VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.

  #1  
Old 01-13-2012, 11:35 AM
RV6_flyer's Avatar
RV6_flyer RV6_flyer is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NC25
Posts: 3,902
Default User Fees

Note to DR and Moderators. IF this is considered political, DELETE it.
[ed. I bet we can keep the polital stuff out no problem, Gary. dr]

Got the following email from the White House. (not Michael "Moose" White)

--- insert paste ---
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] Why We Need Aviation User Fees
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']By Dana Hyde, Associate Director for General Government Programs, Office of Management and Budget

Thank you for signing the petition "Take Aviation User Fees Off the Table." We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov and your concerns about user fees in a challenging economy.
In a challenging budget environment, the Obama Administration believes it’s essential that those who benefit from our world-class aviation system help pay for its ongoing operation. And we want to ensure that everyone is paying their fair share. For example, under current law, a large commercial aircraft flying from Los Angeles to San Francisco pays between twenty-one and thirty-three times the fuel taxes paid by a corporate jet flying the same route and using the same FAA air traffic services. This is why the Administration proposed to establish a new surcharge for air traffic services.
The proposed $100 per flight fee would generate an estimated $11 billion over 10 years, reducing the deficit and more equitably sharing the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community. All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
We appreciate your petition's acknowledgment that there needs to be an increased user contribution to aviation system funding in the current fiscal climate, and we recognize that some would prefer to raise the tax rate on aviation fuel. At the same time, we have concluded that a $100 per flight user fee is an equitable way for those who benefit to bear the cost of this essential service.
As we work to get our Nation back on a sustainable fiscal path, the Administration is making tough choices across the Federal budget and asking everyone to do their fair share. We recognize these shared sacrifices are not easy, but together with investments in our economic growth and job creation, they will make us stronger and more competitive for the future. We look forward to working collaboratively with the Congress and the aviation stakeholder community on this issue, and thank you again for your constructive input.


--- end paste ---


I am not happy about this.





[/font]
[/font]
__________________
Gary A. Sobek
NC25 RV-6
Flying
3,500+ hours
Where is N157GS
Building RV-8 S/N: 80012

To most people, the sky is the limit.
To those who love aviation, the sky is home.

Last edited by DeltaRomeo : 01-13-2012 at 01:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-13-2012, 11:40 AM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,884
Default

Oh, that is bad, very bad.

It is just the start and soon they will be saying that C-150 using flight following should pay the same as a biz jet.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-13-2012, 11:52 AM
mosquito's Avatar
mosquito mosquito is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hendersonville, NC
Posts: 187
Default No fees for us...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV6_flyer View Post
All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
"Slippery slope" arguments notwithstanding, this doesn't affect us.

-jon
__________________
RV-6 | O-320 | Triple-bladed Catto
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-13-2012, 12:02 PM
Toobuilder's Avatar
Toobuilder Toobuilder is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,928
Default

Depends how the term "user" is defined. If we continue to think of the "user" as the person sitting up front and pushing knobs and buttons, then no (for the time being). But the fact is, most of the population enjoys a benefit through aviation in some way. Lots of those cheap goods found at WalMart get here by air... There are MILLIONS of users of the NAS beyond those of us who merely drive.

Trying to divide us up into the haves/have not?s is a classic exercise in misdirection.

Don't fall for it - we need to stick together!
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.

Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
1984 L39C - SOLD
RV-8 - SDS CPI - SOLD

Last edited by Toobuilder : 01-13-2012 at 12:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-13-2012, 12:26 PM
FredMagare FredMagare is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyle, TX
Posts: 580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV6_flyer View Post
All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
So what does "public aircraft" mean? It looks like this measure might only affect (target?) privately owned and operated jet aircraft. While it doesn't affect me (yet) it certainly seems unjust. Once passed, it's a simple "ammendment" to remove the piston aircraft exemption.

Large jets pay more in taxes because they burn more fuel but they also have more seats and generate more revenue. Seems fair to me....
__________________
Fred Magare
GySgt, USMC (Ret.)
PP-ASEL&I, A&P
Frederic.magare "at" gmail.com
RV-9A N469MT
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-13-2012, 12:49 PM
RVbySDI's Avatar
RVbySDI RVbySDI is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tuttle, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,697
Default

I received this email as well. The content not withstanding, I am really taken aback that the White House sees it as appropriate to solicit support for their agenda from individuals who have publicly denounced that very agenda.

As far as the content of the solicitation, this idea is similar to the taxation of yachts back in the Carter administration days. In case anyone may be too young to remember that era, the taxation of yacht manufacturers just about caused a recession in and of itself. OK, that may be an exaggeration. Really, though, this taxation caused an entire industry to shut down over night. Thousands of people lost their jobs within weeks of that governmental tax change. The wealthy yacht owners simply shifted their purchase power to other countries in the world who were manufacturing yachts. The decision did nothing but hurt the yacht industry, the workers who built them and ultimately the US economy as a whole. The government tax coffers did not see a windfall from all of those wealthy yacht owners paying into this new Luxury Tax. They simply avoided the tax completely by not buying yachts from American yacht manufacturers. After several years of this, Congress finally wised up and repealed the luxury tax they had imposed. As soon as they did there was a swift uptick in the economy. I am not saying the repeal of the luxury tax caused prosperity but it sure helped.

Aviation user fees on the "Wealthy Jet Owners and Operators" will have the same effect. I would bet the government will see little if any benefit from such a user fee. In fact, I would wager it will COST them dearly if they implement it!
__________________
RVBYSDI
Steve
RV9A
https://rvwings.com

Live Long And Prosper! 🖖🏻
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-13-2012, 01:28 PM
Mile High Relic Mile High Relic is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Arvada, Colorado
Posts: 325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito View Post
All piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted.
"Slippery slope" arguments notwithstanding, this doesn't affect us.

-jon
The creation of an infrastructure to levy and collect an entirely new aviation tax would actually probably affect you, at least indirectly, and really would be a slippery slope. Once created, it would likely grow.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-13-2012, 01:32 PM
MarkW's Avatar
MarkW MarkW is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Edgewater, FL. X50
Posts: 1,193
Default Joke

I really thought this might be a joke at first. Then I saw that RVbySDI said he got the same petition. So I went to www.whitehouse.com and found this petition with this very same response. Are you kidding me "And we want to ensure that everyone is paying their fair share." Not hardly, they just want more money by going to the low hanging fruit.
__________________
Mark
RV9 - N14MW - Flying
G3X - ECI Titan I0-320
Catto three blade prop
http://www.mykitlog.com/MarkW
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-13-2012, 01:51 PM
mosquito's Avatar
mosquito mosquito is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hendersonville, NC
Posts: 187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mile High Relic View Post
The creation of an infrastructure to levy and collect an entirely new aviation tax would actually probably affect you, at least indirectly, and really would be a slippery slope. Once created, it would likely grow.
Well, yes, that may be true... I just meant this isn't a proposal to directly charge RV pilots $100 every time we call ATC. At first skim, I missed the blanked piston exemption... and I'll be cleaning coffee out of my keyboard for weeks.

-jon
__________________
RV-6 | O-320 | Triple-bladed Catto
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-13-2012, 02:04 PM
rocketbob's Avatar
rocketbob rocketbob is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 8I3
Posts: 3,835
Default

$11 billion / $100 per flight flight / 10 years / 12 months per year = 916,666 turbine GA flights per month that would generate this projected revenue. Whoever dreamed these numbers up is smoking crack cocaine.
__________________

Please don't PM me! Email only!

Bob Japundza CFII A&PIA
N9187P PA-24-260B Comanche, flying
N678X F1 Rocket, under const.
N244BJ RV-6 "victim of SNF tornado" 1200+ hrs, rebuilding
N8155F C150 flying
N7925P PA-24-250 Comanche, restoring
Not a thing I own is stock.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.