AOPA Layoffs - CAPCON Killed
- Thread starter ComplexHiAv8r
- Start date
One of the problems with simply adding on a fuel tax is what's happening in certain airports in Arizona. The fuel tax revenue flows into the general fund for the city and only a small percentage gets returned to the airport for infrastructure.
GA could support itself, but a lot of municipalities use the tax revenues as a "rich boy luxury tax" so they can build parking lots for spring training facilities.
GA could support itself, but a lot of municipalities use the tax revenues as a "rich boy luxury tax" so they can build parking lots for spring training facilities.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Sorry, man, but when you refuse to acknowledge something as simple as a 1.6% contribution by your segment of the aviation community being absurd, it's not really worth continuing a discussion.
Anyone who has had even the most basic involvement is running a business understands this principle. Hell, anyone who has taken a basic economics class should understand it.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That's fine for planes that burn avgas. Doesn't work for corporate jets, though. They need to be taxed without the tax hitting the airlines so as to reduce the disparity in tax contributions.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Sorry, but I'm not buying this argument. IFR regulations don't currently result in non-instrument rated pilots crashing left and right because of scud-running attempts. Pilots are generally law-abiding people. While there are always exceptions, you don't base public policy on them.
Capt. Chaos
Well-Known Member
Scheduled airlines get all their federal fuel taxes refunded back.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how the airlines pay into the fund, but if they are burning 98% of the jet fuel, then they should be paying 98% of the taxes.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I have a feeling that that's not what he intends with his proposed fuel tax increase. In any case, fuel taxes are not ideal for collecting revenue to deal with the NAS, because the amount of fuel that is used has nothing to do with the amount of resources used.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That would make some sort of sense if a 747 used more controllers, runways, and navaids than a Citation. But it doesn't, so it makes no sense.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
The controllers, runways (most of them), and navaids have to be paid for regardless if the Citations use them or not. My home airport has two runways, a tower, TSA in the terminal, CFR, and several approaches. Eagle flies in here twice a day. If the airlines were the only traffic those resources would be wasteful. Instead those resources are being used by GA at no additional cost to the taxpayers.
If you are including small uncontrolled GA airports in your argument, then you are clearly being a troll. Those airports cost the FAA almost nothing.
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
...I don't know, it seems that the criminal justice system runs on management-by-exception.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yes, and the airlines are the ones stuck with the bill for them. Want to use them? Pay up.
Actually, the airlines are the only thing that aren't a waste to the taxpayer, because they provide what is essentially a public utility (transportation). Joe Schmo putzing around in his 172 is of no use to the taxpayer, and he's getting everything practically for free.
Thousands upon thousands of them. They don't cost "almost nothing" in aggregate.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
And you driving whatever fancy ass airline pilot car you drive is of no use to the taxpayer, and you're getting everything for practically free.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
There's a key difference between cars/roads and airplanes/NAS: the road infrastructure is paid for by the general fund, while the NAS is paid for by the Trust Fund. If you want to switch over paying for the NAS and all of the necessary infrastructure that goes along with it (runways, taxiways, etc.) out of the General Fund and get rid of fuel taxes and passenger taxes, then I'm all for it. But until then, while the users continue to pay for it, you need to pay your fair share.
PositionAndHold
Well-Known Member
It very much does. The farther you go the more resources NAS you use, the farther you go the more gas you use. The more gas used the more taxes paid. It's not a hard concept. One other point you keep dodging. I never said it's like trucking because of wear and tear on roads. I said it because airlines use the NAS as way to make money. Just like a commercial trucker uses roads to make money. If I put a phone in a commercial building I pay a higher rate per month because it's commercial. Still use the same switching as a normal household yet it costs more. I'm not talking multiple lines, one single line costs more.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
First off, why do you care? If I can use something for free what harm is that to you?
Second, your willful ignorance of the economic benefit that GA serves the general public is beneath you. There is no airline service to Enid OK, but the farmers who need their tractor parts in time to harvest their crops sure appreciate the UPS feeder plane that lands there every morning.
The airlines pay the most into the NAS trust fund because they are the biggest users of those services. They can't operate without it, GA can and does.
