모두
← Back to Squawk list
White House budget contains user fee despite opposition
User fees for aviation were once again part of the president’s new budget proposal, despite continued strong opposition from Congress and the aviation community. On March 4, the White House released its fiscal year 2015 spending plan, which included a $100-per-flight “surcharge” to pay for air traffic control services. (www.aopa.org) 기타...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Why would we be so naïve to think that this fee would be dedicated to ATC and infrastructure. All you have to do is sit back each year and see the Highway trust fund begging for money and politicians wringing their hands trying to figure out where the money is going to come from to repair our aging infrastructure. Our user fees are being spread out now to where they can't keep up
I muskeg wouldn't be naive about that passibility in the least. In fact the cynic in me wouldn't expect anything else.
I would suggest a constitutional amendment so that all user fees that are dedicated for particular uses and/or drawn on specific uses couldn't be diverted for other purposes.
With entitlements and debt service taking larger and larger shares of the federal kitty, I expect that we see lawmakers raiding all existing user fee generated funds and even instituting new user fees for the sole purpose of future potential raids.
So, I'll rewrite my earlier statement. Flight users fees are a great idea, except when they're not (which they wouldn't be on most situations.
What I would like from a dedicated fee supporting ATC, would be a steady revenue source for the cost of providing the necesary infrastructure for an important transportation industry, which would be (in the best case scenario) isolated from politics and other budget process irregularities that will be sure to increase as a shrinking pie is divided over more claiming their share.
I would suggest a constitutional amendment so that all user fees that are dedicated for particular uses and/or drawn on specific uses couldn't be diverted for other purposes.
With entitlements and debt service taking larger and larger shares of the federal kitty, I expect that we see lawmakers raiding all existing user fee generated funds and even instituting new user fees for the sole purpose of future potential raids.
So, I'll rewrite my earlier statement. Flight users fees are a great idea, except when they're not (which they wouldn't be on most situations.
What I would like from a dedicated fee supporting ATC, would be a steady revenue source for the cost of providing the necesary infrastructure for an important transportation industry, which would be (in the best case scenario) isolated from politics and other budget process irregularities that will be sure to increase as a shrinking pie is divided over more claiming their share.
To be clearer the issues that I have with the flight user fee isn't the user fee itself but the poor budgetary practices of governmental bodies (past, present and likely future).
It's not a matter of lack of focus. It's a matter of real declines in revenue. The Gas tax is still 19.4 cents a gallon, same as it was in 1993 the last time it was raised. It's not indexed to inflation (most of these taxes aren't), meaning that in real terms, revenue decreases every year. For highways, higher gas prices have had a noticeable impact on miles driven, not to mention more fuel-efficient cars cut down on revenue.
Aviation faces similar problems in terms of declining revenue streams. The problem is pretty simple: The only sane and rational think to do is to raise taxes, but there isn't a congressman who would ever say that because nowadays it's practically grounds for impeachment.
Aviation faces similar problems in terms of declining revenue streams. The problem is pretty simple: The only sane and rational think to do is to raise taxes, but there isn't a congressman who would ever say that because nowadays it's practically grounds for impeachment.
just a word, failure to be re-elected is not impeachment. Aside from that- spot on.
I will agree with that to a point in that revenues are declining but to have a declining revenue spent for something that never contributed a dime toward it, like mass transit, is not good policy. Kinda akin to providing entitlements to those that have never worked a day in their life, and drawing all that free stuff.
I am going to add here that I don't consider SOCIAL SECURITY as an entitlement. It seems to me that I earned every bit of it and my employer had to match it but the kitty is full of IOU's.
Ain't that the truth. When I signed up last year 500k had been paid in to ss and Medicare by me and employer over the last almost 50 years. If that had been earning almost any decent return it would be a nice little bundle now. Since they spent it and gave it to undeserving and the boomers are retiring in droves their Ponzi scheme is about over. Guess they they will just have to raise the contributions. My kids will luv it. Lol
www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/maxtax.htm
All those numbers since 1937 added together equals $2,649,100 in possible total taxable S.S. and Medicare wages. Take that times the present rate of S.S and Medicare added together, which is 15.30% (.1530) only equals $405,312. I don't think so.
All those numbers since 1937 added together equals $2,649,100 in possible total taxable S.S. and Medicare wages. Take that times the present rate of S.S and Medicare added together, which is 15.30% (.1530) only equals $405,312. I don't think so.
You never top out on Medicare. You pay on every dime you earn.
Sad but true. I figure that voucher system or stretching the goalpost to 70 will hit those about 50 and under when it does come in. Their Ponzi scheme is collapsing on account all us old goats are living longer. LOL