"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:rwz9e.4513$c24.1150@attbi_s72...
You fail to take several things into account. In North America, private
planes are a viable and often necessary method of transport because of
the distances and the lack of other transport methods in some areas.

This is totally and categorically false. Outside of Alaska, private
airplanes are not "necessary" for transportation in America at all.

Which is sad, I might add. It would help grow GA if it were otherwise,
but too many people look at piloting as "too hard" (for a zillion reasons)
to achieve.

All these facts combined reduce private airplanes to "expensive toys"
in Europe, and they are viewed accordingly

Same here in America, but to a far lesser degree. Most people here think
of owning an airplane as being far more extravagant than boat ownership
(for example), even though the majority of ocean (or even Great Lake)
going craft cost far more than the average used entry level airplane.

And this is, after all, at the heart a discussion of the degree to which
any government should try to engineer society with tax code. In short,
is it intelligent to tax something like general aviation, with so many
obvious economic benefits for your population, to the point of extinction?

I would submit that the answer to that question is clearly "no".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Turn the question around. How much sense does it make to subsidize
recreational GA?

Mike
MU-2