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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.