Tax hike on Jet A.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I'm pretty sure that would have to be the case. Who would define "biz jet" and how would the tax be enforced? Dyed fuel?

Biz jets pilots and owners don’t tote their fuel in jugs from the corner station like 150 pilots, they stop at horrendously expensive FBO’s with names like Millionair. Chief Pilots pay for all services with Black Amex cards and concern themselves with being sure the owners Dom is properly chilled and the food tray is acceptable. Already they are paying a couple bucks more a gallon to the FBO, a couple more to the national coffers wouldn’t even be noticed. Not the battle they want to fight.

Edited March 21 by JoeWeber

[wmw999 2,122]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

The real issue is - raising taxes to throw more money at a governmental agency that does not embark on a path of continuous improvement, process enhancement, and quality of service for their "customers." 

e.g., Today's VA is no where near the VA of the Vietnam war era. A lot of veterans had to die in the system before metrics were introduced, They HAD to come up with performance improvements. They should all have to do that and realize the "customers" are not there for them. They are there for the customers.    

The biggest problem with metrics is the time they take, which is considered "wasted" by nearly everyone except for the people who read them (and often don't do much about them, because they're a few levels removed from actual clients/customers/patients). Might big words from a former L6S Black Belt... 

The problem isn't just the lack of metrics, it's all too often the design of those metrics for the convenience of the people that the bean counters are most scared of (i.e. who own paycheck authority). So those are the people who get the most convenience, and you end up with the customers having to press endless buttons to assure the upper-ups that they are satisfied with the service that they have received. And you end up with the priorities of the upper-ups (often not just customer service) being the priority.

In addition, because metrics reduce the granularity with which service is measured (you have to categorize things), you end up with issues that aren't always easily classified -- because there are millions of users of most government services, and each of them is different.

The answer isn't simply to give up; it's to try to identify the biggest problem (which might mean, yes, metrics to identify it -- but then you QUIT THOSE METRICS, because their purpose is over). 

Metrics are kind of like old software -- someone either still uses them and is important enough to inconvenience everyone else, or no one understands what those particular ones do any more, and so they leave them in to avoid starting a problem.

Wendy P.

[gowlerk 1,912]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Already they are pay a couple bucks more a gallon to the FBO, a couple more to the coffers wouldn’t even be noticed. Not the battle they want to fight.

Self reporting? I guess you can trust everyone to be honest. That's why it's okay to cut the IRS budget. No one cheats. Everyone always pays their taxes fully and completely.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Self reporting? I guess you can trust everyone to be honest. That's why it's okay to cut the IRS budget. No one cheats. Everyone always pays their taxes fully and completely.

Come on Ken, you’re more clued in than that. Next to 100% of those Biz jet FBO’s are leases on federally funded airports and already pay a flowage fee as a part of the lease.

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

The real issue is - raising taxes to throw more money at a governmental agency that does not embark on a path of continuous improvement, process enhancement, and quality of service for their "customers." 

Agreed.  Taxes should not be raised to fund useless programs.

Quote

e.g., Today's VA is no where near the VA of the Vietnam war era. A lot of veterans had to die in the system before metrics were introduced, They HAD to come up with performance improvements. They should all have to do that and realize the "customers" are not there for them. They are there for the customers.

Great example.  Now that it's improving, it makes fiscal sense to fund it.  The question is - how do you do that with as little damage to the economy as possible?  I would suggest that a very progressive tax (i.e. taxing rich people a lot more than middle income, and middle income more than low income) is the most effective, least damaging way to do that.

[gowlerk 1,912]

34 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Come on Ken, you’re more clued in than that. Next to 100% of those Biz jet FBO’s are leases on federally funded airports and already pay a flowage fee as a part of the lease.

Actually I have no idea how tax collection works on US airport fuel sales. I just know that if you have different tax rates on fuel depending on who the end user is then you will need a way to identify the end user at the pump. My assumption is that the same fuel vendors who service other aircraft also fuel "biz jets". A term which doesn't really have a legal definition. The devil as always is in the details.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

The real issue is - raising taxes to throw more money at a governmental agency that does not embark on a path of continuous improvement, process enhancement, and quality of service for their "customers." 

Uhm no. The issue is raising taxes to pay for what you are getting now, so you can balance the budget.

[BIGUN 1,053]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

The biggest problem with metrics

The first paragraph meant more as a Deming Systems approach.  

[BIGUN 1,053]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

The question is - how do you do that with as little damage to the economy as possible?  I would suggest that a very progressive tax (i.e. taxing rich people a lot more than middle income, and middle income more than low income) is the most effective, least damaging way to do that.

I agree.

[BIGUN 1,053]

48 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

The issue is raising taxes to pay for what you are getting now, so you can balance the budget.

I'm in favor of a balanced budget act/law/amendment. 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

I'm in favor of a balanced budget act/law/amendment. 

Not sure how that would work. Easy to balance a budget, much harder to balance the actuals.

[tkhayes 126]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

The real issue is - raising taxes to throw more money at a governmental agency that does not embark on a path of continuous improvement, process enhancement, and quality of service for their "customers." 

 

The agency follows whatever 'continuous improvement' guidelines/rules they are provided with by congress and legislation and within the boundaries of the funding they have to do just that.

I am pretty sure that the majority of the problem is capitalism and the false belief (generally in the USA) that it has a solution for every problem.  The goal should be healthcare, but the goal is not that, it is about money/costs and funding, much like the private system.  We do not have a healthcare system in the US, we have a profit driven money making system that sometimes provides healthcare if you can afford it.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

9 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

The agency follows whatever 'continuous improvement' guidelines/rules they are provided with by congress and legislation and within the boundaries of the funding they have to do just that.

I am pretty sure that the majority of the problem is capitalism and the false belief (generally in the USA) that it has a solution for every problem.  The goal should be healthcare, but the goal is not that, it is about money/costs and funding, much like the private system.  We do not have a healthcare system in the US, we have a profit driven money making system that sometimes provides healthcare if you can afford it.

Man ain't that the truth. With dental care it's even worse. Considering that for a long swath of human history it was our teeth that killed us you'd think there would be a bit more awareness. In the US just an extraction can send you to another dentist, an oral surgeon, and then back to the original dentist for approval, and then off to an implant surgeon, and then wait, wait, wait, and more appointments before crowns etc. Unless you work for the government or the auto workers you are getting hit with several thousands of dollars in bills along the way. And it is all bullshit. I've had high quality work done outside the US with 1/3 of the rigamarole and 1/4 of the price. But at least we have the free market to save us someday I guess.

[johnhking1 70]

19 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Actually I have no idea how tax collection works on US airport fuel sales. I just know that if you have different tax rates on fuel depending on who the end user is then you will need a way to identify the end user at the pump. My assumption is that the same fuel vendors who service other aircraft also fuel "biz jets". A term which doesn't really have a legal definition. The devil as always is in the details.

I used to buy Jet A and 100LL in bulk from a supplier for my DZ.  All the taxes were included in the price that I paid including state and local sales tax.  I didn't sell any of the fuel but if I was in the retail business selling fuel, I wouldn't have had to pay the sales tax when I bought it but would have to charge sales tax on the selling price then pay that to the state.   At the end of the year, I filed to get a refund on the state highway tax.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, johnhking1 said:

I used to buy Jet A and 100LL in bulk from a supplier for my DZ.  All the taxes were included in the price that I paid including state and local sales tax.  I didn't sell any of the fuel but if I was in the retail business selling fuel, I wouldn't have had to pay the sales tax when I bought it but would have to charge sales tax on the selling price then pay that to the state.   At the end of the year, I filed to get a refund on the state highway tax.

??? Highway Tax on Aviation fuel? Weird. 

[gowlerk 1,912]

21 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

??? Highway Tax on Aviation fuel? Weird. 

Joe, will a PT6 run on purple diesel fuel?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

9 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Joe, will a PT6 run on purple diesel fuel?

Yes, and many are so operated. It's red, here. They'll also run on home heating oil and kerosene. I think the manual even allows a few hundred hours of 100LL. But it's bad for the life of the engine. I'd need to research SB's but I think red fuel was verboten until the early 90's and then could be interpreted as allowed for a certain time. That is a vague remembrance, however.

[johnhking1 70]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

??? Highway Tax on Aviation fuel? Weird. 

Yes, New York State has an 8% tax on automotive and aviation 100LL.  If you are using it off road, for example farming, mowing, etc and aviation, you can file and get the tax refunded.  If you are using a lot of gas, it is worth it but using your garden tractor, chainsaw, etc, flying cross country and stopping in New York to fill your plane, not really worth it so New York keeps your money.  I buy off road diesel for my mower and there is no state highway use tax but there is federal highway tax.  I file to get a refund on that.  If you burned Jet A in your diesel mower, you could get a tax refund also.

[brenthutch 383]

On 3/20/2024 at 9:14 PM, billvon said:

No, the rich are good people to tax because you can without harming them.

If you increase taxes on someone who makes $40K a year - someone is going to go hungry.  That is real harm.

If you increase taxes on someone who makes $40M a year, and reduce taxes on someone who makes $40K a year - no one is harmed, and a lot more people eat.  The rich guy might only be able to buy one new yacht that year.  That isn't harm.

Just like that yacht tax

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/07/16/how-to-sink-an-industry-and-not-soak-the-rich/08ea5310-4a4b-4674-ab88-fad8c42cf55b/

[SkyDekker 1,122]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Just like that yacht tax

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/07/16/how-to-sink-an-industry-and-not-soak-the-rich/08ea5310-4a4b-4674-ab88-fad8c42cf55b/

Yeah in countries like The Netherlands with much higher taxes yacht builders have totally suffered. They aren't known for building luxury yachts at all.