Bush continues his attack on general aviation

[kallend 2,184]

From AOPA, Nov 2007

"If we really want to solve this problem, it's time for Congress to modernize the FAA, and we've given them a blueprint to do so," said Bush, referring to the administration's FAA funding bill that would increase GA avgas taxes by 263 percent and impose user fees. And he praised Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) as people in Congress "who understand the need to act." The Rockefeller-Lott FAA funding bill (S.1300) includes a $25 per flight user fee on turbine aircraft.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

I thought you'd be ok with that since all pilots are the freakishly rich and we need to take their money in any way possible.

Don't you want to pay your "fair share?"

Why do you hate children?

Isn't this a petty thread while we are wasting billions on an illegal war?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

I thought you'd be ok with that since all pilots are the freakishly rich and we need to take their money in any way possible.

Rich, eh? Talked to any jump plane pilots recently?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

From AOPA, Nov 2007

"If we really want to solve this problem, it's time for Congress to modernize the FAA, and we've given them a blueprint to do so," said Bush, referring to the administration's FAA funding bill that would increase GA avgas taxes by 263 percent and impose user fees. And he praised Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) as people in Congress "who understand the need to act." The Rockefeller-Lott FAA funding bill (S.1300) includes a $25 per flight user fee on turbine aircraft.

Bravo, Bush...you "conservative" you.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Unstable 9]

I've been standing behind Bushy for a long time, and I consider myself a good conservative, although frankly I'm losing faith is about every decision the man has made since then.

If you want my .02, big airlines have money wrapped up in the lobbying or some other special interest group -

I worked for Cessna, and I still do Engineering projects for them in Wichita. We can count on Cessna, Hawker Beechcraft, and the other LSA manufacturers to fight this like hell.

=========Shaun ==========

[Rookie120 0]

Let me ask you something John. Why is it when they want to tax cigarettes for health care you are for it. Raise capitol gains tax, your for it. We need to pay our fair share right? Raise income tax, you dont reject it for a second. But if they raise some taxes for GA and your panties are in a bunch. Why is that? You fell you pay enough already?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Rookie120 0]

Rich, eh? Talked to any jump plane pilots recently?
***


Yes I have. Good thing the owner of the plane pays for the landing fee wherever they go. Nice twist John. Now tell me why you should not get a tax hike for the services you use when you fly.


For the record I dont like the hike either. The FAA needs to be help accountable for the cash they get now and stop pissing it away.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Now tell me why you should not get a tax hike for the services you use when you fly.

C'mon, you haven't been drinking your DFL coolaid - have you?

It's NOT about paying for services you use any more than it's about responsible management of taxpayer money.

It's about taxing Kallend in ANY WAY POSSIBLE just because he makes a good living and has more than others. This is just one sneaky way to do that.

Don't you listen to Brother Narev?

edit: actually it's about airline lobbies having quite a bit of influence, but that's less fun. I wonder if they pitched this as charging pilots for their carbon loading 'fair share' would half the people against it change their vote?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[1969912 0]

According to AOPA, there are three sets of legislation on the table, the "FAA bill", the "Senate bill", and the "House bill". The "FAA bill" is VERY unfriendly to GA, the "Senate bill" is Unfriendly to GA, and the "House bill" is Friendly to GA. As an AOPA member and supporter of GA, I'm in support of the "House bill", as recommended by AOPA.


What I don't understand, is why you constantly call the two other sets of legislation "Bush's attack on GA". Legislation is not introduced by the President's administration, it is authored and introduced by Senators and/or Congressmen.


Could you please explain why you call the GA unfriendly legislation "Bush's attack on GA"?


thanks

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Could you please explain why you call the GA unfriendly legislation "Bush's attack on GA"?


thanks

Easy - because the Administration (FAA/DOT) introduced the first ("VERY Unfriendly")version, pushed very hard by Bush's appointee FAA, administrator at the urging of the airlines.

Read the history of the user fee and gas tax increase proposals.

www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2007/071115funding.html?WT.svl=FlashHP1

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Rich, eh? Talked to any jump plane pilots recently?
***


Yes I have. Good thing the owner of the plane pays for the landing fee wherever they go. Nice twist John. Now tell me why you should not get a tax hike for the services you use when you fly.


For the record I dont like the hike either. The FAA needs to be help accountable for the cash they get now and stop pissing it away.

I already pay through the AVGAS tax. Since the trust fund is not broke, GA users apparently are paying enough already.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Easy - because the Administration (FAA/DOT) introduced the first ("VERY Unfriendly")version, pushed very hard by Bush's appointee FAA, administrator at the urging of the airlines.

Read the history of the user fee and gas tax increase proposals.

But why is this tax increase so bad? You don't seem to have problems with other tax hikes.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Let me ask you something John. Why is it when they want to tax cigarettes for health care you are for it. Raise capitol gains tax, your for it. We need to pay our fair share right? Raise income tax, you dont reject it for a second. But if they raise some taxes for GA and your panties are in a bunch. Why is that? You fell you pay enough already?

That's easy too. The gas taxes already pay for what they are supposed to pay for (aviation services through the aviation trust fund) and are efficient and automatic to collect. User fees will require a whole NEW government bureaucracy to collect.

The other taxes you mention support the general fund, which is NOT solvent thanks mostly to Bush's spending like a drunken sailor. Increasing aviation taxes will not change the deficit one iota. Increasing general revenues will.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Easy - because the Administration (FAA/DOT) introduced the first ("VERY Unfriendly")version, pushed very hard by Bush's appointee FAA, administrator at the urging of the airlines.

Read the history of the user fee and gas tax increase proposals.

But why is this tax increase so bad? You don't seem to have problems with other tax hikes.

www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Quote

Let me ask you something John. Why is it when they want to tax cigarettes for health care you are for it. Raise capitol gains tax, your for it. We need to pay our fair share right? Raise income tax, you dont reject it for a second. But if they raise some taxes for GA and your panties are in a bunch. Why is that? You fell you pay enough already?

That's easy too. The gas taxes already pay for what they are supposed to pay for (aviation services through the aviation trust fund) and are efficient and automatic to collect. User fees will require a whole NEW government bureaucracy to collect.

The other taxes you mention support the general fund, which is NOT solvent thanks mostly to Bush's spending like a drunken sailor. Increasing aviation taxes will not change the deficit one iota. Increasing general revenues will.

In other words: "Even though I don't like the creation of a new government bureaucracy, I think the old one's work just fine and should therefore glut upon the income and capitol gains taxes of people who have more money than is good for them, anyway. This aviation tax is different, though. The government already has the money it needs and shouldn't take any more of mine!"

Does that sound about right?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Rookie120 0]

So through all your bullshit and jibberish it comes down to tax the other guy, leave me alone.


How about I want to raise your avgas tax to pay for childrens health care. Would you support that? I want landing fees to pay for soup kitchens. How about that?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

So through all your bullshit and jibberish it comes down to tax the other guy, leave me alone.

I pay income tax at the highest rate, and capitAl gains tax too, so your statement is absurd.

Quote

How about I want to raise your avgas tax to pay for childrens health care. Would you support that? I want landing fees to pay for soup kitchens. How about that?

Fine, if general fund taxes are used to pay for ATC.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

try again since you missed it the first time:

www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

try again since you missed it the first time:

www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/

You can post that link all you want. It won't magically insulate you from the scrutiny your position is receiving.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

So through all your bullshit and jibberish it comes down to tax the other guy, leave me alone.

I pay income tax at the highest rate, and capital gains tax too, so your statement is absurd.

Quote

It can always be higher. Don't you care? I mean - "that's where the money is"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,184]

What you both have missed altogether is that in its infinite wisdom the government, many years ago, created a separate tax structure for aviation. Aviation infrastructure, improvements etc. are SUPPOSED to be paid from the aviation trust fund, which is funded in turn by aviation taxes.

Now, if you want to argue that this is a bad idea and that aviation should be funded through the general fund, that is a totally different discussion. Then there should not be separate aviation taxes either.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So through all your bullshit and jibberish it comes down to tax the other guy, leave me alone.

I pay income tax at the highest rate, and capital gains tax too, so your statement is absurd.

Quote

It can always be higher. Don't you care? I mean - "that's where the money is"

I haven't argued against increasing income taxes or capitAl gains taxes, which is why his statement "it comes down to tax the other guy, leave me alone." is absurd.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Fine, if general fund taxes are used to pay for ATC.

Then go to the FAA and demand results instead of the bullshit press conference they have telling people how much they got done when nothing has been accomplished.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I haven't argued against increasing income taxes or capitAl gains taxes,

either way, as long as they get more money - that's how we fix everything

( - I think it's just a way to pass the expense from the big guys to the little guys and not raise more revenue - it's despicable. But it's fun to see you join the other side once in a while)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

I haven't argued against increasing income taxes or capitAl gains taxes,

either way, as long as they get more money - that's how we fix everything

( - I think it's just a way to pass the expense from the big guys to the little guys and not raise more revenue - it's despicable. But it's fun to see you join the other side once in a while)

Which other side is that? I think the wealthy should be paying more taxes, given the state of the deficit. And my household is squarely in the top 2% in terms of income and assets. A 1% increase in income tax rates would cost me far more than all the avgas taxes I pay.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.