OregonMaule wrote: Whats wrong with the gas tax. The more you fly the more you pay?

hotrod150 wrote:

OregonMaule wrote: Whats wrong with the gas tax. The more you fly the more you pay?

We already pay a fuel tax at the airport pump, the trouble is:
1) in Washington I think I've heard that it goes into the general fund (?), and B) that's a state tax. The feds need to tack a little something (I said a little, OK?) on there too. Of course, that'll miss the guys who self-fuel with mogas but that's probably not that big a percentage.
I think a small annual fee and a small per-gallon fuel tax would be a fair combination. I'm not asking for a free ride, but on the other hand I don't wanna subsidize everyone else either. I can't blame the airlines for feeling that same way.

Dear Congressman Blumenauer/DeFazio/Walden,

I am writing to express my opinion on the matter of aviation user fees, which have been a constant looming threat to private aviation for as long as I can recall. Recently, Office of Management and Budget Associate Director for General Government Programs Dana Hyde reaffirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to a proposed $100-per-flight fee for use of air traffic services, claiming that the fee would both “ensure that everyone is paying their fair share” and help reduce the deficit. I do not believe that this is a good solution in any way, shape, or form, and as a private pilot, it will be a deciding issue for me in future elections.

I realize that the current stated target of the per-flight user fee is only heavier turbine aircraft, who do often use ATC services, but the pilot community of Oregon and the rest of the country is resolute that is just as dangerous a precedent as if the bill were aimed directly at us, the light piston aircraft.

The current air traffic control system is, in fact, support by user fees in the form of a fuel tax. The more fuel you burn, the more you contribute to supporting the federally administered system. It is my opinion, as well as that of the majority of pilots, that a per-flight user fee will have many negative effects on the aviation system: For one, fewer pilots will opt to use air traffic control radar services for collision avoidance when they are optional, which can lead to pilots legally flying "blindly" near crowded airspace, when they could benefit from traffic alerts.

Another unforeseen effect is the avoidance of Class D airports, which require clearance from a control tower in order to land. In Oregon, these are Hillsboro, Salem, Eugene, Medford, Klamath Falls, North Bend, Redmond, and Troutdale. Many private operators are based there, and should a mandatory per-flight fee be enacted, many will do anything they can to relocate, a mass exodus to smaller, non-towered airports. The fixed based operators and any local commerce nearby these larger airports will be severely diminished.

The current system works. Tax the fuel. It levels the playing field and removes from the equation any cause to AVOID using air traffic control, which is a safety mechanism and should be available to ALL air traffic.

Thanks for taking the time to read my email.

Sincerely,
Zane Jacobson
Lake Oswego, OR

Glidergeek wrote:......The guys that fuel with mogas already pay .184 federal tax, .18 (Ca) state tax and sales tax on top of the fuel price + fed tx. At the pump, All this goes into the general fund. Unless you apply for a refund which is seldom done.

JLB wrote:Wow Zane, that is really a great letter!

hotrod150 wrote:

Glidergeek wrote:......The guys that fuel with mogas already pay .184 federal tax, .18 (Ca) state tax and sales tax on top of the fuel price + fed tx. At the pump, All this goes into the general fund. Unless you apply for a refund which is seldom done.

I self-fuel with mogas, and do apply for the state road tax refund. Just got a check for Q4/11, it worked out to about 2-1/2 cents per gallon back to me. Hardly worth the hassle, except that doing it puts the tax I pay into the aviation slot, not the highway slot.
Good letter, Zane! Fuel tax does make the most sense & seems the fairest, although I wouldn't object to a reasonable (aka small) fixed fee on top of that. Durango's example of Canada's system is a good one, it's been a few years since I flew north of the border but as I recall it's about $20 per quarter "for ATC services used or made available to you". Seems reasonable to me.

By Sarah Brown

After almost 9,000 people urged the president to take damaging aviation user fees off the table, the administration on Jan. 13 offered its response: No way.
AOPA Top Stories

In a response to a petition on the White House’s “We the People” website, Office of Management and Budget Associate Director for General Government Programs Dana Hyde reaffirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to a proposed $100-per-flight fee for use of air traffic services, claiming that the fee would both “ensure that everyone is paying their fair share” and help reduce the deficit.

“We are disappointed but not surprised that the administration continues to seek a $100 user fee on general aviation flights,” said AOPA President Craig Fuller. “Congress has repeatedly said that a GA user fee is an unacceptable method of funding the air traffic system. Pay at the pump has worked since the dawn of powered flight and it still works. The last thing we need right now is to create an expensive new bureaucracy to fix what isn't broken.”

AOPA member Kevin Mossey of Marion, Iowa, started the petition Sept. 23 in response to a White House deficit-reduction proposal that would impose a $100-per-flight fee for flights in controlled airspace. The petition pointed out that the existing system of revenue generation, collected through excise taxes, allows more of the revenue collected to go toward the operation of the air traffic control system. It also explained that fuel taxes more accurately reflect the amount of ATC services, “as a flight from NYC to LA will require more controller time than a flight from NYC to Boston.” The petition gained 8,904 signatures—well more than the threshold at the time for earning a response from the White House.

In the response, Hyde said the administration wanted to make sure that those who benefit from the airspace system share the costs equitably.

“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,” according to the response.

Really? Paying the 21.9-cents-per-gallon tax on noncommercial jet fuel, operators of a Gulfstream IV business jet would pay about $87 in fuel taxes. The commercial jet fuel tax is 4.4 cents per gallon; even with a much higher fuel burn, operators of an Airbus A320 would pay about $68 in fuel taxes. AOPA maintains that GA is willing to pay its fair share into the system—but payment shouldn’t be based on faulty calculations.

A loose grasp on the workings of the aviation system also revealed itself in the ambiguous language of the proposal: It would exempt flights outside of “controlled airspace,” but doesn’t define the term. (Is Class E “controlled”?) The original proposal also would exempt “recreational piston aircraft,” a nebulous distinction. The response to the petition refers instead to exempting “all piston aircraft,” among other categories—but no segment of aviation can count itself immune once the bureaucratic structure for user fees is introduced. User fees bypass congressional budgeting processes and can be raised or expanded at will. AOPA holds that GA should pay its share using the time-tested funding system that has supported the National Airspace System for years.

Really? Paying the 21.9-cents-per-gallon tax on noncommercial jet fuel, operators of a Gulfstream IV business jet would pay about $87 in fuel taxes. The commercial jet fuel tax is 4.4 cents per gallon; even with a much higher fuel burn, operators of an Airbus A320 would pay about $68 in fuel taxes. AOPA maintains that GA is willing to pay its fair share into the system—but payment shouldn’t be based on faulty calculations.

Glidergeek wrote:The cost of administering a NEW fee is significant, and will be higher than that of administering a change in the EXISTING tax schedule. It is yet another bill to pay. (with associated late fees if you forget) How many people do they need to hire to assess and collect and distribute all this new money? How do you pay them? How do you pay the rent on their offices? Comes out of the new fees.

Another way for Obama to "put people back to work" in government positions? not in the private sector where it's needed.

c170pete wrote:

Glidergeek wrote:The cost of administering a NEW fee is significant, and will be higher than that of administering a change in the EXISTING tax schedule. It is yet another bill to pay. (with associated late fees if you forget) How many people do they need to hire to assess and collect and distribute all this new money? How do you pay them? How do you pay the rent on their offices? Comes out of the new fees.

Another way for Obama to "put people back to work" in government positions? not in the private sector where it's needed.

This issue transcends partisan politics. The Obama administration is making another attempt to push this, but George Bush pushed for aviation user fees in his budgets too, and they got shot down. John McCain has also been a vocal proponent of aviation user fees in the past. This is not going to go away if Paul Gingromnatorum gets elected. Expect it to come up every year in the federal budget.