FAA Fees

Jonathan Goodish wrote:



Private funding of the ATC system is a good idea,

It's only a good idea if the funding is stable. Nowhere that has user
fees has a stable revenue stream. It varies widely from year to year.
Trying prying millions of dollars from a bankrupt airline for their ATC
payment. Canada has had these problems for years.

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Sylvain wrote:
same in other countries like UK, where taxes -- and quite
a bit more than in US on the fuel alone -- pay for the
same services; yet, it doesn't prevent them from asking for
additional fees (twas 160 UK Pounds at the time when
I got my PPL there, probably a heck of a lot more now);


Private funding of the ATC system is a good idea, but the risk is that
the user fees will come and the taxes will not disappear. The net
effect is that the politicians create another revenue stream under the
guise of "enhancing safety," "creating better service," etc.

Funding ATC is not where it stops either. Have a look at this publication
and look at the charges here. from page 10 of the pamphlet.

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/aviatio...etMET_2006.pdf

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ewfyf.487275$084.453368@attbi_s22...
Our CAA has to be self funding therefore the costs are recovered from the
users. A good example being that it costs me £16 to ask the CAA to verify
my licence particulars to the FAA who then issue me with a nice plastic
certificate for free.
I like your way but I don't think it is sustainable in the long term.
User fees are inevitable despite what AOPA think.

That's insane.

User fees require an entirely new bureaucracy to collect the money (which,
of course, is the REAL reason the government-types want them). If more
money is needed to pay for the FAA (a concept which is ridiculous in
itself, but I digress), higher fuel taxes can and will pay for the
shortfall efficiently and quickly.

Forget being efficient, that's what normal people want to do, governments do
otherwise look at Homeland Security and the TSA.

As to my £16, why should the taxpayer pay for something only I will get the
benefit of. I am eternally grateful to the US taxpayer (sincerely) for the
benefit I get and I hope the money I have spent during my 4 trips and 9
weeks to the US since September 2004 have gone some way to repaying the
debt.

Chris wrote:
As to my £16, why should the taxpayer pay for something only I will get the
benefit of.

maybe for the same reasons why I have to pay for, say, schools (I
don't have kids why should I care?), public transportation that I
won't use, roads upon which I won't drive, etc.

besides, if they ever bring users' fee, it is safe to bet that
they won't remove fuel taxes, so we'll end up paying for the same
thing twice (or more);

--Sylvain

Chris wrote:

As to my £16, why should the taxpayer pay for something only I will get the
benefit of.

I think you misunderstood Jay. The fuel taxes of which he speaks are special
taxes on aviation fuel. The ordinary taxpayer doesn't pay these. These and
tarifs on airline tickets are the main funding for aviation-related expenses for
the U.S. government.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

User fees require an entirely new bureaucracy to collect the money (which,
of course, is the REAL reason the government-types want them). If more
money is needed to pay for the FAA (a concept which is ridiculous in itself,
but I digress), higher fuel taxes can and will pay for the shortfall
efficiently and quickly.

Oregon tried that 20 years ago to fund their state aviation programs.
People stopped flying as often so the revenue stream declined.
The programs still had to be funded so the state went back to the old
way of doing things.

In article ,
Newps wrote:
Jonathan Goodish wrote:



Private funding of the ATC system is a good idea,

It's only a good idea if the funding is stable. Nowhere that has user
fees has a stable revenue stream. It varies widely from year to year.
Trying prying millions of dollars from a bankrupt airline for their ATC
payment. Canada has had these problems for years.


This wouldn't be a problem if the bankrupt airlines would go under and
stop flying. While this sounds sinister, new competitors would enter
the market and provide greater stability--a much better situation than
government subsidizing these loser carriers.

However, employment stability in the private ATC system wouldn't be a
sure thing. Pension? What pension? Welcome to the real world.



JKG

As to my £16, why should the taxpayer pay for something only I will get
the benefit of. I am eternally grateful to the US taxpayer (sincerely) for
the benefit I get and I hope the money I have spent during my 4 trips and
9 weeks to the US since September 2004 have gone some way to repaying the
debt.

D'oh. The aviation fuel tax IS a "user fee" on aviation.

That's what's so damned infuriating about this debate; people can't seem to
understand that our existing fuel tax is *the* most efficient user fee one
could imagine, requiring no further bureaucracy, no extra computer systems,
no extra infrastructure of ANY kind in order to pay for any perceived "FAA
shortfall".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

D'oh. The aviation fuel tax IS a "user fee" on aviation.

That's what's so damned infuriating about this debate; people can't seem to
understand that our existing fuel tax is *the* most efficient user fee one
could imagine, requiring no further bureaucracy, no extra computer systems,
no extra infrastructure of ANY kind in order to pay for any perceived "FAA
shortfall".
--
Jay Honeck

Not only that but it is relatively fair. If you fly a lot
(potentially using a lot of services) then you pay more than someone
who flies less.

Hmm, I should then pay less in school taxes.

Ron Lee

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:0Njyf.487969$084.179646@attbi_s22...
debt.

D'oh. The aviation fuel tax IS a "user fee" on aviation.

That's what's so damned infuriating about this debate; people can't seem to understand that our existing fuel tax is
*the* most efficient user fee one could imagine, requiring no further bureaucracy, no extra computer systems, no extra
infrastructure of ANY kind in order to pay for any perceived "FAA shortfall".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


So, Jay, how much aviation fuel tax did you pay last year?