Tax hike on Jet A.

[timber 4]

Biden Administration Proposes Fivefold Jet Fuel Tax Hike For Bizjets

By

 Russ Niles

 -

Published:March 11, 2024Updated:March 12, 2024

69

 

 

 

 

 

The Biden administration made good on the President’s State of the Union Address promise to raise taxes on business jet operators by raising the federal tax on jet fuel fivefold over the next five years. The White House’s 2025 budget proposal would boost the current tax of 22 cents per gallon to $1.06 by 2030. It’s estimated it would raise $1.1 billion over the five years. The proposal also includes a major funding increase for the FAA, including money to hire 2,000 air traffic controllers.

The fuel tax hike is being championed as a fairness issue by the administration. The background documents say business aircraft account for 7% of FAA airspace workload but the current tax only covers 1% of the revenue into the federal trust fund for aviation and airports. Airline passengers pay a flat $4.50 on each flight and 7.5% excise tax on the fare to pay for the other 99%. The backrounder on the State of the Union address said the administration wanted to make private jet operators “pay their fair share.” In the speech itself Biden send he wanted “end tax breaks for big pharma, big oil, private jets, massive executive pay.” 

Aviation groups responded quickly to the SOTU address and were ready with comments on the budget proposal. NBAA President Ed Bolen reiterated his Thursday stance that private aviation is an important business tool and that most of those flying on the jets are mid-level managers doing company business and not their ultra-rich employers. “The Biden administration’s sweeping plan would hurt business aviation and the jobs and communities that depend on it, and make it harder for U.S. companies to compete in a global economy,” Bolen said.

The National Air Transportation Association hit all of NBAA’s points and also alleged that much of the revenue raised by the aviation fund is diverted to a similar fund for highway projects. “We are concerned that the Biden Administration is failing to account for the billions of business aviation tax dollars that are diverted from the Airport and Airways Trust Fund (AATF) into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF),” said NATA President Curt Castagna. “Such diversion weakens the National Airspace System and could place the safety of the industry at risk.”

[JoeWeber 2,720]

2 hours ago, timber said:

Biden Administration Proposes Fivefold Jet Fuel Tax Hike For Bizjets

By

 Russ Niles

 -

Published:March 11, 2024Updated:March 12, 2024

69

 

 

 

 

 

The Biden administration made good on the President’s State of the Union Address promise to raise taxes on business jet operators by raising the federal tax on jet fuel fivefold over the next five years. The White House’s 2025 budget proposal would boost the current tax of 22 cents per gallon to $1.06 by 2030. It’s estimated it would raise $1.1 billion over the five years. The proposal also includes a major funding increase for the FAA, including money to hire 2,000 air traffic controllers.

The fuel tax hike is being championed as a fairness issue by the administration. The background documents say business aircraft account for 7% of FAA airspace workload but the current tax only covers 1% of the revenue into the federal trust fund for aviation and airports. Airline passengers pay a flat $4.50 on each flight and 7.5% excise tax on the fare to pay for the other 99%. The backrounder on the State of the Union address said the administration wanted to make private jet operators “pay their fair share.” In the speech itself Biden send he wanted “end tax breaks for big pharma, big oil, private jets, massive executive pay.” 

Aviation groups responded quickly to the SOTU address and were ready with comments on the budget proposal. NBAA President Ed Bolen reiterated his Thursday stance that private aviation is an important business tool and that most of those flying on the jets are mid-level managers doing company business and not their ultra-rich employers. “The Biden administration’s sweeping plan would hurt business aviation and the jobs and communities that depend on it, and make it harder for U.S. companies to compete in a global economy,” Bolen said.

The National Air Transportation Association hit all of NBAA’s points and also alleged that much of the revenue raised by the aviation fund is diverted to a similar fund for highway projects. “We are concerned that the Biden Administration is failing to account for the billions of business aviation tax dollars that are diverted from the Airport and Airways Trust Fund (AATF) into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF),” said NATA President Curt Castagna. “Such diversion weakens the National Airspace System and could place the safety of the industry at risk.”

Fuck 'em. We don't jump out of G-Jets and those assholes can afford $50 a gallon. Relax.

[kallend 2,026]

I pay $0.66.5 a gallon to run  my Subaru.  I fail to see why a bizjet's fuel should be taxed at 1/3 of that rate.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

6 hours ago, kallend said:

I pay $0.66.5 a gallon to run  my Subaru.  I fail to see why a bizjet's fuel should be taxed at 1/3 of that rate.

'Cuz 'only the little people pay taxes'.

(Bonus points to anyone who remembers who said that)

[timber 4]

That would be Leona Helmsley!   

[Phil1111 1,149]

Why the big hullabaloo? trump is going to cut taxes on Jet-A.and is bringing in free trade with Russia. Come 2025 all that cheap Russian Jet-A will flood the US. If only those pesky Ukrainian drones will leave the refineries alone.

[BartsDaddy 7]

On 3/14/2024 at 1:10 AM, kallend said:

I pay $0.66.5 a gallon to run  my Subaru.  I fail to see why a bizjet's fuel should be taxed at 1/3 of that rate.

Well that $0.66.5 agallon you pay goes to build and repair the roads your Subaru drives on. Bizjet's dont use them.

[gowlerk 2,190]

54 minutes ago, BartsDaddy said:

Well that $0.66.5 agallon you pay goes to build and repair the roads your Subaru drives on. Bizjet's dont use them.

How does the ATC and airport system get paid for?

[BartsDaddy 7]

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

How does the ATC and airport system get paid for?

Well from a quick google search. ATC gets it from excise taxes on airline tickets, Cargo and general aviation fuel. And the trust fund for that is growing so that must mean the taxes allready being charged are covering the expenses  so why raise them? The airport system has a verry expansive definition on where funding comes from. consider the different sources for millitary to your local drop zone. but nowhere did i see it comes from fuel taxes.

[BartsDaddy 7]

I had to stop to get mom dinner. I also wanted to add the government is looking to get funding from any new tax they can pass. And the rich is easy pickens cause most people now think the rich should bail out the government that cant pass a balanced budget. California now wants to tax people and corporatins for leaving California and to continue the tax for 5 years. 

[JoeWeber 2,720]

31 minutes ago, BartsDaddy said:

so why raise them?

Because rewriting the the tax code to get them to pay more on their earnings will never happen and a luxury Jet Fuel tax should be low hanging fruit in a sane world. People won't quit being rich over it, so I say have at it. Seriously, Bernard Arnault is the worlds richest man and he got there selling useless, overpriced crap to rich people. Kudo's to him and to celebrate he can start paying a crapload more for his Jet-A. Next up: all of the super rich assholes who flag their multi hundred million dollar yachts offshore to avoid US taxes. Well, screw them, too.

 

 

 

 

 

[billvon 2,990]

25 minutes ago, BartsDaddy said:

 And the rich is easy pickens cause most people now think the rich should bail out the government that cant pass a balanced budget.

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.

[BartsDaddy 7]

10 minutes ago, 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.

So of course increase the taxes on the rich that are dedicated to a fund that is allready increasing that will deffinatly help out the poor.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

28 minutes ago, BartsDaddy said:

So of course increase the taxes on the rich that are dedicated to a fund that is allready increasing that will deffinatly help out the poor.

Maybe. Perhaps they could lower fuel taxes on flight schools or other essential to the pipeline of airline pilots fronts like DZ's. Once you get past the idea that there is a free market and that it's harmful to take more from the morbidly rich and then take less from those who are just getting by suddenly a whole new world of seeing things opens up. 

[billvon 2,990]

1 hour ago, BartsDaddy said:

So of course increase the taxes on the rich that are dedicated to a fund that is allready increasing that will deffinatly help out the poor.

Increasing taxes on the rich will reduce our deficit, which in the long run will absolutely help out the poor.  In a debt based economy, increasing debt hammers the lowest earners far more than it does the rich.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

Increasing taxes on the rich will reduce our deficit, which in the long run will absolutely help out the poor.  In a debt based economy, increasing debt hammers the lowest earners far more than it does the rich.

But...
But..

But...

Then the rich wouldn't have as much.

Because they certainly DON'T have enough.

[johnhking1 96]

On 3/14/2024 at 1:16 AM, JoeWeber said:

The Biden administration made good on the President’s State of the Union Address promise to raise taxes on business jet operators by raising the federal tax on jet fuel fivefold over the next five years. The White House’s 2025 budget proposal would boost the current tax of 22 cents per gallon to $1.06 by 2030. It’s estimated it would raise $1.1 billion over the five years. The proposal also includes a major funding increase for the FAA, including money to hire 2,000 air traffic controllers.

I believe that the tax increase would be on all jet fuel including jump planes.  

[JoeWeber 2,720]

10 minutes ago, johnhking1 said:

I believe that the tax increase would be on all jet fuel including jump planes.  

Why not all aviation fuel being taxed at the same increased amount?

 

[tkhayes 348]

16 hours ago, BartsDaddy said:

I had to stop to get mom dinner. I also wanted to add the government is looking to get funding from any new tax they can pass. And the rich is easy pickens cause most people now think the rich should bail out the government that cant pass a balanced budget. California now wants to tax people and corporatins for leaving California and to continue the tax for 5 years. 

we spend more that we take in, which is why we have a deficit.  Name any program that the majority of Americans want to slash or eliminate and then show us how much money we would actually save by doing that, and I bet it doesn't even make a ding in the deficit.

The answer is basically 'no programs should be cut' for most people if you really got into the nitty gritty of it.  We have the programs that we want, we just refuse to tax at the level needed to pay for them because "taxes bad, programs good". 

And if you discuss Americans being unwilling to pay for the things that they demand, the argument invariably shifts to "Well, the government just wastes everything we give them", which accomplishes nothing to solve the problem.  

but yeah, taxes are very low in the USA, but I think Americans complain more about 'high taxes' than other countries.  I think other countries pay higher taxes, but actually get something for their money, especially education, which gives them the ability to understand what they are getting for their money.

In the USA there is a concerted effort (falsely believed) that by cutting government, somehow the country will be better off.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

[billvon 2,990]

3 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

The answer is basically 'no programs should be cut' for most people if you really got into the nitty gritty of it.  We have the programs that we want, we just refuse to tax at the level needed to pay for them because "taxes bad, programs good". 

Yep.  And for proof of this, look no further than the politicians who are bragging about getting funding for their constituents, funding they voted against because deficit.

[wmw999 2,444]

30 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

The answer is basically 'no programs should be cut' for most people if you really got into the nitty gritty of it.  We have the programs that we want, we just refuse to tax at the level needed to pay for them because "taxes bad, programs good". 

this, a thousand times this.

Wendy P.

[BIGUN 1,306]

35 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

I think other countries pay higher taxes, but actually get something for their money, especially education, which gives them the ability to understand what they are getting for their money.

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.    

[JoeWeber 2,720]

58 minutes 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.    

As seemingly non-responsive and impenetrable our bureaucracy can seem, compared to other countries I’ve dealt with and am dealing with now ours is a model of efficiency and customer service.

[gowlerk 2,190]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Why not all aviation fuel being taxed at the same increased amount?

 

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?

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And for proof of this, look no further than the politicians who are bragging about getting funding for their constituents, funding they voted against because deficit.

See that cake over there? I'm going to eat it. But don't worry, there's always going to be more for me to eat.