From: ahk@chinet.com
Sancho Panza wrote:
>On 5/14/2014 10:49 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>conklin wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>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.
>>No, that would be airfare. If the airport isn't subsidized, I still want
>>to know why the airport gets to collect an excise tax on passengers in
>>addition to rent paid to it by airlines. Why isn't rent sufficient to
>>operate the airport and retire its construction bonds?
>Because that is how the agency running the airport chooses to finance
>its capital and operating budgets.
If the airport cannot retire its debt nor operate on revenues it receives
from rent from airlines, it's being subsidized. It's like paying a cover
charge to set foot on the airport campus that's unrelated to the cost
of travel. Point George refuses to acknowledge is that it's not a user fee,
but a tax.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
