kallend 2,182 #1 February 16, 2007 Where are all the conservatives when Bush wants to raise taxes? www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/BLAK02147.xml... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #2 February 16, 2007 Quote Where are all the conservatives when Bush wants to raise taxes? I tried. But I can't come up with a spin for this one. Economy booster? No. Free market success? No. Increased security? Benefits the poor or middle class? Nope. Hmmmm.....wait. Bush if finally proposing a way to actually pay for something and the damn libs are giving him a hard time! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #3 February 16, 2007 What will this do to the cost of jump tickets?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #4 February 16, 2007 QuoteWhat will this do to the cost of jump tickets? Combine this idea with the idea of the pseudo landing fees being proposed at a couple of airports (can't remember which ones, last issue of Skydiving?) and we're screwed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tonyhays 86 #5 February 16, 2007 Fortunately for us, this article had a silver lining at the end... QuoteWhile Blakey tried to appear upbeat about the need to adopt the plan during her remarks Wednesday morning, even agency officials acknowledge privately that there is almost no chance Congress will sign off on her proposal.“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #6 February 16, 2007 In general, I agree, raising taxes is bad. Tax reform that is revenue neutral, however, can be good. This proposed plan is definitely not revenue neutral. Isn't there a huge amount in a fund that hasn't been spent? That should be able to fund the next gen whatever without tax increases. Previously, you have talked about how the "true cost" should be reflected to the price of oil: QuoteThe cost of getting out of the ground and to the consumer, plus the cost of dealing with all the sustainability and environmental issues related to its use. Some would argue that the changes being made will get general aviation to pay their share, based on their "true cost". So, they think guys like you in general aviation have been getting a free ride. It is pretty pathetic when they admit that the new 'next gen' ATC system can be funded with the current fee/tax system. The two issues should be considered separately, but they pretend they are linked. There are many articles on the subject here: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfmPeople are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #7 February 16, 2007 QuoteIn general, I agree, raising taxes is bad. Tax reform that is revenue neutral, however, can be good. This proposed plan is definitely not revenue neutral. Isn't there a huge amount in a fund that hasn't been spent? That should be able to fund the next gen whatever without tax increases. Previously, you have talked about how the "true cost" should be reflected to the price of oil: QuoteThe cost of getting out of the ground and to the consumer, plus the cost of dealing with all the sustainability and environmental issues related to its use. Some would argue that the changes being made will get general aviation to pay their share, based on their "true cost". So, they think guys like you in general aviation have been getting a free ride. It is pretty pathetic when they admit that the new 'next gen' ATC system can be funded with the current fee/tax system. The two issues should be considered separately, but they pretend they are linked. There are many articles on the subject here: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm Currently the FAA trust fund is quite solvent. If you follow the background to this proposal and where the original idea came from, it's the airlines trying to offload some of their costs onto other sectors of aviation. The airlines, which have mismanaged their own affairs so spectacularly, sold this one to the administration. The airlines are the primary users of FAA services but would prefer that the rest of us pay the bill.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #8 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteIn general, I agree, raising taxes is bad. Tax reform that is revenue neutral, however, can be good. This proposed plan is definitely not revenue neutral. Isn't there a huge amount in a fund that hasn't been spent? That should be able to fund the next gen whatever without tax increases. Previously, you have talked about how the "true cost" should be reflected to the price of oil: QuoteThe cost of getting out of the ground and to the consumer, plus the cost of dealing with all the sustainability and environmental issues related to its use. Some would argue that the changes being made will get general aviation to pay their share, based on their "true cost". So, they think guys like you in general aviation have been getting a free ride. It is pretty pathetic when they admit that the new 'next gen' ATC system can be funded with the current fee/tax system. The two issues should be considered separately, but they pretend they are linked. There are many articles on the subject here: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm Currently the FAA trust fund is quite solvent. If you follow the background to this proposal and where the original idea came from, it's the airlines trying to offload some of their costs onto other sectors of aviation. The airlines, which have mismanaged their own affairs so spectacularly, sold this one to the administration. The airlines are the primary users of FAA services but would prefer that the rest of us pay the bill. So, is it the airlines original idea or Bush's idea? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #9 February 16, 2007 QuoteThe airlines are the primary users of FAA services but would prefer that the rest of us pay the bill. Do you contend that general aviation 'pays their share' - dealing with all the issues/costs related to the activities of general aviation? Do pilots such as yourself pay for ATC services? I really don't know how it compares between airlines and mooney owners such as yourself, but the proponents of the plan say that you (and skydivers) don't pay our share of the "true cost". You advocated for the allocation of "true cost" for oil, why shouldn't it apply for services to general aviation? Some might argue that spreading the cost more equitably is reasonable, but that the new proposal is not equitable.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #10 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn general, I agree, raising taxes is bad. Tax reform that is revenue neutral, however, can be good. This proposed plan is definitely not revenue neutral. Isn't there a huge amount in a fund that hasn't been spent? That should be able to fund the next gen whatever without tax increases. Previously, you have talked about how the "true cost" should be reflected to the price of oil: QuoteThe cost of getting out of the ground and to the consumer, plus the cost of dealing with all the sustainability and environmental issues related to its use. Some would argue that the changes being made will get general aviation to pay their share, based on their "true cost". So, they think guys like you in general aviation have been getting a free ride. It is pretty pathetic when they admit that the new 'next gen' ATC system can be funded with the current fee/tax system. The two issues should be considered separately, but they pretend they are linked. There are many articles on the subject here: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm Currently the FAA trust fund is quite solvent. If you follow the background to this proposal and where the original idea came from, it's the airlines trying to offload some of their costs onto other sectors of aviation. The airlines, which have mismanaged their own affairs so spectacularly, sold this one to the administration. The airlines are the primary users of FAA services but would prefer that the rest of us pay the bill. So, if you are saying it's the airlines original idea why did you label this thread "Bush administration proposes to triple taxes" ??? And it's the FAA trying to bump the taxes not GW. Yes, they are "under" him in the chain of command. It's "The President's Budget". Last time I checked, Bush was still the President. He bought a budget proposal favorable to big business and ran with it. SURPRISE! Another part of the proposal is to remove oversight from Congress and give it to an independent board controlled by - you guessed it - THE AIRLINES. So the services provided predominantly benefit the airlines, they want control, and they want to offload the costs to other users.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #11 February 16, 2007 I agree with you that if it is an FAA proposal, then it is Bush's proposal. Having the airlines control it through an independent board is really wrong, no doubt.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #12 February 16, 2007 Quote Where are all the conservatives when Bush wants to raise taxes? www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/BLAK02147.xml If true, pissed off"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #13 February 16, 2007 QuoteI agree with you that if it is an FAA proposal, then it is Bush's proposal. Having the airlines control it through an independent board is really wrong, no doubt. www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070214funding.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #14 February 16, 2007 Again, do you think general aviation pays their share? Do you pay for ATC services? It can be argued that the services should be free for general aviation to encourage their use even though not required - resulting in improved safety.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #15 February 16, 2007 QuoteAgain, do you think general aviation pays their share? Do you pay for ATC services? It can be argued that the services should be free for general aviation to encourage their use even though not required - resulting in improved safety. I paid $190 in federal aviation taxes last year. That amounts to about $2 a word that I spoke to ATC. Collecting the current tax is efficient and automatic. There will be a huge bureaucracy required to administer user fees, as they have found in Canada and Europe. GA is almost extinct in Europe thanks to their cost structure.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #16 February 17, 2007 QuoteIn general, I agree, raising taxes is bad. Tax reform that is revenue neutral, however, can be good. This proposed plan is definitely not revenue neutral. Isn't there a huge amount in a fund that hasn't been spent? That should be able to fund the next gen whatever without tax increases. Previously, you have talked about how the "true cost" should be reflected to the price of oil: QuoteThe cost of getting out of the ground and to the consumer, plus the cost of dealing with all the sustainability and environmental issues related to its use. Some would argue that the changes being made will get general aviation to pay their share, based on their "true cost". So, they think guys like you in general aviation have been getting a free ride. It is pretty pathetic when they admit that the new 'next gen' ATC system can be funded with the current fee/tax system. The two issues should be considered separately, but they pretend they are linked. There are many articles on the subject here: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm Actually tax rates depend upon the GNP and spending bills. At this point, raising taxes is crucial, unless you don't care about det. This concept of cutting taxes to spur employment has been proven BS for the last 26 years. The 3 stooges have fucked things up with tax cuts and high spending, Clinton's responsible spending and tax increases for the rich turned the country around until the 3rd stooge threw things back to the old ways, but the key is to spend less than you earn, that simple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #17 February 17, 2007 The recession had started before Clinton left office. Once again, as it did with Kennedy and Reagan, tax revenue collected has gone up after a broad based tax cut. But, this thread is about the new FAA proposal. It does of course involve the subject of taxes, but there are plenty of opportunities to argue about general tax policy. Let's keep those to a separate thread.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
