WSJ 10/5: "Tax the Airlines"

[ttflyer]

Since we have a progressive tax system, there's no way we could have people only pay for the services they use.

I'm not going for the Africa model, but the Tea Party is. No taxes and no governments? That sounds a lot like Africa to me.

Well, I don't have an opinion about the Tea Party because I think most of the time people "organize" it tends to bring out the wackos. But sense you have equated this "less government" movement to anarchy (which I don't think is one of their goals), I assume you advocate the other extreme position of a totalitarian, government controlled economy and social structure ala the USSR in the 1970s and 1980s. Good on you for taking such an unpopular position! Nobody could accuse you of being a sheep.

 

[ttflyer]

Clearly doesn't cover all the costs. I guess you want the income tax payers to cover the difference, or put it on the national Visa?

Did you even read the thread?

 

[IBNAV8R]

Since when has the Tea Party sought NO taxes and NO government? I must have missed that memo.

 

[glasspilot]

You think Cessnas cost more than Fords because of lawyers? I don't even know where to start, but I can guarantee you that's not the only reason. Your trying to say that a Cessna and a Ford use the same amount of material, so they should cost the same? Using that logic, Ferraris should cost half as much as SUVs.

My post was already running long so I left it to the one example of materials used to point out why a Cessna shouldn't cost more than a Torus. Aside from avionics there is little change between a 2011 C-172 and a 1960 C-172. The same can not be said for the car. Every single part of an airplane cost ten fold that of it's non-aviation counterpart and I do blame lawyers. Litigation is why a $10 vacuum pump costs $300. Maybe its Americans propensity to sue whenever something bad happens, of maybe it's a shifting from wanting to work to get ahead to wanting to get it easy. Whatever it is it manifests it's self in the courtroom and I lump it all together and blame the lawyers.

Point remains, theres no good reason for a new C-172 to cost one penny more than a new Ford Torus.

 

[CesnaCaptn]

I'm posting on my iPhone and I'm prone to making big mistakes on this little computer. All of you are making good points. The Africa/Tea Party reference was a mistake(I misread the original Africa reference). Besides, many people use hyperbole to emphasize their point. I wasn't being litteral about no taxes and no government. Ifyou were taking me that literally, there's no point in being involved in this thread. People want to take a point of view and make it seem extreme. It's like there's no middle ground. No grey.

Please don't make assumptions about my point of view. You don't know me. You make some extreme political assumption based on a few posts I make on a message board (half the time after I've tied one on).

 

[pilotyip]

My post was already running long so I left it to the one example of materials used to point out why a Cessna shouldn't cost more than a Torus. Aside from avionics there is little change between a 2011 C-172 and a 1960 C-172. The same can not be said for the car. Every single part of an airplane cost ten fold that of it's non-aviation counterpart and I do blame lawyers. Litigation is why a $10 vacuum pump costs $300. Maybe its Americans propensity to sue whenever something bad happens, of maybe it's a shifting from wanting to work to get ahead to wanting to get it easy. Whatever it is it manifests it's self in the courtroom and I lump it all together and blame the lawyers.

Point remains, theres no good reason for a new C-172 to cost one penny more than a new Ford Torus.

yes there is, you don't have markets for 1,000,000 C-172's per year. Not only is purchase cost a consideration, the cost to keep one is hugh. I own a completely paid for C-172, I pay nearly $8,000/yr, before I fly it the first minute. Not many people can afford that.

 

[ttflyer]

I'm posting on my iPhone and I'm prone to making big mistakes on this little computer. All of you are making good points. The Africa/Tea Party reference was a mistake(I misread the original Africa reference). Besides, many people use hyperbole to emphasize their point. I wasn't being litteral about no taxes and no government. Ifyou were taking me that literally, there's no point in being involved in this thread. People want to take a point of view and make it seem extreme. It's like there's no middle ground. No grey.

Please don't make assumptions about my point of view. You don't know me. You make some extreme political assumption based on a few posts I make on a message board (half the time after I've tied one on).

No, you took the "extreme position" of comparing the Tea Party to anarchists and I merely counterbalanced that position with an extreme position the other direction. I'm glad you don't share either of these views as we have enough extremists in the world already.

Back to the topic of this thread: User fees are bad for General Aviation, bad for Commercial Aviation and bad for America. Let's try and stay together on this one for our own good.

 

[ttflyer]

deleted...