Trouble ahead over small plane fees

by "Dave Stadt" Apr 10, 2006 at 11:49 PM


already in place.

Trouble is politicians love bureaucracy. If it costs $2.00 to collect
$1.00
that's just fine by them. Just means they can create a bureaucracy to
determine how to create another bureaucracy to raise the $1.00 the first
bureaucracy came up short.



Solution is simple. Raise AV gas taxes to a level that covers the expense
associated with subsidizing thousands of GA airports. (Capital and
operating subsidies).

I can post the contribution of various revenue sources to the AIP (again).
As has already been demonstrated, AV gas taxes represent a tiny fraction.
Of course this FACT is not mentioned by the Destroyer or other advocates of
taxpayer subsidies for rec flying.

Solution is simple. Raise AV gas taxes to a level that covers the expense
associated with subsidizing thousands of GA airports.

So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the city?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 02:13 PM



So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the
city?

Jose



C'mon Jose, rhetorical questions are not your style. ;-)

Of course, the subsidies are not limited to federal subsidies. Off the
top of my head, state subsidies goto Worcester, Mass, and the Minneapolis
area GA airports are subsidized by the commercial airport.

As you know, a tax subsidy reduces the true price of a good, and
artificially increases demand. Econ 101.

So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra
business we bring to the city?
Of course, the subsidies are not limited to federal subsidies. Off the
top of my head, state subsidies goto

So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the state?

(See, I can do stuff that's not my style.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 02:33 PM



So, do GA pilots then get a cut of the extra business we bring to the
state?

(See, I can do stuff that's not my style.




That is another reason (after the old safety/statistics discussion) that
I
would hop in the right seat of your plane anytime. You are not a cowboy.


Seriously, though, your "cut" would be availabilty of GA airports and
airspace that is funded by the users.

I think subsidies make alot of sense for some states, esp remote rural
airstrips in AK or WY. But in the Northeast, Calif, and other built up
areas?? No way. There is no compelling economic/social need to provide
general tax subsidies to what is largely recreational/training usage.
Users should bear the full brunt of the costs.

Some will argue, "that will increase the cost of your fed ex" deliveries.
I think that is true, and I would say that users of Fed Ex should bear the
true delivery costs. Why should I be subsidized if I order a package that
arrives via GA?

BTW: here is a link to an article on the local subsidies the Minneapolis
GA airports get, at Northwest's expense.

http://www.flyidaho.org/nwsltrs/2004/jun04/crusade.html

Skylune wrote:

Solution is simple. Raise AV gas taxes to a level that covers the expense
associated with subsidizing thousands of GA airports. (Capital and
operating subsidies).

Where does that leave planes that use Mogas? How about jet fuel?

How do privately owned or municipal airports get a cut of the fuel tax?

What about joint-use civil / military fields?

by B A R R Y Apr 11, 2006 at 02:25 PM


Skylune wrote:

Solution is simple. Raise AV gas taxes to a level that covers the
expense
associated with subsidizing thousands of GA airports. (Capital and
operating subsidies).

Where does that leave planes that use Mogas? How about jet fuel?

How do privately owned or municipal airports get a cut of the fuel tax?

What about joint-use civil / military fields?



Municipal airports would get their slice if existing grant stucture is
maintained. They would just be paying their share.

Military is and should be taxpayer funded.

I think a better solution would be to zero out the federal subsidies to GA
airports, and let the airports compete in the marketplace, or let the
states or sponsoring municipalities provide the subsidies if there is
justification. Since GA is such an economic powerhouse, according to
Boyer, there should not be a problem.

Skylune wrote:

Military is and should be taxpayer funded.

Do you fly? Do you know what joint-use is?

by B A R R Y Apr 11, 2006 at 02:50 PM


Skylune wrote:

Military is and should be taxpayer funded.

Do you fly? Do you know what joint-use is?



Uh, Uh, uh. Joint-use refers to potheads, right? They fly after
smoking?

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:25:39 GMT, B A R R Y wrote in
::

Where does that leave planes that use Mogas?

That is a difficult issue to resolve. Fortunately Mogas usage, as a
percentage of all aviation fuels consumed in the US, is only a
miniscule fraction.

How about jet fuel?

Perhaps it would be more equitable to levy a per-gallon tax on jet
fuel than to have the current airline ticket tax. That is the counter
proposal the National Business Aviation Association should be
proposing.

How many gallons (not pounds/tons) of fuel does a B-747 hold? :-)