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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 14:54:02 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote in :: If the private enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still cost less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall. It's difficult to envision a less costly and more equitable way of collecting the revenue for ATC operation, than a tax on fuel. I was talking more about the delivery of services costs than the collection costs. I agree a fuel tax is pretty simple, however, do you know how high that tax would have to be to support the entire aviation infrastructure? I don't, but I'll bet it would be several dollars a gallon at least. I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of the real cost of our aviation system (airports, ATC, navaids - we'd need to pay our share of the cost of GPS for example) or I'd make an estimate of the cost per gallon. I suspect the fuel consumption figures are available with some research, but I doubt all of the costs of the rest of the system area readily available. Matt |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote: I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of the real cost of our aviation system (airports, ATC, navaids - we'd need to pay our share of the cost of GPS for example) since I don't use GPS, my "fair share" would be zero. Even if I used GPS for my bugsmasher, the cost to provide regular ol' SPS GPS for my use is still zero. -- Bob Noel no one likes an educated mule |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I agree a fuel tax is pretty simple, however, do you know how high that tax would have to be to support the entire aviation infrastructure? [...] I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of the real cost of our aviation system
Costs are only half the story. Benefits are the other half. There are invisible benefits to the system (any system) which also need to be figured in. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote:
I agree a fuel tax is pretty simple, however, do you know how high that tax would have to be to support the entire aviation infrastructure? If "big iron" suddenly ceased flying, much of that infrastructure could simply disappear and we'd not only not care, we'd be pleased. What percentage of operations out of Boston Center or NY TRACON are "small GA"? WRT GPS, I'd be willing to pay a share if it costs were properly allocated. The military is still the largest user, but let's not forget all those GPSs in automobiles, hikers' backpacks, etc. - Andrew |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not sure it is all that bad. I think if most "public" services were provided by a free enterprise system, then we'd get a lot more in aggregate for our money. This can only be true where there is free competition and where the value is measurable (if you die without healthcare, then its hard to measure its value). Also, if the government must have the weather already (which it must) then it is likely efficient for us all to have them dissemanate it. How many of the private weather firms have there own satellites anyway? The problem that many of us, me included, don't like to accept is that aviation is not self-supporting and is subsidized heavily from other revenue sources. I have argued this myth a thousand times, and no one listens. It simply is not provable given our system of other heavily subsidized activities being involved. Pointing to the subsidies is not enough. You need to show that it is MORE subsidized than other activities, as well as trace all the taxes (monetary and regulatory) on it. I will be happy to cut my subsidy if we can the rest as well. Let the poor beg the rich, and the food supply shrink if that is what you want. A private enterprise wouldn't likely have this subsidy so the user costs would reflect the true cost of the sytem and this likely would be ugly ... even if GA only had to pay for the meager subset of services that it really needs. I suppose if weather were off the budget, the TV stations would end up paying for a lot of it. And the airlines would HAVE to have it. I suspect I could get almost all I need for free anyway. Most GA airports simply couldn't survive without subsidies. I am not too sure of that. The only thing GA airports HAVE to have is protection from permanent closure. After all, if we want to be able to fly someplace, there has to be a place to land SOMEWHERE near there. NIMBY's be damned. Besides, the GA airports by definition have their ability to compete taken away by the heavily subsidized airports the carriers use. This argument won't be over until Delta and AMR start building their own airports. Since there are still successful privately owned airports I will chalk up the need for subsidies to government inability to manage them without graft and inefficiency. I don't know if this is true for freeways or not, but I'm not sure they are self supporting either if you consider the total costs, both capital and expense to maintain them. My point exactly! The only sure thing is that our taxes are being spent on lots of things we don't individually care for. It all comes down to what is less costly, the waste in government or the profit margin that a private enterprise would require. If the private enterprise is efficient enough that it can make a profit and still cost less than a government agency, then it is a good deal overall. This is true but the problem is measuring the costs and benefits. It's not easy. Weather has national security value and therefore must be predicted at least somewhat well. To my knowledge, all weather services are using some of the NWS resources at this time. I could be wrong, but this tells me we don't know well if a free market in weather prediction is profitably sustainable. It could be that we are unwilling to pay for the amount of accuracy which the government requires. Matt |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Noel wrote:
In article , Matt Whiting wrote: I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of the real cost of our aviation system (airports, ATC, navaids - we'd need to pay our share of the cost of GPS for example) since I don't use GPS, my "fair share" would be zero. Even if I used GPS for my bugsmasher, the cost to provide regular ol' SPS GPS for my use is still zero. How do you see that? Somebody has to pay for the satellites. Sure the military needs them anyway, but if this was all private enterprise, then you'd pay for your fair share of the use. Matt |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Jose wrote:
I agree a fuel tax is pretty simple, however, do you know how high that tax would have to be to support the entire aviation infrastructure? [...] I don't know where to get an accurate assessment of the real cost of our aviation system Costs are only half the story. Benefits are the other half. There are invisible benefits to the system (any system) which also need to be figured in. Such as? Matt |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote:
I think if most "public" services were provided by a free enterprise system, then we'd get a lot more in aggregate for our money. I disagree. I remember when the Weather Station first came out, they had very frequent local reports and paging of text weather of various cities every 20 minutes or so. Also had some aviation weather, as I recall. Then they started attracting advertisers. The pilot weather was gone the next time I saw a report. By 1995, the local cable companies had replaced the local weather reports with their own ads. TWS corrected that a few years later by announcing that the local weather would be displayed every 10 minutes (on the 8s). That forced the cable companies to play it. Basically, if you need something special and are perceived to be a minority, private enterprise will cut you right out of the picture. If weather info is provided only by private enterprise, we won't have pilot weather unless something like AOPA provides it for us. George Patterson There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote:
It's difficult to envision a less costly and more equitable way of collecting the revenue for ATC operation, than a tax on fuel. True. The problem as I see it is the amount necessary. IIRC, AOPA stated that the fuel taxes pay about 15% of the cost of the pilot weather system? That means that we would have to increase this tax nearly 600% to pay the weather bills. The last time I saw a breakdown of the fuel costs was a Raleigh years ago, but, IIRC the Federal tax was a little less than 13 cents a gallon. If I'm remembering all this correctly, we'd have to increase the tax to at least $.86 a gallon to pay for the weather service. Right now, Old Bridge is charging $3.45/gallon for gas. Regular auto gas is $2.07 down the street. If 100LL jumps to $4.18/gallon (more than twice the cost of car gas), I think quite a few more aircraft owners would opt for auto gas STCs. That, in turn, would require another increase in fuel taxes, since fewer gallons would be sold. Wish I could say that I also see a solution. George Patterson There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Costs [of public infrastructure] are only half the story. Benefits are the other half. There are invisible benefits to the system (any system) which also need to be figured in.
Such as? I'm not going to answer specifically, because I can't prove them. They are hidden - that's what hidden means. But consider the following. Where I live we recently discussed (with great heat) attracting corporations to move into our town so that we would get a bigger tax base. The more taxes paid by corporations, the less we'd have to pay in property tax. The arithmetic is quite simple and very compelling. It's also wrong. However, while we can all speculate as to why, it is virtually impossible to prove. The only verifiable numbers are the tax rolls, and they clearly show that corporations would pay tax that would otherwise have to be paid by homeowners. Nonetheless, looking at neighboring towns and graphing the mil rate (homeowner tax rate) against the corporate percentage, those towns with the highest corprorate presence have the highest mil rate. They have the highest traffic density, the worst schools (schools are supported by corporate and property tax), the highest prices in the stores... stuff like that. The reason (I speculate) has to do with the impact of the corporations on daily life - more cars parking, more roads to be built, slower speeds, everything takes longer, wealthier people move out... things like this that don't show up on the balance sheet. I have no children, but it benefits me to have a good school system. I'll leave you to figure out why (and it has nothing to do with my screen name). Therefore, there is a benefit to non-users of the school system. The benefits to reliable mail service, reliable transportation (air and otherwise), reliable telecommunications, extend to people who walk to the store, don't have a phone, and burn all their mail. It means that when I walk to the store, they will have what I want. OK, that makes me an indirect user, but there are lots of indirect users of infrastructure that are not tracked, but benefit from it. We all benefit from our water system (unusual in the world in that even our wash water is potable) because it reduces disease, even if I don't use water from the system. It is not just the people with the tap that benefit. Street lighting could be seen as benefitting the drivers, and so should be paid by the drivers. However in reducing accidents it also reduces my health insurance premiums, and it reduces robberies to boot. These are "invisible" benefits which accrue to non-drivers. It's little things like this that add up all over the place, just like little costs also add up all over the place, that make a strict "user pay" accounting problematic. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
They are trying to remove your weather access | Dylan Smith | Piloting | 34 | June 29th 05 10:31 PM |
Senate Bill S.786 could kill NWS internet weather products | FlyBoy | Home Built | 61 | May 16th 05 09:31 PM |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
millionaire on the Internet... in weeks! | Malcolm Austin | Soaring | 0 | November 5th 04 11:14 PM |