From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message
news:ll00jg$q35$1@news.albasani.net...
> conklin wrote:
>> wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:23:45 AM UTC-4, conklin wrote:
>
>>>>As far as evidence you simply make it up, like RDU going bankrupt.
>
>>>No one ever said RDU was going bankrupt.
>
>>>What people did say was that RDU required significant subsidies to
>>>function.
>
>>>Relevant portions of their financial statements--showing the
>>>subsidies--were quoted. Curiously, you never responded to those specific
>>>quotes.
>
>>More nonsense. Ticket tax money is not a "subsidy." It is a user fee
>>paid
>>by users. And so is the PCF. And so forth. And, by the way, daily
>>operations pay for the bonds, not the taxpayer. You don't know how to
>>read
>>a financial statement.
>
> George, you don't get to re-define an excise tax as a user fee,
Sorry you don't understand English. It is a fee paid by users for use in
air travel. It is not a subsidy.
as it's not
> paid in proportion to resources consumed. That's the critical difference
> you can't comprehend between excise taxes and user fees. If there were
> no subsidy, airport construction bonds could be repaid with fees charged
> to tenant airlines, not taxes on their passengers.
No, the user side is really paid for by users through parking fees.
Sorry about that.
>
> If RDU were well financed, then why can't it repay its bonds from
> rent it receives from tenants without requiring supplemental taxes on
> passengers?
It used to be paid for taxes on passengers called parking fees. PFCs
were added later to build a nice new terminal. Most airports do that. We
avoided that for many years. You still don't seem to know the difference
between airside and landside.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
