilot training from ab initio.

The airlines get a really good deal from GA and rather than being subsidised
by GA, I think GA subsidises the airlines.

However the blind cannot see!

cb

[Chris]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > Up here in Taxachusetts there's a long-standing feud over tolls on the
>> > Massachusetts Turnpike. The law that authorized the bond issue to build
> the
>> > pike said, tolls will be charged until the bonds are paid off, then the
>> > tolls shall end. Well, the bonds were paid off more than 10 years ago,
> but
>> > the tollbooths persist.
>>
>> Same deal here in Florida. Florida's turnpike was paid off about a
> decade
>> ago, the promise was always that the tolls would go away when the bonds
> were
>> paid. The reality was that they instead drastically increased the tolls.
>>
>> The basic lesson here is that there is no such thing as a temporary
> tax.
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> Same story in Illinois.

Gentlemen,

You guys fought the war of independence to get away from unfair taxation.

why have you surrendered now?

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 03:34:38 -0000, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:

>Has anyone ever taken the Massachussetts to court about keeping the tolls?
>Many years ago there was a 10 cent toll on the Southern State Parkway on
>Long Island, NY just before it reached the Cross County Parkway. One day
>they raised the toll to 25 cents. One of the commuters was a lawyer who
>looked up the statute authorizing the toll. The toll was supposed to go
>away once the parkway had been paid for. It had. He sued. The toll booth
>was removed.

This is Massachusetts... Trust me, you really don't want to go there.

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 03:34:38 -0000, Marty Shapiro
> > wrote:
>
> >Has anyone ever taken the Massachussetts to court about keeping the
tolls?
>
> This is Massachusetts... Trust me, you really don't want to go there.
>

....sorry, I was laughing so hard I couldn't type. Massachusetts courts? I
suppose you mean the same one that found out that a 300-year-old state
constitution written by THE PILGRIMS actually required the state to permit
gay marriage. Whether gay marriage is right or wrong is an entirely
different issue, but if they can find it in our constitution (which
pre-dates the US one and is rooted in the Massachusetts General Court formed
in 1691), then the constitution clearly means whatever they want it to mean,
which is to say that it means nothing at all. I in fact narrowly favor gay
marriage, but I am also opposed to gun control, and the Massachusetts
constitution clearly endorses the right of the people to keep and bear arms
(with no reference to the militia, and in fact legal scholars increasingly
agree that the Founders intended the 2nd Amendment as an "individual
right"). But in order for me to get a pistol permit in this state, I need to
prove that I have a uniquely compelling need for it. The fact that I live in
a neighborhood that is openly patrolled by a violent street gang with links
to Al Qaeda is not by itself sufficient. So like I said, clearly the
Constitution means whatever the legislature and courts, who are largely on
the same side, want it to mean.

-cwk.

[private]

> wrote in message
news:GpM_d.9280$GI6.1852@trnddc05...
snip
> Not partisan, just the facts. In our democracy, we get the government we
> elect. If we elect morons, why are we surprised that they govern (and set
> FAA policy) moronically?

I believe the cynics version of the quote is that "we get the government
that we (collectively) deserve"

Most people base their votes on prejudice, habit, image, and name
recognition or contrived and diversionary issues like fear, abortion, gay
marriage, or get tough law and order that have little real impact on voters
real lives but make them feel they are deciding important issues.

We allow ourselves to be seduced because we want to be seduced, it gives us
the moral high ground that allows us to bitch later.

Blue skies to all

snip

[Dude]

>
> Upon which I am happy to point out to "Dude":
>
> Actually, if you fill a couple of seats in a single engine piston airplane
> you are probably below Southwest's average fuel per occupied seat-mile by
> a
> good margin.
>
> That said, a $.01/gallon extra tax on aviation fuel will not cover the
> cost
> of the ATC system, which in any case is far more than an average of $20
> per
> IFR flight.

So Dude is saying:

Now you have gone off the reservation. I never claimed it would.

[Montblack]

("Colin W Kingsbury" wrote)
<snip>
> . But in order for me to get a pistol permit in this state, I need
> to
> prove that I have a uniquely compelling need for it. The fact that I live
> in
> a neighborhood that is openly patrolled by a violent street gang with
> links
> to Al Qaeda is not by itself sufficient. So like I said, clearly the
> Constitution means whatever the legislature and courts, who are largely on
> the same side, want it to mean.


Minnesota (The state where NOTHING is allowed) is a close second to Mass.

As far as your street gangs go, I wonder if GW's "security" initiatives will
ever get down to the local street level. GW has adopted a Wyatt Earp (clean
up the West) mentality as far a terrorists go, and poof - no more attacks
....for now.

We lived downtown(!!) for 5 years during the "Murder-apolis" years of the
mid 90's, shootings and stabbings all around us. (Almost 100 murders per
year. We past Miami, Boston and DC, a few more slayings and Detroit was
catchable). Saw a banger reloading his gun while strolling through our
parking lot one morning ...time to move. Ahhh, sterile suburban townhouse
security :-)

Loathing street gangs, fearing Gulags.


Montblack