Bush continues his attack on general aviation

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

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.

I don't follow your line of reasoning here.

...

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

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Which other side is that? I think the wealthy should be paying more taxes,

What do you consider wealthy? Give an example of lets say a married couple with no kids. What would you consider their combined income to be WEALTHY?

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

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.

so how much (in percent, we don't need to know your personal info) do you voluntarily send in each quarter? Only to the government. Because private charity does not count since the discussion is about taxes.

...
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

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

I don't follow your line of reasoning here.

My reasoning is they never get anything done. Meaning the FAA. They say the Nex/Gen needs more money. What happened to the money they have been getting for the program? I dont think the new system will help much. Flights will be able to fly direct routes instead on VOR. Maybe less spacing on approach. But what we really need is more runways at some of the major airports. JFK, EWR, LGA, BOS, ORD, ATL, LAX. Thats my opinion.

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

[Channman 2]

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

And to think, he scratches his head at night wondering why he is at 32% approval.

As a pilot myself, a 263 percent tax on Avgas looks like the Government is trying to tell the GA pilots to get the hell out of the skies.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

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.

What you seem to have missed (for your whole life, apparently) is the fact that the government's appetite for money can never be satiated. You seem angered that this tax increase is going towards a system whose funding should already be taken care of. It even has its own tax structure in place. Well, surprise! That's government for you. It's the same trait that many of us here have been lambasting for a long time, and that you've been seemingly OK with as Rookie pointed out.
Now, I absolutely agree with you that this proposed tax is BS and should not happen. What is compelling me to post is the fact that you pick this tax on aviation to start sounding like someone who is fed up with the government's reckless tax policies.

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

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

I don't follow your line of reasoning here.

My reasoning is they never get anything done. Meaning the FAA. They say the Nex/Gen needs more money. What happened to the money they have been getting for the program? I dont think the new system will help much. Flights will be able to fly direct routes instead on VOR. Maybe less spacing on approach. But what we really need is more runways at some of the major airports. JFK, EWR, LGA, BOS, ORD, ATL, LAX. Thats my opinion.

not disagreeing about that. I don't see how the FAA is funded affects its ability to piss away the money, however.

...

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

[1969912 0]

Quote

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 "Administration (FAA/DOT)" didn't introduce the "Very bad" version, it was Sen. Inouye (S. 1076) and Rep. Oberstar (H.R. 1356) who authored and introduced the two bills that comprise(d) it. The legislators are not part of Bush's Administration. So I still don't understand the "Bush attack..." claim. Am I missing something?

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

Quote

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 "Administration (FAA/DOT)" didn't introduce the "Very bad" version, it was Sen. Inouye (S. 1076) and Rep. Oberstar (H.R. 1356) who authored and introduced the two bills that comprise(d) it. The legislators are not part of Bush's Administration. So I still don't understand the "Bush attack..." claim. Am I missing something?

thanks

And I suppose you believe that the tooth fairy helped them draft a technical aviation bill, rather than the FAA staff. You really should pay attention if you are a GA pilot.

FAA Reauthorization Proposal
Updated April 6, 2007


The Bush administration has submitted its proposal to change the funding mechanism for the Federal Aviation Administration to Congress. According to the FAA's "Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007," the FAA says the act will "replace the decades-old system of collecting ticket taxes with a cost-based, stable, and reliable funding program that relies on a combination of user fees, taxes, and a federal government contribution to support the development of a new, satellite-based air traffic control system, called NextGen."

...

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

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

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.

What you seem to have missed (for your whole life, apparently) is the fact that the government's appetite for money can never be satiated. You seem angered that this tax increase is going towards a system whose funding should already be taken care of. It even has its own tax structure in place. Well, surprise! That's government for you. It's the same trait that many of us here have been lambasting for a long time, and that you've been seemingly OK with as Rookie pointed out.
Now, I absolutely agree with you that this proposed tax is BS and should not happen. What is compelling me to post is the fact that you pick this tax on aviation to start sounding like someone who is fed up with the government's reckless tax policies.

Au contraire. The aviation trust fund is not in deficit so there is no reason for change. All Bush's proposal does is shift the burden from the primary beneficiaries (the airlines) to the GA community.

The general fund, OTOH, is seriously in deficit so there is every reason to change.

...

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

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Au contraire. The aviation trust fund is not in deficit so there is no reason for change. All Bush's proposal does is shift the burden from the primary beneficiaries (the airlines) to the GA community.

Here is a paragraph from the FAA website.

Quote

Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF)
The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF), created by the Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1970, provides funding for the federal commitment to the nation’s aviation system through several aviation-related excise taxes (MS Excel). Funding currently comes from collections related to passenger tickets, passenger flight segments, international arrivals/departures, cargo waybills, aviation fuels, and frequent flyer mile awards from non-airline sources like credit cards.

So from that parahraph it looks like the GA community meaning you, only has fuel tax. Landing fee at some airports. The airline has pass tax, cargo, fuel, miles, and a load of other things. But you still say it is an attack on GA. Why is it never an attack on airlines when they try to dump higher taxes on them?

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

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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.

What you seem to have missed (for your whole life, apparently) is the fact that the government's appetite for money can never be satiated. You seem angered that this tax increase is going towards a system whose funding should already be taken care of. It even has its own tax structure in place. Well, surprise! That's government for you. It's the same trait that many of us here have been lambasting for a long time, and that you've been seemingly OK with as Rookie pointed out.
Now, I absolutely agree with you that this proposed tax is BS and should not happen. What is compelling me to post is the fact that you pick this tax on aviation to start sounding like someone who is fed up with the government's reckless tax policies.

Au contraire. The aviation trust fund is not in deficit so there is no reason for change. All Bush's proposal does is shift the burden from the primary beneficiaries (the airlines) to the GA community.

The general fund, OTOH, is seriously in deficit so there is every reason to change.

Like I said, the government can never have enough money, in its own opinion. Whether there is a deficit or not is irrelevant, as this particular instance demonstrates quite well. Why you keep thinking they act any more responsibly in dealing with the general fund is beyond me. Now, by "change" in your last sentence, what exactly do you mean?

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