GA's "fair share"

[Skylune]

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

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

[Skylune]

Here's what your new buddy Norm Pinetta recently said in a different forum:
“[I]t is clear … that the current level of [GA] tax payments does not cover
the costs GA imposes on the FAA.” Like I said before, this guy really
knows his audience!

For those who will conclude I am making this up, here is the article,
containing the above quote.

GA Fees Don't Come Close to Covering Costs
General aviation contributes about 2 percent of all user contributions


The following column appears today in the May 28 edition of Aviation
Daily, in its "Departures: Opinions on Current Issues in Aviation"
feature:

By Jim May, President and CEO, Air Transport Association

MAY 28 – Questions raised recently about whether the general aviation
community pays its fair share to use the national aviation system
certainly have sparked a debate. That was clearly evident in a recent
Aviation Daily Departures opinion piece (May 19) titled “GA must face down
airline tax, user-fee threats.”

It was compelling reading, but if only for this simple fact: The fees
general aviation operators pay today don’t even come close to covering the
costs of the federal aviation services they receive.

Consider air traffic control (ATC). The writer, National Air
Transportation Association President James Coyne, argued that “the basic
rationale for ATC is … to protect airline passengers.” ATC actually exists
to provide safe guidance to all aircraft that utilize its services. Each
user should pay its fair share.

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund is the primary funding source for FAA
operations and ATC. General aviation is a major user of FAA services,
accounting for 40 percent of flights handled by FAA centers, and 69
percent of operations handled by FAA towers. However, GA contributes less
than $200 million per year into the fund via fuel taxes—about 2 percent of
all user contributions. Commercial passenger and cargo airlines, and our
customers, pay the other 98 percent.

GA flights not using ATC still benefit from FAA Flight Service Stations,
which exclusively serve general aviation and cost the government $532
million annually—nearly three times more than GA pays into the Trust Fund.


We agree that GA pays higher per gallon fuel taxes, but those taxes are
GA’s only contribution to the Trust Fund. Commercial airlines and their
customers pay multiple taxes into the Trust Fund totaling $9.6 billion
annually. And their tax and fee burden is as high as 26 percent on a
typical $200 domestic round-trip ticket.

Airlines aren’t the only ones saying that GA underpays. FAA’s own studies
conclude that only 7 percent of GA air traffic control costs are recovered
from fees and taxes, while 95 percent of commercial airline costs are
recovered. And a newer Reason Foundation study shows commercial airline
cost recovery exceeds 130 percent. And the National Civil Aviation Review
Commission, chaired by U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Norman
Mineta, noted: “[I]t is clear … that the current level of [GA] tax
payments does not cover the costs GA imposes on the FAA.”

[George Patterson]

Skylune wrote:

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

You must have missed the last proposal, which is a bond issue.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Mike Rapoport]

"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/aviation/05-04-05/05-04-05memo.html
>

GA is also the only user that pays income tax.

Mike
MU-2

[David Megginson]

I think it's worth taking a different perspective on this. Let's say
that you have a moderately busy, medium-sized airport near a
medium-sized city -- there are (say) 20-30 airline flights in and out
every day. That airport has an FAA tower, and light aircraft account
for the majority of the movements. Should light aircraft owners pay
the majority of the cost of operating the tower, since we make the
majority of the radio calls?

To answer the question, consider what would happen if the tower were
closed. We all know how to fly in and out of airports without a tower
-- even the bizjets can handle that -- and on an IFR day, most of the
recreational pilots disappear, and the rest of us will simply do
one-in/one-out full procedure approaches. We might lose 10-15 minutes
occasionally, but that's no big deal.

Now, consider the airlines' CRJs or 737s having to share that airspace
with us, holding for 15 minutes waiting for a turn to approach in IMC,
or joining the VFR traffic pattern #5 for landing behind a Cessna 150.
With that in mind, who gets most of the benefits from having a control
tower?

I think the same is true of a lot of ATC services. Light aircraft talk
a lot to ATC, but to a large extent, we're doing so only to help the
heavy iron keep moving efficiently around us. It seems fair that the
airlines (and maybe bizjet operators) pay most of the cost, since they
get most of the benefit.


All the best,


David

[Skylune]

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/aviation/05-04-05/05-04-05memo.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?

[Skylune]

Finally. A more reasoned argument than the sound bite nonsense coming from
Boyer. I would add that since Commercial planes move many more bodies than
GA, the bulk of the cost should fall on the commercials.

The only thing is, it already does pay the lion's share by far. And,
consider that most of the $$ paid by GA on the table I posted are not from
recreational pilots, who are basically getting a free ride. How much tax
do you pay when you pump in 25 gallons of AV gas?

[Steve Foley]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

> By Jim May, President and CEO, Air Transport Association

> Consider air traffic control (ATC). The writer, National Air
> Transportation Association President James Coyne, argued that “the basic
> rationale for ATC is … to protect airline passengers.” ATC actually exists
> to provide safe guidance to all aircraft that utilize its services. Each
> user should pay its fair share.

I agree with Coyne on this point. I'll never believe ATC was created to
serve GA.


> The Airport and Airway Trust Fund is the primary funding source for FAA
> operations and ATC. General aviation is a major user of FAA services,
> accounting for 40 percent of flights handled by FAA centers, and 69
> percent of operations handled by FAA towers. However, GA contributes less
> than $200 million per year into the fund via fuel taxes—about 2 percent of
> all user contributions. Commercial passenger and cargo airlines, and our
> customers, pay the other 98 percent.

How quickly will the 40% drop off if I have to pay for each call? Does
anyone really believe that I will pay the same fee that a landing clearance
that a revenue-producing 747 will pay? So what happens whan I stop calling?
The FAA still has to pay the center controllers. They still have to maintain
the navigation aids. They'll simply have fewer people using the services,
and more unidentified targets on the radar screens.

As for the 69% of tower opertions, GA accounts for 100% of the traffic at
several local towered airports. The cities are hoping for the return of
commercial traffic, and don't want to let go of their precious towers. In
fact, the controllers frequently ask the local pilots association to
practice there to 'keep the numbers up'. The same question remains: When
they start charging for a landing clearance, what will the 69% drop to?

> GA flights not using ATC still benefit from FAA Flight Service Stations,
> which exclusively serve general aviation and cost the government $532
> million annually—nearly three times more than GA pays into the Trust Fund.

I call flight services because I have to call flight services. I can get
better weather info on line, but I have to be sure my tail number is on
their tape so when an un-announced TFR shows up, I'm covered.


> “[I]t is clear … that the current level of [GA] tax
> payments does not cover the costs GA imposes on the FAA.”

Again, what are the incremental costs GA imposes? I can stop using those
services entirely. Delta cannot.

[Steve Foley]

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

Here's a good analogy:

All boaters are asked to pay the same for 'use of the harbor', although the
majority of the costs are for dredging the harbor for the tankers. If the
harbor was used exclusively by small boats, the costs would be near zero.

[Steve Foley]

"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/aviation/05-04-05/05-04-05memo.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?
>
Chances are that I paid more in income tax last year than Delta.

[Skylune]

by "Steve Foley" > Nov 4, 2005 at 08:07 PM


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

> By Jim May, President and CEO, Air Transport Association

> Consider air traffic control (ATC). The writer, National Air
> Transportation Association President James Coyne, argued that “the
basic
> rationale for ATC is … to protect airline passengers.” ATC actually
exists
> to provide safe guidance to all aircraft that utilize its services.
Each
> user should pay its fair share.

I agree with Coyne on this point. I'll never believe ATC was created to
serve GA.


> The Airport and Airway Trust Fund is the primary funding source for FAA
> operations and ATC. General aviation is a major user of FAA services,
> accounting for 40 percent of flights handled by FAA centers, and 69
> percent of operations handled by FAA towers. However, GA contributes
less
> than $200 million per year into the fund via fuel taxes—about 2 percent
of
> all user contributions. Commercial passenger and cargo airlines, and
our
> customers, pay the other 98 percent.

How quickly will the 40% drop off if I have to pay for each call? Does
anyone really believe that I will pay the same fee that a landing
clearance
that a revenue-producing 747 will pay? So what happens whan I stop
calling?
The FAA still has to pay the center controllers. They still have to
maintain
the navigation aids. They'll simply have fewer people using the services,
and more unidentified targets on the radar screens.

As for the 69% of tower opertions, GA accounts for 100% of the traffic at
several local towered airports. The cities are hoping for the return of
commercial traffic, and don't want to let go of their precious towers. In
fact, the controllers frequently ask the local pilots association to
practice there to 'keep the numbers up'. The same question remains: When
they start charging for a landing clearance, what will the 69% drop to?

> GA flights not using ATC still benefit from FAA Flight Service
Stations,
> which exclusively serve general aviation and cost the government $532
> million annually—nearly three times more than GA pays into the Trust
Fund.

I call flight services because I have to call flight services. I can get
better weather info on line, but I have to be sure my tail number is on
their tape so when an un-announced TFR shows up, I'm covered.


> “[I]t is clear … that the current level of [GA] tax
> payments does not cover the costs GA imposes on the FAA.”

Again, what are the incremental costs GA imposes? I can stop using those
services entirely. Delta cannot."

In that case, maybe you should argue in favor of substituting user fees
for the current AV gas levy. By not utilizing any of the services funded
from the FAA from tax $ (including runways, lighting, nav aids, etc.),
costs would decrease dramatically.

The truth is that GA is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and commercial
airline passengers. I am eagerly awaiting an objective analysis from the
AOPA that shows the amount of AV gas tax collections relative to the
operating and capital grants that GA facilities receive. I am positive
they are working on this, as it will prove their point once and for all.


(For those who haven't read "A Modest Proposal," please regard the
preceding paragraph as satire. An honest assessment would never be
sanctioned by Boyer's gang, as it would show that not only is GA heavily
subsidized, but nonrecreational GA pays the bulk of AVgas taxes.
Recreational GA enjoys a free ride.)

[Skylune]

Not a good analogy. Private marinas handle virtually all recreational boat
traffic. They receive no government subsidy. Nor do they require
continous dredging. In fact, I know of two private marinas on eastern LI
that are paying for dredging and increasing dock fees.

[Steve Foley]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

> (For those who haven't read "A Modest Proposal," please regard the
> preceding paragraph as satire. An honest assessment would never be
> sanctioned by Boyer's gang, as it would show that not only is GA heavily
> subsidized, but nonrecreational GA pays the bulk of AVgas taxes.
> Recreational GA enjoys a free ride.)

AOPA, like every lobby group out there, has to fight tooth and nail against
any proposal limiting its members. You can't let the camels nose under the
tent. It's the old 'give them an inch' philosophy.

[Skylune]

Watch the Boyer-Mineta love fest on the AOPA website. Then compare what
Mineta says to the ATA. You will see some...... "inconsistencies."

[Robert M. Gary]

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

Did you full up your tank with Avgas paid for with money found in the
street?
-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

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? You can't charge it
based on N number because renter pilots often go away after flying (and
paying) for the trips they intended. Will my Mooney partner and I have
to sit down and go through a statement, trying to figure out who was
flying when? Not to mention the entire giant building full of
accounting types who have to mange the system for the feds. I guess the
fuel tax is just too easy and doesn't create enough life-time jobs in
the gov't.

-Robert

[Steve Foley]

I like it.

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> Not a good analogy. Private marinas handle virtually all recreational
boat
> traffic. They receive no government subsidy. Nor do they require
> continous dredging. In fact, I know of two private marinas on eastern LI
> that are paying for dredging and increasing dock fees.
>

[Skylune]

by "Robert M. Gary" > Nov 4, 2005 at 01:10 PM


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

Did you full up your tank with Avgas paid for with money found in the
street?
-Robert"

What the....

Uh. No. I use 93 octane, unleaded, in my car. When I restart my
training ( I decided to go with the Cessna over the Piper) I'll use Avgas.


I haven't found any money on the street recently. If I do, I suppose I
could spend it on gasoline.

[Skylune]

by "Robert M. Gary" > Nov 4, 2005 at 01:12 PM


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? You can't charge it
based on N number because renter pilots often go away after flying (and
paying) for the trips they intended. Will my Mooney partner and I have
to sit down and go through a statement, trying to figure out who was
flying when? Not to mention the entire giant building full of
accounting types who have to mange the system for the feds. I guess the
fuel tax is just too easy and doesn't create enough life-time jobs in
the gov't.

-Robert"

A Mooney, eh? Those planes are appropriately named.

Joking aside, I think you are right about the administrative complexity.
I think they should just increase the AV gas tax somewhat.

[Chris]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> 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? You can't charge it
> based on N number because renter pilots often go away after flying (and
> paying) for the trips they intended. Will my Mooney partner and I have
> to sit down and go through a statement, trying to figure out who was
> flying when? Not to mention the entire giant building full of
> accounting types who have to mange the system for the feds. I guess the
> fuel tax is just too easy and doesn't create enough life-time jobs in
> the gov't.

Here in the UK the answer is yes to just about all those questions apart
from giving your credit card details over the air before doing the approach.
I lodge mine with the airport before doing the approach. If I do the
approach they bill me if I don't they don't.

As a rule, VFR traffic is exempt charges except for nav and landing charges.
All our airports are privately owned and therefore charge for ATC and
landing.

IFR flights only charge for aircraft over 2 tonnes and then a bill is sent
to the registered owner operator who has to pay it and then get the money
back from whoever flew it. Of course the register also gives the registered
weight of the aircraft so they know what to charge.

There is talk of charging VFR flights but even the bureaucrats here cannot
come up with a simple way of charging. The current idea is a flat annual
licence fee evidenced by a sticker a bit like with a car licence.

We have no property taxes on aircraft like some of you have for just owning
the plane. We just pay $7 in taxes on each gallon. That's UK gallon.
Reduce by 20% for the baby US gallon.

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.

[Skylune]

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.

[Montblack]

("Skylune" wrote)
> Current contribution is shown below. Increased AVGAS tax rates or user
> fees are a given!
>
> http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/05-04-05/05-04-05memo.html


Cutting costs is more effective.

For starters, eliminating 3rd Class medicals would save money.


Montblack

[Skylune]

by "Steve Foley" > Nov 4, 2005 at 08:45 PM


"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

> (For those who haven't read "A Modest Proposal," please regard the
> preceding paragraph as satire. An honest assessment would never be
> sanctioned by Boyer's gang, as it would show that not only is GA
heavily
> subsidized, but nonrecreational GA pays the bulk of AVgas taxes.
> Recreational GA enjoys a free ride.)

AOPA, like every lobby group out there, has to fight tooth and nail
against
any proposal limiting its members. You can't let the camels nose under
the
tent. It's the old 'give them an inch' philosophy."

I think you are right on the money here. Seriously. The AOPA knows they
cannot budge on this. Thus their weird, disingenous arguments. They are
forced into taking absurd positions.

I do enjoy the AOPA kabuki show though. They should have a dora dora play
a musical accompaniment.

[Jose]

> Here in the UK the answer is yes to just about all those questions

In the UK they charge to have a television on.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Skylune wrote:

> 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.

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.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
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.

So if the SEL spamcan only pays $50/year, is it reasonable to assume
that the cost of NAVCANADA services is only $50?

Would the FAA services be significantly more? if so, why?

If the cost to the FAA for the SEL spamcan is only the equivalent of $50
canadian, why are people so hot to have user fees?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Matt]

"Skylune" > wrote

> I think they should just increase the AV gas tax somewhat.

This would not address your point of nonrecreational GA paying the majority
of GA gas tax.

[Mike Rapoport]

"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/aviation/05-04-05/05-04-05memo.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

[Doug]

Very, very good argument. You should cc this to AOPA.


David Megginson wrote:
> I think it's worth taking a different perspective on this. Let's say
> that you have a moderately busy, medium-sized airport near a
> medium-sized city -- there are (say) 20-30 airline flights in and out
> every day. That airport has an FAA tower, and light aircraft account
> for the majority of the movements. Should light aircraft owners pay
> the majority of the cost of operating the tower, since we make the
> majority of the radio calls?
>
> To answer the question, consider what would happen if the tower were
> closed. We all know how to fly in and out of airports without a tower
> -- even the bizjets can handle that -- and on an IFR day, most of the
> recreational pilots disappear, and the rest of us will simply do
> one-in/one-out full procedure approaches. We might lose 10-15 minutes
> occasionally, but that's no big deal.
>
> Now, consider the airlines' CRJs or 737s having to share that airspace
> with us, holding for 15 minutes waiting for a turn to approach in IMC,
> or joining the VFR traffic pattern #5 for landing behind a Cessna 150.
> With that in mind, who gets most of the benefits from having a control
> tower?
>
> I think the same is true of a lot of ATC services. Light aircraft talk
> a lot to ATC, but to a large extent, we're doing so only to help the
> heavy iron keep moving efficiently around us. It seems fair that the
> airlines (and maybe bizjet operators) pay most of the cost, since they
> get most of the benefit.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Skylune wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>

$50/year/airplane in the USA wouldn't make a dent in the FAA's budget.

Matt

[Doug]

As a GA aircraft owner and pilot I certainly don't need Towered
Airports. I can come in just fine to most Class D's without using the
tower. A LOT of ATC is PORK, PORK, PORK. They just put in a tower at
Front Range in Colorado. NOT NEEDED! Reason? To create jobs in Adams
County.

Most of Flight Watch and FSS could be eliminated also.

So far as I am concerned, ALL Class B expenses should be paid by the
airlines. They are the only ones that need all that rigamarole.

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.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Skylune wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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...

[Robert M. Gary]

> Uh. No. I use 93 octane, unleaded, in my car.

Then you probably paid income tax on the money you used to buy gas. The
airlines don't, its a deductible expense. Nothing wrong with that but
the point is that its an extra tax revenue generated by GA pilots.

[Robert M. Gary]

> For example, the EZ pass electronic transponder system for autos could be
> easily be extended to small planes.

That only tells you the aircraft, not the pilot. How are FBOs going to
gather up all of the previous month's pilots and send out a bill (after
figuring out who flew from 1-2 vs 2-3pm). Some of those pilots only
came to the U.S. for a month or so to fly. so the FBO is screwed.
The transponder would HAVE to ID the pilot, NOT the aircraft.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> Not a good analogy. Private marinas handle virtually all recreational boat
> traffic. They receive no government subsidy. Nor do they require
> continous dredging. In fact, I know of two private marinas on eastern LI
> that are paying for dredging and increasing dock fees.

They have the services of the Coast Guard -- search & rescue, safety
inspections, etc. For these they get a free ride, too.

Let us look at bicycles -- lots of Federal money for bike lanes, special
(mostly unused) bike access across bridges, etc.

Wilderness areas: backpackers get a HUGE free ride from the taxpayer for
the acquisition and maintenance of wilderness areas.

[George Patterson]

Steve Foley wrote:

> All boaters are asked to pay the same for 'use of the harbor',

Where's that? Nowhere around the New York basin.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Jose]

>>For example, the EZ pass electronic transponder system for autos could be
>> easily be extended to small planes.
>
> That only tells you the aircraft, not the pilot. How are FBOs going to
> gather up all of the previous month's pilots and send out a bill (after
> figuring out who flew from 1-2 vs 2-3pm). Some of those pilots only
> came to the U.S. for a month or so to fly. so the FBO is screwed.
> The transponder would HAVE to ID the pilot, NOT the aircraft.
>
If user fees are initiated, I doubt the receiver of the fees cares where
the money comes from. It's the FBO's problem. The FBO may solve it by
charging an adminstrative fee, or raising the rates and absorbing the fees.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Chris]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> For example, the EZ pass electronic transponder system for autos could be
>> easily be extended to small planes.
>
> That only tells you the aircraft, not the pilot. How are FBOs going to
> gather up all of the previous month's pilots and send out a bill (after
> figuring out who flew from 1-2 vs 2-3pm). Some of those pilots only
> came to the U.S. for a month or so to fly. so the FBO is screwed.
> The transponder would HAVE to ID the pilot, NOT the aircraft.
>
That's total crap!
As a foreign visitor there is no difficulty sorting out user fees. The
flying log says who was flying when and as we mostly pay by credit card then
the FBO would have the authority to debit our cards for the fees.

[Chris]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Here in the UK the answer is yes to just about all those questions
>
> In the UK they charge to have a television on.
>
Not quite, we charge for having premises with a device capable of receiving
television signals, so if a computer has a TV card, a licence is needed. So
in my house we have 3 TVs and two computers capable of receiving TV pictures
but the is only one charge. The fee pays for our public service broadcasting
(BBC)

Mind you our public service broadcasting is the best in the world and for
50cents a day is good value. Not having to watch commercials actually makes
watching TV pleasant. I just cannot get one with watching TV in the States.
Our commercial TV has a limited number of breaks in the hour, and when there
is a football match on then no interruptions for ads until half time.

[Robert M. Gary]

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.

[Gary Drescher]

"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

[David Megginson]

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

[David Megginson]

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

[jim rosinski]

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]

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

[Chris]

"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.

[Jimbob]

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/aviation/05-04-05/05-04-05memo.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

[Mike Schumann]

Airlines that make money pay income tax.

Mike Schumann

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "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/aviation/05-04-05/05-04-05memo.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
>
>

[Greg Farris]

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
utaviation.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.
>

[jim rosinski]

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

[Matt]

"David Megginson" > wrote:

> I think the same is true of a lot of ATC services. Light aircraft talk
> a lot to ATC, but to a large extent, we're doing so only to help the
> heavy iron keep moving efficiently around us. It seems fair that the
> airlines (and maybe bizjet operators) pay most of the cost, since they
> get most of the benefit.

I agree that this is the case. Unfortunately, I think the regulatory
solution to this would be to prohibit Part 91 operations in class B or C.

[Chris]

"Matt" > wrote in message
...
> "David Megginson" > wrote:
>
>> I think the same is true of a lot of ATC services. Light aircraft talk
>> a lot to ATC, but to a large extent, we're doing so only to help the
>> heavy iron keep moving efficiently around us. It seems fair that the
>> airlines (and maybe bizjet operators) pay most of the cost, since they
>> get most of the benefit.
>
> I agree that this is the case. Unfortunately, I think the regulatory
> solution to this would be to prohibit Part 91 operations in class B or C.

even simpler, turn class B airspace into Class A airspace.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Airlines that make money pay income tax.
>
> Mike Schumann
>

No they don't

Mike
MU-2


> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "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/aviation/05-04-05/05-04-05memo.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
>>
>>
>
>

[TaxSrv]

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> > Airlines that make money pay income tax.
> >
> > Mike Schumann
> >
>
> No they don't
>

Southwest's SEC Form 10-K says they have been paying an income tax.

Fred F.

[Mike Rapoport]

For a guy with the handle taxsrv, I am surprised that you don't know the
difference between GAAP and tax accounting and that you can't reconcile the
cash flow statement with the earnings statement. Southwest does not pay
income taxes.

Mike
MU-2


"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
>> > Airlines that make money pay income tax.
>> >
>> > Mike Schumann
>> >
>>
>> No they don't
>>
>
> Southwest's SEC Form 10-K says they have been paying an income tax.
>
> Fred F.
>

[TaxSrv]

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> For a guy with the handle taxsrv, I am surprised that you don't
know the
> difference between GAAP and tax accounting and that you can't
reconcile the
> cash flow statement with the earnings statement. Southwest does
not pay
> income taxes.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

So you are saying that you know what's historically on their Forms
1120. In other words, always zero tax? Not even corporation AMT?
So how'd they get an actual tax refund on a carryback, per their
SEC filing for 2002, if they never paid any tax?

Fred F.

[Mike Rapoport]

No, it is not always zero. Through 2001 they actually paid meaningful
amounts of income tax but not for the past four years although they have
been fairly profitable thoughout their history. They don't pay any
*currently* (past four years) and, absent a change in the tax code, they
probably won't in the future. Naturally LUV is probably the best (or worst)
example as they have the most profitable model. It is somewhat amazing to
me that the industry constantly gets bailed out either through bankrupcy,
subsidies or outright gifts from the public treasury. The public is paying
for the entire infrastructure through passenger facility fees, fuel taxes
and also though General Fund contributions. The industry is generating
wealth (witness people being willing to start new carriers) but it pays
nothing. It is the only industry that I am aware of like this.

Anyway, my point was that GA is paying in indirect ways (income taxes). If
you look at GA pilots or owners, they are well above the median income level
and the only things they get that everyone else doesn't are use of airports
and ATC. This isn't a totally fair way of looking at things because there
are high income people who are not pilots and aren't getting anything. In
my own case, I have paid millions in income tax over the past eight years
(since I started flying) and I wouldn't have earned as much or paid as much
tax if I did not have a personal airplane, so, isn't my use of the
infrastructure effecively being taxed at a very high rate? GA clearly isn't
paying for much of anything through fuel taxes but neither are the airlines
through any kind of taxes. The airling flying public is paying most of the
cost but a large part of the system is for their benefit.

I think that user fees are likely since our current administration abhors
"taxes" but spends like a drunken sailer, hence "user fees".

In any event the best solution is unlikely to be architected by the same
people who have been running the airline or airliner businesses. I think
that everyone can agree on this at least!

Mike
MU-2


"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
>> For a guy with the handle taxsrv, I am surprised that you don't
> know the
>> difference between GAAP and tax accounting and that you can't
> reconcile the
>> cash flow statement with the earnings statement. Southwest does
> not pay
>> income taxes.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>
> So you are saying that you know what's historically on their Forms
> 1120. In other words, always zero tax? Not even corporation AMT?
> So how'd they get an actual tax refund on a carryback, per their
> SEC filing for 2002, if they never paid any tax?
>
> Fred F.
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-11-07, Mike Rapoport > wrote:
> In any event the best solution is unlikely to be architected by the same
> people who have been running the airline or airliner businesses. I think
> that everyone can agree on this at least!

In particular, even where GA pays handsomely, the airlines still whine
they are cross-subsidising GA. Here, for avgas, we pay probably over
$1/litre in excise duty and VAT (VAT being a tax tax, because a fair bit
of the VAT is a consequence of paying the excise duty. VAT should only
apply on the price of the product pre-other-taxes, but that's a rant for
another day). We also pay handsomely per use for CAA services. However,
the airlines argue that they are cross subsidising GA by conveniently
ignoring the crushingly high fuel taxes (they pay none) and the fact
that most GA airports in this country are essentially privately owned,
receiving no taxpayers money. The real story is that the airlines really
just want exclusive use of the sky (by pricing GA out of existence).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-11-04, Skylune > wrote:
> consider that most of the $$ paid by GA on the table I posted are not from
> recreational pilots, who are basically getting a free ride. How much tax
> do you pay when you pump in 25 gallons of AV gas?

But recreational pilots seldom use the services. The vast majority of
airfields in the US are non-towered. I learned to fly at a privately
owned (but public use) airport in the US. No taxpayer's money was spent
on building or maintaining that airfield. If I flew just for fun, I
never contacted ATC. It was only when actually flying for transport that
I'd make use of ATC.

My current recreational flying is also from a private field that's
non-towered as well. We never talk to ATC either (we can't even if we
wanted to - the terrain prevents Ronaldsway's radar or radio signals
reach the area in which we fly).

The incremental cost of each recreational GA flight to the
infrastructure is so miniscule (since by and large recreational flights
tend to avoid ATC) it hardly matters.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Andrew Gideon]

jim rosinski wrote:

> ButÂ*IÂ*thinkÂ*inÂ*principleÂ*userÂ*feesÂ*areÂ*a
> good idea because then our fun can be on our own dime.

I can drive for the purpose of "fun" too, but the government (ie. the
taxpayers) funds roads, legal enforcement of driving regulation, the
automobile inspection mechanism, etc.

- Andrew

[John Doe]

"Jimbob" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> 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/aviation/05-04-05/05-04-05memo.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

Ahh, but this would all require our government to actually be competent.

[Robert M. Gary]

> For a guy with the handle taxsrv, I am surprised that you don't know the
> difference between GAAP and tax accounting and that you can't reconcile the
> cash flow statement with the earnings statement

Mike, if their 10K (GAAP) reports expenses for taxes, its a good bet
they are paying income tax.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> 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.

-Robert

[Gary Drescher]

"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

[.Blueskies.]

"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.
>
> -Robert
>

Annual registration fees should go up based on number of seats or max TO gross weight or similar also....

[Gary Drescher]

"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

[Mike Rapoport]

Sorry but that is not true. The income statement is based on GAAP which is
different from tax accounting. If you go to the cash flow statement you
will see an adjustment for taxes since they did not pay the amount in the
income statement.

Mike
MU-2


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> For a guy with the handle taxsrv, I am surprised that you don't know the
>> difference between GAAP and tax accounting and that you can't reconcile
>> the
>> cash flow statement with the earnings statement
>
> Mike, if their 10K (GAAP) reports expenses for taxes, its a good bet
> they are paying income tax.
>
> -Robert
>

[Mike Rapoport]

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>
> Annual registration fees should go up based on number of seats or max TO
> gross weight or similar also....
>
Why?

Mike
MU-2

[George Patterson]

..Blueskies. wrote:

> Annual registration fees should go up based on number of seats or max TO gross weight or similar also....

Seems to me that fuel taxes will go up by the same factors. Larger planes burn
more gas.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Jose]

> 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.

[jim rosinski]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> jim rosinski wrote:
>>But I think in principle user fees are a
>>good idea because then our fun can be on our own dime.
>
> I can drive for the purpose of "fun" too, but the government (ie. the
> taxpayers) funds roads, legal enforcement of driving regulation, the
> automobile inspection mechanism, etc.

Apples and oranges. Driving is ubiquitous and pretty near a necessity
while personal flying is a tiny, niche market mostly for fun.

Folks here have indicated that GA taxes cover only a small fraction of
the actual costs of running all the FAA stuff it uses. I wonder how
that compares to taxes on automobile fuel and their share of the cost of
maintaining roads, etc. Dunno--but I was happy to see that many were
disgusted with the "drunken sailor" approach that Congress and Bush took
to the recently passed federal highway bill.

Jim Rosinski

[Skylune]

"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."

But Boyer produced the video of the meter running! Maybe he doesn't know
about Canada's simple fee system.

[Newps]

Skylune 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."
>
> But Boyer produced the video of the meter running! Maybe he doesn't know
> about Canada's simple fee system.

Done for effect. Even the pro user fee types realize you cannot charge
on a per use fee. The revenue collected would be far outweighed by the
collection process.

[Skylune]

"Ahh, but this would all require our government to actually be competent."

Many elected politicians are AOPA members, as Boyer loves to point out
whenever this fact helps his current argument.


I'm trying to find out how many members of the congress are licensed
private
pilots (I already know it will be disproportionate, relative to the
population).

(this little factoid comes in handy when pilots claim that only a highly
skilled, select, elite subset of the population possesses the necessary
skill set to fly, while at the same time (1) bemoaning the stupidity of
the government and (2)claiming that anyone who proposes tougher
regulations on GA is just jealous. Both statements are of course
ludicrous, and repeated often on this site!)

[Skylune]

by Newps > Nov 8, 2005 at 10:36 AM


Skylune 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."
>
> But Boyer produced the video of the meter running! Maybe he doesn't
know
> about Canada's simple fee system.

Done for effect. Even the pro user fee types realize you cannot charge
on a per use fee. The revenue collected would be far outweighed by the
collection process."

Boyer and his cronies should use an intellectually honest approach, rather
than the stupid stuff his organization produces when they object to ADIZ
("I fly a C-150, fear me!") or user fees (the running meter video). The
sound bite stuff from AOPA is really dumb. I guess he knows that an
honest assessment would show the true state of affairs: very heavy
subsidies for light GA.

Minetta knows this: don't let the recent love fest fool you all. That's
why he kept on using the "in my view" qualifying language at the recent
EXPO. (Even the AOPA has picked up on this huge qualifier.)

An honest assessment would start with the $$ GA pays into the system, and
then attempt to quantify the resources used by GA, including capital (the
airports themselves, including runways, towers, lighting, electronics,
etc) and operations (ATC services mostly).

[Jose]

> The revenue collected would be far outweighed by the collection process.

This never stops a bureaucracy. Witness highway tolls.

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

[RK Henry]

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:37:56 -0700, 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.

I used to pay $25/year to the IRS for the aircraft use tax. That tax
was dropped in the early 1980s because, as was reported at the time,
it cost the IRS more to collect than it brought in. Except for the
inconvenience of filling out an IRS form, I wouldn't mind paying
$50/year.

But that's not the proposal that has had me lying awake at night. I
remember reading a proposal from the Reason Foundation, which has been
a major advocate for user fees, in the Wall Street Journal. As I
recall, that proposal included fees of $50 per touch and go and
$100/hour for IFR operations. That's an unbearable expense, making ATC
cost more far more than gas, depreciation, or insurance.

I think the push for user fees is thinly-veiled attempt at wealth
redistribution. They consider private pilots to be idle rich playboys.
Certain politicians have referred to them as such. The idea of user
fees is to strip them of their ill-gotten riches, acquired only by
stealing from the hard-working poor. These proposals are intended
serve as an interim measure to deal with idle rich playboy pilots, who
do no work and contribute nothing to society, until the worker revolt
finally comes and provides a permanent solution to inequality.

That's why President Clinton proposed FAA user fees with the money
being earmarked for social programs. If the FAA actually needs money
to operate, then why did he even mention social programs? This
proposal completely exposed the purpose of user fees. It's obvious
that the FAA has nothing to do with it.

RK Henry

[Skylune]

by RK Henry > Nov 8, 2005 at 06:31 PM


On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:37:56 -0700, 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.

I used to pay $25/year to the IRS for the aircraft use tax. That tax
was dropped in the early 1980s because, as was reported at the time,
it cost the IRS more to collect than it brought in. Except for the
inconvenience of filling out an IRS form, I wouldn't mind paying
$50/year.

But that's not the proposal that has had me lying awake at night. I
remember reading a proposal from the Reason Foundation, which has been
a major advocate for user fees, in the Wall Street Journal. As I
recall, that proposal included fees of $50 per touch and go and
$100/hour for IFR operations. That's an unbearable expense, making ATC
cost more far more than gas, depreciation, or insurance.

I think the push for user fees is thinly-veiled attempt at wealth
redistribution. They consider private pilots to be idle rich playboys.
Certain politicians have referred to them as such. The idea of user
fees is to strip them of their ill-gotten riches, acquired only by
stealing from the hard-working poor. These proposals are intended
serve as an interim measure to deal with idle rich playboy pilots, who
do no work and contribute nothing to society, until the worker revolt
finally comes and provides a permanent solution to inequality.

That's why President Clinton proposed FAA user fees with the money
being earmarked for social programs. If the FAA actually needs money
to operate, then why did he even mention social programs? This
proposal completely exposed the purpose of user fees. It's obvious
that the FAA has nothing to do with it.

RK Henry"

The Reason Foundation is a influential Washington think tank that is
dedicated to free markets. It generally opposes pork spending, including
bridges to nowhere in alaska, subsidies to mass transit, subsidies to GA,
etc. It eschews redistribution of wealth. Politically, it is usually
slotted as "conservative." Here is their web site:




http://www.reason.org/

[Mike Rapoport]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:37:56 -0700, 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.
>
> I used to pay $25/year to the IRS for the aircraft use tax. That tax
> was dropped in the early 1980s because, as was reported at the time,
> it cost the IRS more to collect than it brought in. Except for the
> inconvenience of filling out an IRS form, I wouldn't mind paying
> $50/year.
>
> But that's not the proposal that has had me lying awake at night. I
> remember reading a proposal from the Reason Foundation, which has been
> a major advocate for user fees, in the Wall Street Journal. As I
> recall, that proposal included fees of $50 per touch and go and
> $100/hour for IFR operations. That's an unbearable expense, making ATC
> cost more far more than gas, depreciation, or insurance.
>
> I think the push for user fees is thinly-veiled attempt at wealth
> redistribution. They consider private pilots to be idle rich playboys.
> Certain politicians have referred to them as such. The idea of user
> fees is to strip them of their ill-gotten riches, acquired only by
> stealing from the hard-working poor. These proposals are intended
> serve as an interim measure to deal with idle rich playboy pilots, who
> do no work and contribute nothing to society, until the worker revolt
> finally comes and provides a permanent solution to inequality.
>
> That's why President Clinton proposed FAA user fees with the money
> being earmarked for social programs. If the FAA actually needs money
> to operate, then why did he even mention social programs? This
> proposal completely exposed the purpose of user fees. It's obvious
> that the FAA has nothing to do with it.
>
> RK Henry

Hello, its President Bush that is proposing user fees.

Mike
MU-2

[Skylune]

by "Mike Rapoport" > Nov 8, 2005 at 06:44 PM


"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:37:56 -0700, 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.
>
> I used to pay $25/year to the IRS for the aircraft use tax. That tax
> was dropped in the early 1980s because, as was reported at the time,
> it cost the IRS more to collect than it brought in. Except for the
> inconvenience of filling out an IRS form, I wouldn't mind paying
> $50/year.
>
> But that's not the proposal that has had me lying awake at night. I
> remember reading a proposal from the Reason Foundation, which has been
> a major advocate for user fees, in the Wall Street Journal. As I
> recall, that proposal included fees of $50 per touch and go and
> $100/hour for IFR operations. That's an unbearable expense, making ATC
> cost more far more than gas, depreciation, or insurance.
>
> I think the push for user fees is thinly-veiled attempt at wealth
> redistribution. They consider private pilots to be idle rich playboys.
> Certain politicians have referred to them as such. The idea of user
> fees is to strip them of their ill-gotten riches, acquired only by
> stealing from the hard-working poor. These proposals are intended
> serve as an interim measure to deal with idle rich playboy pilots, who
> do no work and contribute nothing to society, until the worker revolt
> finally comes and provides a permanent solution to inequality.
>
> That's why President Clinton proposed FAA user fees with the money
> being earmarked for social programs. If the FAA actually needs money
> to operate, then why did he even mention social programs? This
> proposal completely exposed the purpose of user fees. It's obvious
> that the FAA has nothing to do with it.
>
> RK Henry

Hello, its President Bush that is proposing user fees.

Mike
MU-2"

Mike: User fees are being proposed by the FAA under the Bush
administration. Earlier efforts were made under the Clinton
administration. The Reason Foundation has publicized the various
subsidies differing modes of transportation receive for many years. They
are on record as proposing user fees (based on an equity argument) years
before the current funding crisis occurred. Here is a link to one of
their recent statements:


http://www.reason.org/outofcontrol/archives/2005/02/whos_getting_su.html

[Robert M. Gary]

> 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

[Skylune]

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.

[TaxSrv]

> The Reason Foundation is a influential Washington think tank that
is
> dedicated to free markets...opposes...subsidies to GA,

Is there a credible study somewhere as to how much is this subsidy
really is? If you start with FAA's waste of billions to get their
systems to work (documented by GAO), then you may indeed get IFR
flights at a $100 each. But ban GA completely, and how much does
ATC staffing go down, if at all? Go to fligthaware.com, pick
random airports of all sizes, and see whose doing the GA IFR. It's
mostly jets and turboprops, and the hefty fuel taxes they pay are
lost, for perhaps a net loss to gov't if ATC costs are reduced only
somewhat.

The avg recreational flyer does 30+ hours a year, perhaps $50 in
fed fuel taxes. Many of these guys avoid ATC and even FSS, by using
the Weather Channel on a nice day and a local flight. Ban them,
and gov't loses $50 a pop profit per year. So, how much is the
subsidy -- on a proper, marginal cost computation?

Fred F.

[Javier Henderson]

> I think the push for user fees is thinly-veiled attempt at wealth
> redistribution.

I humbly disagree.

I think the biggest push for user fees is coming from the airlines, to
make shared jet ownership and other corporate travel less attractive.

I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, however.

-jav

[Skylune]

Re: GA's
by "TaxSrv" > Nov 8, 2005 at 02:55 PM


> The Reason Foundation is a influential Washington think tank that
is
> dedicated to free markets...opposes...subsidies to GA,

Is there a credible study somewhere as to how much is this subsidy
really is? If you start with FAA's waste of billions to get their
systems to work (documented by GAO), then you may indeed get IFR
flights at a $100 each. But ban GA completely, and how much does
ATC staffing go down, if at all? Go to fligthaware.com, pick
random airports of all sizes, and see whose doing the GA IFR. It's
mostly jets and turboprops, and the hefty fuel taxes they pay are
lost, for perhaps a net loss to gov't if ATC costs are reduced only
somewhat.

The avg recreational flyer does 30+ hours a year, perhaps $50 in
fed fuel taxes. Many of these guys avoid ATC and even FSS, by using
the Weather Channel on a nice day and a local flight. Ban them,
and gov't loses $50 a pop profit per year. So, how much is the
subsidy -- on a proper, marginal cost computation?

Fred F."

The opening post on this thread has the Federal DOT site, which has the
data the Reason Foundation uses. They use the operating subsidy per
passenger mile statistic, so I think it is somewhat biased in favor of
long-range (airplane) transportation. Nonetheless, their data and
methodology are transparent, so it can be used for a serious debate.

The AOPA stuff is just nonsense on a stick. No data, no statistics, no
anything. Just "don't raise our taxes, cut the FAA budget." SOP, a
boring, and ultimately losing argument...

[Jose]

Just a request to Skylune - since your quoting doesn't quite work, at
least manually put two arrows before and after what you are quoting.

>>
for example, this would be quoted
<<

Even if it isn't internet style, it sets a quote apart from the rest,
and is fairly easy to do even in plain text.

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

[Skylune]

by Greg Farris > Nov 6, 2005 at 03:13 AM


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"

Greg: Thanx. Glad you realized I wasn't serious, esp about the automatic
fuel cutoff.
Runway landings should not be discouraged by financial considerations!
Everyone can probably agree on that point (maybe).

As far as the price increases if user fees are imposed: I don't think that
is automatically true. Assuming (and this is a big assumption considering
the federal budget deficit, the social security dilemma, problems at the
PBGC, etc.) that user fees are SUBSTITUTED for General Fund tax subsidies,
I might pay less elsewhere. The Reason Foundation's philosophy: The cost
of goods SHOULD reflect the true cost of production and transportation.

Problem is, the government won't substitute, they will just impose this in
addition to other taxes, etc. So my LL Bean flannel shirts, corncob pipe,
and overalls may indeed wind up costing more.

Also, there are so many subsidies built into the system and so many
special interest groups (AOPA for example) that everyone fights tooth and
nail for "their" subsidy. No cost benfit analysis is done.

Also, also, also: every politician wants to bring home the bacon,
regardless of cost or need. Thus, we will a have bridge in Ketchikan
Alaska that will serve a few hundred people at best. But the bridge will
employ many construction workers, maintenance personnel, etc. The cost
will then be part of the DOTs baseline budget for highways. And everyone
will wonder why federal spending is out of control.

The best part about the Ketchikan bridge: Senator Stevens (appointed to
office by Governor Stevens, who used to be Senator Stevens before he
became Governor Stevens) will get votes, win re-election, and then seek
more dollars for more projects.

[Skylune]

"by Jose > Nov 8, 2005 at 08:47 PM


Just a request to Skylune - since your quoting doesn't quite work, at
least manually put two arrows before and after what you are quoting.

>>
for example, this would be quoted
<<

Even if it isn't internet style, it sets a quote apart from the rest,
and is fairly easy to do even in plain text.

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

Sorry 'bout that, Jose. The "newsreaders" (I think they are called that)
seem to do that automatically, whereas my talkaboutaviation.com site
doesn't automatically put stuff in context when I hit "Post a Reply." I
tried cutting and pasting and putting quotes before the post I'm
responding to (like this). I know that's not protocol, but its a real
pain to put arrows and double arrows, etc. in manually.

[TaxSrv]

> An honest assessment would start with the $$ GA pays into the
system, and
> then attempt to quantify the resources used by GA, including
capital (the
> airports themselves, including runways, towers, lighting,
electronics,
> etc)

No attempt necessary; public record. The airport grant money goes
big time to air carrier airports; smaller amount to GA airports
(and the small fraction who receive grants). And they favor big
city "reliever airports" for grant money. This is to take the
burden off the big airports during rush hour, delaying the air
carriers. An important part of FAA's mission, the latter. And the
grant money for small fields also favors safety improvements,
another FAA mission. And BTW, nothing in FAA's mission is to
foster the GA aircraft industry, nor Boeing. That stuff was
removed from their mission statement years ago.

Fred F.

[Robert M. Gary]

> 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

[TaxSrv]

>
> The opening post on this thread has the Federal DOT site, which
has the
> data the Reason Foundation uses. They use the operating subsidy
per
> passenger mile statistic,

Precisely...averages, but I want to read about marginal costs of
GA, or why this approach is not valid. In our Class B area, it's
basically about bizjets, burning like $50/hour in fuel tax. It's
very clear to me that if those guys weren't up there, only one ATC
position -- the "satellite controller" -- goes away. But knowing
gov't from the inside as I do, FAA will find a position for that
guy in some understaffed place. A net loss to the Treasury. User
fees are all about getting additional money that Congress won't
provide through the appropriations process, unless they repeal the
fuel tax. Is that seriously the plan?

Fred F.

[Skylune]

>Tax Srv said:
No attempt necessary; public record. The airport grant money goes
big time to air carrier airports; smaller amount to GA airports
(and the small fraction who receive grants). And they favor big
city "reliever airports" for grant money. This is to take the
burden off the big airports during rush hour, delaying the air
carriers. An important part of FAA's mission, the latter. And the
grant money for small fields also favors safety improvements,
another FAA mission. And BTW, nothing in FAA's mission is to
foster the GA aircraft industry, nor Boeing. That stuff was
removed from their mission statement years ago.

Fred F.<<

Right. And using that data, the Reason Foundation shows GA as very
heavily subsidized using miles travelled as the metric.

[Skylune]

>Fred said:
Precisely...averages, but I want to read about marginal costs of
GA, or why this approach is not valid. In our Class B area, it's
basically about bizjets, burning like $50/hour in fuel tax. It's
very clear to me that if those guys weren't up there, only one ATC
position -- the "satellite controller" -- goes away. But knowing
gov't from the inside as I do, FAA will find a position for that
guy in some understaffed place. A net loss to the Treasury. User
fees are all about getting additional money that Congress won't
provide through the appropriations process, unless they repeal the
fuel tax. Is that seriously the plan?

Fred F.<<

I don't think the plan is to eliminate the fuel tax, but who knows. I
agree that this is about getting additional funding because of pressure on
General Fund subsidies.

As far as using the marginal cost approach, I don't think this is the
right way to measure the costs GA imposes on the system relative to the
economic benefits and the taxes paid in. If one additional light plane
(or commercial airplane) were to take to the skies, the marginal cost
would be nil, or close.

I think you are right though, that if air traffic decreases, funding
levels will stay about where they are for FAA staffing....

[Skylune]

>>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!)

[Jose]

> I tried cutting and pasting and
> putting quotes before the post I'm
> responding to (like this).

Well, that didn't quite work, and you ran into another internet standard.

You did start with "by Jose..., but there wasn't any place where you
said "end quote" or something like that. It is this that is the problem
reading some of your posts - knowing when the quoted stuff ENDS.

That's why I suggested the ending arrows too.

Now, there is another internet standard - that is that of a signature
line. Any lines which follow a line which consists of just two dashes
and a space will be considered a signature, and many newsreaders will
format it differently. Some newsreaders can be set to hide signatures.
Your post quoted mine in its entirety (including the signature) and
your new text followed mine, after my signature line separator, and was
thus considered a "signature" by my newsreader (and most other
newsreaders I'm sure). You probably want to avoid that. So, be aware
(or make your website aware) of signature line separators when you post,
and more of your posts will be readable.

Yes, manually inserting arrows on each line is a pain, which is why I
suggested a simple "quote" and "end quote" method for you. I do it
myself when necessary.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> >Tax Srv said:
> No attempt necessary; public record. The airport grant money goes
> big time to air carrier airports; smaller amount to GA airports
> (and the small fraction who receive grants). And they favor big
> city "reliever airports" for grant money. This is to take the
> burden off the big airports during rush hour, delaying the air
> carriers. An important part of FAA's mission, the latter. And the
> grant money for small fields also favors safety improvements,
> another FAA mission. And BTW, nothing in FAA's mission is to
> foster the GA aircraft industry, nor Boeing. That stuff was
> removed from their mission statement years ago.
>
> Fred F.<<
>
> Right. And using that data, the Reason Foundation shows GA as very
> heavily subsidized using miles travelled as the metric.
>

Miles traveled is not a useful metric. The only metric that would at all be
useful is how much would they save if a given group weren't using the
system. Let's say I plan to go fly today out of my uncontrolled airport. The
FAA isn't going to save 1/1,000,000th of a dime should I or any other
recreational flyers choose to NOT fly to day. In fact it will cost them in
unearned fuel taxes.

They aren't widening the runway for me there not even doing it for the
bizjet crowd. They are doing it so the airline that flys into here 4 or 5
times a day can use either runway.

[Bob Noel]

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> > That's why President Clinton proposed FAA user fees with the money
> > being earmarked for social programs. If the FAA actually needs money
> > to operate, then why did he even mention social programs? This
> > proposal completely exposed the purpose of user fees. It's obvious
> > that the FAA has nothing to do with it.
> >
> > RK Henry
>
> Hello, its President Bush that is proposing user fees.

hello, user fees were being discussed during the clinton administration.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Tom Conner]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> "by Jose > Nov 8, 2005 at 08:47 PM
>
>
> Just a request to Skylune - since your quoting doesn't quite work, at
> least manually put two arrows before and after what you are quoting.
>
> >>
> for example, this would be quoted
> <<
>
> Even if it isn't internet style, it sets a quote apart from the rest,
> and is fairly easy to do even in plain text.
>
> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address."
>
> Sorry 'bout that, Jose. The "newsreaders" (I think they are called that)
> seem to do that automatically, whereas my talkaboutaviation.com site
> doesn't automatically put stuff in context when I hit "Post a Reply." I
> tried cutting and pasting and putting quotes before the post I'm
> responding to (like this). I know that's not protocol, but its a real
> pain to put arrows and double arrows, etc. in manually.
>
>

The solution is to stop using talkaboutaviation.com, and use a news reader
against the appropriate USENET news group. You do have home Internet access
don't you? If so then your ISP should provide the address for the news
server. If you are doing all your posting from work then shame on you for
goofing off instead of working.

Like it or not, you do have some valid points, but they are getting lost in
your out-of-control, unintelligible posts.

[Jose]

> The solution is to stop using talkaboutaviation.com, and use a news reader
> against the appropriate USENET news group.

That is the best solution, but using start arrows and end arrows (each
on a separate line for clarity) is sufficient, I believe, for
legibility, and requires the least of the poster who for whatever reason
chooses to post through an "unapproved source". :)

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

[Mike Rapoport]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
>> > That's why President Clinton proposed FAA user fees with the money
>> > being earmarked for social programs. If the FAA actually needs money
>> > to operate, then why did he even mention social programs? This
>> > proposal completely exposed the purpose of user fees. It's obvious
>> > that the FAA has nothing to do with it.
>> >
>> > RK Henry
>>
>> Hello, its President Bush that is proposing user fees.
>
> hello, user fees were being discussed during the clinton administration.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> no one likes an educated mule
>

Yes and they were not implemented.

Mike
MU-2

[Montblack]

("Tom Conner" wrote)
[snip]
> Like it or not, you do have some valid points, but they are getting lost
> in your out-of-control, unintelligible posts.


S-loon,
Like a pilot following your local airport's noise abatement procedures, try
[snipping] your post quotes down, too... after you start quoting the
previous posts that is. :-)

Thanks.


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Jose" > wrote
>
> Yes, manually inserting arrows on each line is a pain, which is why I
> suggested a simple "quote" and "end quote" method for you. I do it
> myself when necessary.

It is interesting that Skylooser alone, can't even make posting work quite
right.
--
Jim in NC

[.Blueskies.]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:jKUbf.576$PZ6.208@trndny07...
> .Blueskies. wrote:
>
>> Annual registration fees should go up based on number of seats or max TO gross weight or similar also....
>
> Seems to me that fuel taxes will go up by the same factors. Larger planes burn more gas.
>
> George Patterson
> Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
> It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

What about folks that use autogas. I guess they are paying road taxes. Also, there is no way the registration fees cover
the costs of registration and filing of all the paperwork. I pay more to register my car...

[George Patterson]

..Blueskies. wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message news:jKUbf.576$PZ6.208@trndny07...
>
>>.Blueskies. wrote:
>>
>>>Annual registration fees should go up based on number of seats or max TO gross weight or similar also....
>>
>>Seems to me that fuel taxes will go up by the same factors. Larger planes burn more gas.
>
> What about folks that use autogas. I guess they are paying road taxes. Also, there is no way the registration fees cover
> the costs of registration and filing of all the paperwork. I pay more to register my car...

Lessee here... You talk about annual registration fees. Then you start talking
about the fees not covering the cost of registration and paperwork. Rewind.

There is no annual registration, so there is no cost of registration or
paperwork for an aircraft. I took your original post as a proposal to set up a
new tax on aircraft and call it a registration fee. Now you're talking like
there already is such a thing.

As far as car registration is concerned, that's a tax, plain and simple. And,
since there isn't such a thing for a plane, of course auto registration costs more.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[.Blueskies.]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:c0ecf.4670$AF6.572@trndny08...
>> What about folks that use autogas. I guess they are paying road taxes. Also, there is no way the registration fees
>> cover the costs of registration and filing of all the paperwork. I pay more to register my car...
>
> Lessee here... You talk about annual registration fees. Then you start talking about the fees not covering the cost of
> registration and paperwork. Rewind.
>
> There is no annual registration, so there is no cost of registration or paperwork for an aircraft. I took your
> original post as a proposal to set up a new tax on aircraft and call it a registration fee. Now you're talking like
> there already is such a thing.
>
> As far as car registration is concerned, that's a tax, plain and simple. And, since there isn't such a thing for a
> plane, of course auto registration costs more.
>
> George Patterson
> Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
> It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Hmmm, I've never owned a plane but always thought the $5.00 registration fee was paid yearly, not just a one time fee.
Amazing....

[George Patterson]

..Blueskies. wrote:

> Hmmm, I've never owned a plane but always thought the $5.00 registration fee was paid yearly, not just a one time fee.

No, we don't re-register aircraft every year.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Mike Schumann]

I have not looked at their tax statements, so I don't know what is going on.
They may be able to postpone tax payments due to investment tax credits,
etc. In the long run, if they keep making money, they will eventually be
paying income taxes if they don't already.

Mike Schumann

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Sorry but that is not true. The income statement is based on GAAP which
> is different from tax accounting. If you go to the cash flow statement
> you will see an adjustment for taxes since they did not pay the amount in
> the income statement.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> For a guy with the handle taxsrv, I am surprised that you don't know the
>>> difference between GAAP and tax accounting and that you can't reconcile
>>> the
>>> cash flow statement with the earnings statement
>>
>> Mike, if their 10K (GAAP) reports expenses for taxes, its a good bet
>> they are paying income tax.
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

Much of the road infrastructure is paid for by user fees, ala taxes on
gasoline, tires, auto registration and tolls.

Mike Schumann

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> jim rosinski wrote:
>
>> But I think in principle user fees are a
>> good idea because then our fun can be on our own dime.
>
> I can drive for the purpose of "fun" too, but the government (ie. the
> taxpayers) funds roads, legal enforcement of driving regulation, the
> automobile inspection mechanism, etc.
>
> - Andrew
>

[George Patterson]

Mike Schumann wrote:

> Much of the road infrastructure is paid for by user fees, ala taxes on
> gasoline, tires, auto registration and tolls.

Those are taxes, much the same as the fuel taxes we pay to fly. Some areas of
the country do have tolls for roads and bridges. Those are user fees.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.