How would GA user fees affect you?

[david0tey]

I am doing a presentation in one of my college courses about GA user fees. I know not much is known about the specific details of what is being proposed. My question to you is, how would these user fees affect you as GA pilots? Although the current proposal is limited to charter flights for hire (I think?), if these user fees did expand to include all GA operations, what changes would you have to make to your flying lifestyle? I know there was a thread already on this so I apologize if i'm beating a dead horse here. Thanks.

 

[dennyleeb]

I am doing a presentation in one of my college courses about GA user fees. I know not much is known about the specific details of what is being proposed. My question to you is, how would these user fees affect you as GA pilots? Although the current proposal is limited to charter flights for hire (I think?), if these user fees did expand to include all GA operations, what changes would you have to make to your flying lifestyle? I know there was a thread already on this so I apologize if i'm beating a dead horse here. Thanks.

I would fly less.

 

[poadeleted20]

I wouldn't know without knowing the specifics of the proposal.

Also, your understanding of the Administration's most recent proposal is inaccurate. Since you're a college student, I think it's appropriate that you do more research on the background before going further.

 

[Inverted]

Wouldn't affect me in the least. I don't fly GA much anymore.

 

[jmp470]

Change your paper and target higher fuel costs versus hours flown.

 

[steingar]

The instant the first GA user fee is passed I will sell for aircraft for whatever I get. I well realize that sooner or later it will become an expensive aluminum paperweight. Or a lawn ornament. Or something else that neither moves nor flies.

 

[david0tey]

I wouldn't know without knowing the specifics of the proposal.

Also, your understanding of the Administration's most recent proposal is inaccurate. Since you're a college student, I think it's appropriate that you do more research on the background before going further.

Which part do i have wrong? As of now this is just a project idea so i havent done extensive research. All I know is that the government wont stop at what the original proposal is .

 

[silver-eagle]

Yes, the issue about aviation user fees has been flogged many times. All user fees, aviation or otherwise, are targeted taxes on the users of that service. What you used to get for the taxes you paid have now been broken out into "user fees". A couple of easons for doing so.
The fees in some cases can be arbitrarily applied. Once the governing authority approves setting the fee, said fee can be adjusted as desired without further legislative action.
The fee increase affects only the targeted user. If the highway toll goes up by 50 cents, and I don't use the highway, I really don't care. Same for aviation. The average joe thinks all pilots are rich, the fee doesn't directly affect them, and could care less if I pay $100 a day to talk to ATC.
Regardless of what the proposed plan is or how it is applied, we pilots already pay "user fees". The "user fees" for GA is in the avgas already. There it is called TAX. Any further "user fee" is just another tax. The same can be said for highway tolls; already paid and a lot of good that does us.
Until the government, federal, state, or local, can show why a new tax is needed ON ANYTHING, they need to prove it is truly needed. Remember what you used to get for paying your taxes? Sit back and calculate what you pay now. Ask your parents. I'd bet they are happy as hell to be paying for that 25 minute shower you take daily. (Yet another "user fee".)

 

[EdFred]

The instant the first GA user fee is passed I will sell for aircraft for whatever I get. I well realize that sooner or later it will become an expensive aluminum paperweight. Or a lawn ornament. Or something else that neither moves nor flies.

That's pretty much where I will be with things too. Or just test the big sky theory.

 

[steingar]

That's pretty much where I will be with things too. Or just test the big sky theory.

The problem is that once aviators drop out in droves because of the increasing and ever more intrusive fees, everything will increase in price even faster than it is now. The big sky works for getting out of fees, but you still need avgas, parts, maintenance and other things that will increase dramatically in price as fewer pilots utilize them. Moreover, the dearth of pilot sin the game will embolden overzealous regulators, who will restrict our ability to fly ever more in the name of safety, or peace and quiet, or the children.

 

[jpower]

I am doing a presentation in one of my college courses about GA user fees. I know not much is known about the specific details of what is being proposed. My question to you is, how would these user fees affect you as GA pilots? Although the current proposal is limited to charter flights for hire (I think?), if these user fees did expand to include all GA operations, what changes would you have to make to your flying lifestyle? I know there was a thread already on this so I apologize if i'm beating a dead horse here. Thanks.

I'll echo what others have said. At this stage in my life, if user fees hit piston engined GA aircraft (I realize they aren't directed at them, but there is always the proverbial slippery slope), I would have to quit flying altogether. $100 per flight is unrealistic for me.

 

[ronnieh]

Although the current proposal is for turbine aircraft at $100 per leg it will just be a matter of time until it spreads to everyone. I do not know which will kill GA first. The price of avgas or user fees. It will be a race to the end of GA.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I'll echo what others have said. At this stage in my life, if user fees hit piston engined GA aircraft (I realize they aren't directed at them, but there is always the proverbial slippery slope), I would have to quit flying altogether. $100 per flight is unrealistic for me.

Same here.

 

[John Baker]

I thought the extra taxes we pay for avgas was where the money came from to finance the enormous pressures us GA people put on our nations airways and airports. If they add user fees to the mix, that would end it for me. Actually, I'm pretty close to being done with it anyway.

It is an endeavor that is not only cost prohibitive to most people, but then when you add the huge regulatory and liability burden to it, I find it awfully hard to convince myself that all the fun I'm having is worth it.

Private aviation is little more than a bureaucrats wet dream. They get to continually add to the costs, they get to regulate, they get to dream up more regulations on a daily basis, many get to carry badges and guns. They can arrest and fine its participants, they have power, real power over others.

I think the real thrill and satisfaction of General Aviation is to be found more in Oklahoma City than in any cockpit, box office, or airstrip.

-John

 

[Jay Honeck]

If the user's fees were structured like they are in Europe, I would quit flying.

Anything less, well, I'd have to see the specifics.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Paint it black, fly by night. ToysR'us has night vision goggles Seriously user fees won't get me, I fly under the radar anyway.:wink2:

 

[spinfire]

Impossible to answer without knowing more about the fee. If you fly in Canada they will bill you a user fee. It applies for the period you fly in, not for each flight. For a single engine prop I think it comes out to around $70 a year. This would not affect my flying at all. A $100 per flight fee would but nobody has actually proposed this for private piston aircraft. In fact, all of the user fee proposals recently suggested are entirely short on details which is very unfortunate because it seems pilots have very active imaginations...

 

[ronnieh]

Does not take much imagination and the facts are pretty simple. $100 per flight for turbine aircraft. That is the proposal from Obama. Fortunately, few took it seriously, so far.

 

[steingar]

Impossible to answer without knowing more about the fee. If you fly in Canada they will bill you a user fee. It applies for the period you fly in, not for each flight. For a single engine prop I think it comes out to around $70 a year. This would not affect my flying at all. A $100 per flight fee would but nobody has actually proposed this for private piston aircraft. In fact, all of the user fee proposals recently suggested are entirely short on details which is very unfortunate because it seems pilots have very active imaginations...

That started out as no user fees at all for piston singles, by the way. Once the fee starts and doesn't need congressional oversight, it goes up, to pay for all the bureaucrats who administer it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Which part do i have wrong?

The part about what user fees were proposed by the Administration.

As of now this is just a project idea so i havent done extensive research.

You might at least want to determine what was actually proposed so you have a starting point.

All I know is that the government wont stop at what the original proposal is .

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Gmaper]

Yes, the issue about aviation user fees has been flogged many times. All user fees, aviation or otherwise, are targeted taxes on the users of that service. What you used to get for the taxes you paid have now been broken out into "user fees". A couple of easons for doing so.
The fees in some cases can be arbitrarily applied. Once the governing authority approves setting the fee, said fee can be adjusted as desired without further legislative action.
The fee increase affects only the targeted user. If the highway toll goes up by 50 cents, and I don't use the highway, I really don't care. Same for aviation. The average joe thinks all pilots are rich, the fee doesn't directly affect them, and could care less if I pay $100 a day to talk to ATC.
Regardless of what the proposed plan is or how it is applied, we pilots already pay "user fees". The "user fees" for GA is in the avgas already. There it is called TAX. Any further "user fee" is just another tax. The same can be said for highway tolls; already paid and a lot of good that does us.
Until the government, federal, state, or local, can show why a new tax is needed ON ANYTHING, they need to prove it is truly needed. Remember what you used to get for paying your taxes? Sit back and calculate what you pay now. Ask your parents. I'd bet they are happy as hell to be paying for that 25 minute shower you take daily. (Yet another "user fee".)

Spot on about fees versus taxes. Here in Georgia our legislature has passed a bill that eliminates the onerous TAX on vehicles; both the sales TAX that applied to dealer sold cars and the annual advalorem TAX calculated on the value of the car and applied to the tag renewal. The good old boys said "see, we have eliminated some TAXES that were a burden on everyone owning cars". Then, in quiet words not spoken often they said "this bill needs to be revenue neutral". So, they implemented a FEE on all vehicle title registrations. Turns out the FEE happens to be the same amount as the eliminated sales TAX. In addition, they made it apply to all vehicle registrations so someone who received a vehicle at a good deal, like free from a family member, now pays the FEE on the registration. Ditto it applies to private sales that were previously not taxed although it was argued that they should have been under previous law.

No advalorem TAX in the future (but continues to apply to all vehicles registered before March 1, 2013) so at least something good, right? Maybe not. My county tax commissioner said that so far the state hasn't explained how the advalorem TAX revenue source for the counties will be replaced. He suspects that the counties will all have to raise TAXES in order to cover the missing advalorem revenue.

 

[Henning]

I am doing a presentation in one of my college courses about GA user fees. I know not much is known about the specific details of what is being proposed. My question to you is, how would these user fees affect you as GA pilots? Although the current proposal is limited to charter flights for hire (I think?), if these user fees did expand to include all GA operations, what changes would you have to make to your flying lifestyle? I know there was a thread already on this so I apologize if i'm beating a dead horse here. Thanks.

None. I've operated in a 'user fee' environment before in Aus and Europe and it barely had an effect on overall cost of operations. Mind you though that I fly VFR for the most part and the greatest portion of the fees apply to the IFR structure.

 

[N747JB]

Funny thing is, I am in the car business and I just heard about this last week. From my limited understanding, cars bought before March 2013 will pay ad valorem tax until they change owners, cars bought March 1, 2013 and forward will pay the fee (tax) and no ad valorem as long as the vehicle is owned by the original owner. Looks like I will shut down for January and February and let everyone take vacation! Who is going to buy a car in February, knowing you are going to have to pay an extra $2-500 per year as long as you own it???
I'm sure this looked good on paper to someone at the state house, but not sure how it's going to really affect real people yet.

Spot on about fees versus taxes. Here in Georgia our legislature has passed a bill that eliminates the onerous TAX on vehicles; both the sales TAX that applied to dealer sold cars and the annual advalorem TAX calculated on the value of the car and applied to the tag renewal. The good old boys said "see, we have eliminated some TAXES that were a burden on everyone owning cars". Then, in quiet words not spoken often they said "this bill needs to be revenue neutral". So, they implemented a FEE on all vehicle title registrations. Turns out the FEE happens to be the same amount as the eliminated sales TAX. In addition, they made it apply to all vehicle registrations so someone who received a vehicle at a good deal, like free from a family member, now pays the FEE on the registration. Ditto it applies to private sales that were previously not taxed although it was argued that they should have been under previous law.

No advalorem TAX in the future (but continues to apply to all vehicles registered before March 1, 2013) so at least something good, right? Maybe not. My county tax commissioner said that so far the state hasn't explained how the advalorem TAX revenue source for the counties will be replaced. He suspects that the counties will all have to raise TAXES in order to cover the missing advalorem revenue.

 

[Gmaper]

Funny thing is, I am in the car business and I just heard about this last week. From my limited understanding, cars bought before March 2013 will pay ad valorem tax until they change owners, cars bought March 1, 2013 and forward will pay the fee (tax) and no ad valorem as long as the vehicle is owned by the original owner. Looks like I will shut down for January and February and let everyone take vacation! Who is going to buy a car in February, knowing you are going to have to pay an extra $2-500 per year as long as you own it???
I'm sure this looked good on paper to someone at the state house, but not sure how it's going to really affect real people yet.

I had the same thought about the couple of months before the change kicks in. The tax commissioner said that he heard there is supposed to be some sort of pro-rated tax/fee applied but he had not received anything official from the state. He was also a bit concerned about how long it will take for the computer changes that are necessary.

When we were talking about the registration fee on 'zero or no cost' title transfers he said that he understands that the county will use the same value as is applicable to advalorem calculation to determine the minimum value on which to compute the fee. But if someone pays more than that they will pay on the actual amount paid. Also unknown to him is whether or not the fee will be calculated on the "total price" of the vehicle or on the net difference between the new and the old as it is done today for sale tax purposes. If it is on the total instead of the net difference then that is another big hit.

But we must remember "they eliminated some big TAXES".

 

[DrMack]

Start your research with the question, "Who is the user?" Is the NAS a public good? If the purpose of the NAS is to increase economic productivity and to ensure public safety, in the same way as other major national infrastructure systems like the federal highways, are the real "users", the folks who fly, or is it the public who receives the positive externalities of the system? On a crisp January afternoon is the "user" the crowd of Super Bowl attendees who fill the stadium, or is it the gerboni in his 152 who is prevented by ATC from buzzing the throng at 100' AGL to impress his girlfriend? And what about noise abatement? Who is the beneficiary of that service?

"User fees" are a dangerous slippery slope for a complex modern economy like ours. The endgame is a request from the 911 operator for your credit card number before any police or rescue resources are dispatched to aid you. The word "user" implies a public choice to treat a service as a private good. But the externalities of the NAS cannot be prevented so the American sense of justice dictates that all who benefit must pay. That is true of all public goods. That is why we pay taxes.

 

[N747JB]

You bring up another good point, no one knows if the trade difference is used to base the tax or the just the amount of the vehicle. That is a HUGE increase for people who buy new cars every year or two, now they pay the sales tax on the difference not the selling price. The rumor I heard is the "FEE" will be based on a set amount on a particular vehicle type, not the selling price of the one being sold. For example a new Mustang GT would be valued at $XXXXX regardless if it's automatic with leather and a glass roof or a base model 6 speed with cloth. It will be like ad valorem, based on VIN body codes. That will be good for the folks with the more expensive versions and bad for the buyers of the cheaper ones. Actually, it's probably bad for both, just worse for one.
I am sure the term Cluster F&*# will be used at some point to describe this tax REDUCTION.

I had the same thought about the couple of months before the change kicks in. The tax commissioner said that he heard there is supposed to be some sort of pro-rated tax/fee applied but he had not received anything official from the state. He was also a bit concerned about how long it will take for the computer changes that are necessary.

When we were talking about the registration fee on 'zero or no cost' title transfers he said that he understands that the county will use the same value as is applicable to advalorem calculation to determine the minimum value on which to compute the fee. But if someone pays more than that they will pay on the actual amount paid. Also unknown to him is whether or not the fee will be calculated on the "total price" of the vehicle or on the net difference between the new and the old as it is done today for sale tax purposes. If it is on the total instead of the net difference then that is another big hit.

But we must remember "they eliminated some big TAXES".

 

[Gmaper]

You bring up another good point, no one knows if the trade difference is used to base the tax or the just the amount of the vehicle. That is a HUGE increase for people who buy new cars every year or two, now they pay the sales tax on the difference not the selling price. The rumor I heard is the "FEE" will be based on a set amount on a particular vehicle type, not the selling price of the one being sold. For example a new Mustang GT would be valued at $XXXXX regardless if it's automatic with leather and a glass roof or a base model 6 speed with cloth. It will be like ad valorem, based on VIN body codes. That will be good for the folks with the more expensive versions and bad for the buyers of the cheaper ones. Actually, it's probably bad for both, just worse for one.
I am sure the term Cluster F&*# will be used at some point to describe this tax REDUCTION.

The sad thing about this is that many vehicle owners/operators will probably be paying more. A few may pay less. Time will tell.

In the aviation user fee arena we see the politicians vehemently rejecting any kind of TAX increase but user fees are okay. Much has been said in aviation forums about just increasing the fuel TAX and be done with it. But politicians just cannot do that because the voters aren't smart enough to figure out when a tax is better than a fee. Any politician who votes for a tax increase is likely to have problems at reelection time.

 

[Tarheel Pilot]

I'll echo what others have said. At this stage in my life, if user fees hit piston engined GA aircraft (I realize they aren't directed at them, but there is always the proverbial slippery slope), I would have to quit flying altogether. $100 per flight is unrealistic for me.

This is my response as well. I'm flying for recreational purposes, but if user fee is passed, I'll find a new recreation.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Sounds like there's an indirect cost too. Loss of pilots= loss of a national resource. I don't know how much of a difference it actually makes, but light planes have been used for airlift (in an ad hoc fashion) both in the USa and the Bahamas.

 

[Bob Noel]

Quote:
All I know is that the government wont stop at what the original proposal is .
Assumes facts not in evidence.


Unless you've been living under a rock...

 

[dennyleeb]

Wouldn't affect me in the least. I don't fly GA much anymore.

so what do you fly?

 

[dennyleeb]

Some people on here amaze me that they love Obama more than flying. They think he has nothing to do with all this, or if he does it will all be that much better if he gets his way on it.

 

[Anthony]

Some people on here amaze me that they love Obama more than flying. They think he has nothing to do with all this, or if he does it will all be that much better if he gets his way on it.

I've said this before. You CAN NOT believe, and vote for the far left, liberal doctrine Obama and the Dems support and be a proponent of General Aviation. There are so many conflict there from wealth re-distribution to environmental policy. Its the same people I see with Obama stickers on their large SUV's, Escalades, Benz's and other expensive vehicles. Total hypocricy.

 

[david0tey]

I've said this before. You CAN NOT believe, and vote for the far left, liberal doctrine Obama and the Dems support and be a proponent of General Aviation. There are so many conflict there from wealth re-distribution to environmental policy. Its the same people I see with Obama stickers on their large SUV's, Escalades, Benz's and other expensive vehicles. Total hypocricy.

I don't want to get a political firefight going but this is the one of the points of my presentation. Does the government think that this is a simple way to pocket some spending money? There are so oblivious to the ramifications of implementing these fees. For example, assume a fee is eventually placed on users of the air traffic control system. The corrective action for GA pilots would be to avoid that system. This would create a major safety hazard for all pilots. Is a situation like this likely or am I being unrealistic? I honestly would like to know because this whole user fee idea to me seems like it is going to be a vicious cycle.

 

[Anthony]

I don't want to get a political firefight going but this is the one of the points of my presentation. Does the government think that this is a simple way to pocket some spending money? There are so oblivious to the ramifications of implementing these fees. For example, assume a fee is eventually placed on users of the air traffic control system. The corrective action for GA pilots would be to avoid that system. This would create a major safety hazard for all pilots. Is a situation like this likely or am I being unrealistic? I honestly would like to know because this whole user fee idea to me seems like it is going to be a vicious cycle.

Yes, I believe user fees would accomplish two very negative things:

1. Encourage the avoidance of use of the ATC system, creating safety issues.
2. Add to the destruction of General Aviation (look at the European model)

Plus, as we all know, government loves to steal from whatever fund they can, like Social Security, and write worthless IOU's. We DO NOT have a revenue problem in this country, we have a SPENDING problem in NON-ESSENTIAL areas. Relatively safe, national transportation across state lines is a Federal responsibility, and an essential one for the movement of goods, and people. Charging fees that would curtail safe travel is not a positive.

 

[Henning]

Some people on here amaze me that they love Obama more than flying. They think he has nothing to do with all this, or if he does it will all be that much better if he gets his way on it.

Here's the deal dude, this is not a new issue, like the fairy tale of the up coming pilot shortage, it's been around since I started flying over 20 years ago. This has nothing to do with any administration, this has to do with bureaucrats scratching for money to run their fiefdoms. These are people with long term/career agendas in government outside the purview of the public/political arena.

Presidents don't make this stuff up, bureaucrats do.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Here's the deal dude, this is not a new issue, like the fairy tale of the up coming pilot shortage, it's been around since I started flying over 20 years ago.

Old AOPA magazines have been talking about this subject at least this time

This has nothing to do with any administration, this has to do with bureaucrats scratching for money to run their fiefdoms. These are people with long term/career agendas in government outside the purview of the public/political arena.

Presidents don't make this stuff up, bureaucrats do.

But the presidents do have a say in the matter and are expected to provide leadership. It's not Obama either- his predecessor had user fees come up during his adminstration too. It isn't democrat or republican, but government.

 

[Henning]

Old AOPA magazines have been talking about this subject at least this time



But the presidents do have a say in the matter and are expected to provide leadership. It's not Obama either- his predecessor had user fees come up during his adminstration too. It isn't democrat or republican, but government.

The long and the short of it is the stuff costs money and it has to come from somewhere; if not, you can't have a system. If you want to hold their feet to the fire for fiscal responsibility, I'll be right behind you.

I want to see people actually get up and take a few steps first instead of being whinges though. I'm done with that fight, lack of public participation.

They don't do that bad if you could just eliminate the people perpetrating frauds on government and society. If our society was an honest one it would cost much less to run government and provide the people the best deal. That won't happen though as we pay cultural homage to the 'scam' in it's various forms; it's one of our largest media products.

 

[Gmaper]

The long and the short of it is the stuff costs money and it has to come from somewhere; if not, you can't have a system. If you want to hold their feet to the fire for fiscal responsibility, I'll be right behind you.

I want to see people actually get up and take a few steps first instead of being whinges though. I'm done with that fight, lack of public participation.

They don't do that bad if you could just eliminate the people perpetrating frauds on government and society. If our society was an honest one it would cost much less to run government and provide the people the best deal. That won't happen though as we pay cultural homage to the 'scam' in it's various forms; it's one of our largest media products.

CBS Sunday Morning show this morning had a story about the IRS and taxes. 15% of taxpayers cheat. The shortfall runs several trillion (that's with a "T") over the last decade.

The tax code is now 5300 pages. Started in 1913 with 27.

 

[Datadriver]

Although the current proposal is for turbine aircraft at $100 per leg it will just be a matter of time until it spreads to everyone. I do not know which will kill GA first. The price of avgas or user fees. It will be a race to the end of GA.

This!