![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dude" wrote in message news ![]() "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net... "Paul kgyy" wrote in message ups.com... Support AOPA, they are our best protection against this. Economically, I suspect that the tax money raised from our bugsmasher fuel usage doesn't really cover the cost of service for FSS, VOR maintenance, ATC, etc etc. But the result of fees will be that fewer people use the system, which is part of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The total revenue raised from the fuel tax is about $60 million. I do not recall if this was for avgas alone or included GA jet fuel use too. The cost of FSS is about $600 million (there is some dispute about this figure). This information was in AOPA Pilot in the "Presidents Position" section within the past year. Mike MU-2 Is the "fair share" argument what this is really about? The majors think they are paying too much because their planes use more fuel? We have had this discussion before, and I would rather not rehash it. If we could get a better FAA by raising the fuel tax, I would support it. I just want to know what the extra will actually get us. Otherwise, I would just as soon see the whole thing go libertarian. All we in GA really need are the GPS satellites, and a few gadgets. AMR, United, and the rest can pack up and go home for all I care. The argument is always framed as "fair share" but there is no way to agree on what is fair. The framers of the argument twist the facts to support their point of view. Clearly GA isn't paying for what it consumes since the fuel tax doesn't even cover FSS. On the other hand, GA owners and pilots pay income taxes and airlines do not.. On the third hand, while the airlines don't pay income taxes (with the probable exception of Southwest), they employ a lot of people who do and airline travel helps facilitate economic growth which generates tax revenue. When the time comes to collect the tax either through user fees or a fuel tax the same "fairness" issues come around again. It doesn't cost any more to provide ATC services to a larger airplane that burns more fuel, so a fuel tax isn't "fair". My personal point of view is that the airline business is inherently unprofitable due to high fixed costs combined with the "tragedy of the commons" problem. The industry will always be complaining and looking for handouts from government. It is also apparent thatGA, taken alone, is subsidized from the general fund but pilots are too pig-headed to achknowlege it. This unwillingness to accept simple math is not unique to pilots, medicare recipients don't achknowlege it either. As a point of interest, almost everyone in our society (close to 90%) is paying less that thier equal share of the cost of government. Mike MU-2 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Planes at Hanscom face turbulence caused by higher fees | Bill | Piloting | 3 | February 12th 05 04:46 PM |
NAA Fees to the US Team | Doug Jacobs | Soaring | 2 | October 29th 04 01:09 AM |
LXE installation XP, strict user permissions. | Hannes | Soaring | 0 | March 21st 04 11:15 PM |
The Irony of Boeing/Jeppesen Being Charged User Fees! | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 9 | January 23rd 04 12:23 PM |
Angel Flight pilots: Ever have an FBO refuse to wave landing fees? | Peter R. | Piloting | 11 | August 2nd 03 01:20 AM |