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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Judah writes:
Do you equate charging a fee for service to genocidal murder? In terms of how governments are allowed to slip towards dictatorships, yes. The Nazis came to power in large part through complacency, and the willingness of the people to trade freedom for a (false) sense of "security." If the government were intent upon enslaving and/or murdering all pilots, my feelings would be different. But the reality is that they want to recoup some of the costs associated with providing weather and traffic services by charging a fee for said provided service. They are already doing that, else the services would not exist. It's only a question of who is charged for the costs. It's important to find a balance between charging all people for a service, including those who never use it, and charging only the people who actually use it. The former is unfair to some extent (although the per capita cost may be very small), and the latter can be unfair if the charges per capita turn out to be extremely high. Suppose you have a service X that is used only by GA pilots. Should GA pilots alone pay for the service, at $1000 per GA pilot (and zero for everyone else), or should all entities operating aircraft pay for it, at $10 per GA pilot (and $10 for all airline passengers), or should all taxpayers pay for it, at $0.01 per pilot (and $0.01 for everyone else)? Where do you draw the line? While I wish that these services might still be given away, the reality is that the best that I can hope for is that the fee is equitable and fair, and that they don't try to gouge me just because they listen to people like Manix and think that anyone who flies must be extraordinarily wealthy. Not extraordinarily wealthy, but much more wealthy than average, especially if they fly more than a few hours per year. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Mxsmanic wrote:
Not extraordinarily wealthy, but much more wealthy than average, especially if they fly more than a few hours per year. Why should people who are much more wealthy than average expect their elisted hobby to be funded by the taxes of the struggling masses? |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Sam Spade wrote:
Why should people who are much more wealthy than average expect their elisted hobby to be funded by the taxes of the struggling masses? The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so little to the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that it is hardly worth mentioning. The things that get money spent on them like airports are helping the struggling masses by supporting businesses that create jobs. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message ... "Matt Barrow" wrote in news:22pzh.2865$Ys.1640 @newsfe10.phx: Privatisation of government tasks is part of neoliberal ideology, What does the EU see as the proper function of government? In _classical liberal_ thought, the role of government was police on the local level, courts of law, and a military. Misunderstanding. "Neoliberal" is a swear word for Thaterite monetarism, mostly used by its opponents such as myself; probably European usage. It has little in common with classical liberalism anyway. The EU is basically a contract between the then-EC governments made in 1992, in which they agreed to remove all trade barriers between each other, to replace all national currencies with a common one and several other measures. This created a unified market for goods, workforce, money. I describe this policy as "neoliberal" because they failed to create a unified welfare system and common tax system at the same time, which they could have easily done. This failure creates a pressure on the member nations to outcompete each other by reducing taxes and cutting the welfare systems down. This tends to weaken the position ov national governments and leaves the majority of the population out in the cold. Of course those are exactly the goals of neoliberalism, but they are disastrous. Disclaimer: I'm all in favour of the nations of Europe cooperating, of extending the community to new member states especially from the east, of helping them build up their economies to western levels, for free travel and all that. But this is not the way to do it. You didn't expend one word answering my question. I did, though, get a good view of why Europe is sinking. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Sam Spade writes:
Why should people who are much more wealthy than average expect their elisted hobby to be funded by the taxes of the struggling masses? I don't know; why? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Gig 601XL Builder writes:
The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so little to the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that it is hardly worth mentioning. The things that get money spent on them like airports are helping the struggling masses by supporting businesses that create jobs. I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity; general aviation is not. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Mxsmanic wrote:
I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity; general aviation is not. Well, if you are going to make a statement like that then you can also say that commercial air travel isn't really "necessary". The only "necessary" things in life are food air and water and a dry place to sleep. If you want more than that, and/or things at a lower cost then lots of other things are necessary... including general aviation. Of course we are really only talking about free societies that encourage business and priviate property rights. Anything else is the old Soviet Union, in one form or another. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
ktbr writes:
Well, if you are going to make a statement like that then you can also say that commercial air travel isn't really "necessary". Not really. Commercial air travel is a necessary part of the country's infrastructure. General aviation is not. If GA disappeared tomorrow, virtually nothing would perceptibly change in the U.S. If commercial air travel disappeared, the country would nearly grind to a halt. Of course we are really only talking about free societies that encourage business and priviate property rights. Anything else is the old Soviet Union, in one form or another. People who are not interested in GA don't see it that way. To them, GA is a hobby for the rich, and they are justifiably curious as to why they should subsidize GA in any way, since they receive nothing in return. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
"Mxsmanic" wrote People who are not interested in GA don't see it that way. To them, GA is a hobby for the rich, and they are justifiably curious as to why they should subsidize GA in any way, since they receive nothing in return. What is your definition of GA? BDS |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
If user fees go into effect I'm done
Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes: The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so little to the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that it is hardly worth mentioning. The things that get money spent on them like airports are helping the struggling masses by supporting businesses that create jobs. I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity; general aviation is not. I can think of 3 major companies that together employee ~2500 people in my town of ~20,000 that would not be here if it weren't for the availability of GA flight. In fact, the town would probably dry up and blow away if any one of these left and would certainly do so if any two of them did. And since one of these companies just decided to pay for the college education of every single person that graduates from our school system I'd say that means pretty much everybody here benefits from GA. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
If user fees go into effect I'm done | [email protected] | Piloting | 286 | February 20th 07 02:02 AM |
Trouble ahead over small plane fees | AJ | Piloting | 90 | April 15th 06 01:19 PM |
What will user fees do to small towered airports | Steve Foley | Piloting | 10 | March 8th 06 03:13 PM |
GA User fees | Jose | Piloting | 48 | December 24th 05 02:12 AM |
The Irony of Boeing/Jeppesen Being Charged User Fees! | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 9 | January 23rd 04 12:23 PM |