Skip to comments.Obama budget proposes new security, airline fees (Passengers to pay $32 Billion in stealth taxes)
Posted on 02/13/2012 12:32:21 PM PST by Qbert
(Reuters) - Airlines and their passengers would pay up to $32 billion in new air traffic and security fees over 10 years, and grants to big airports would fall sharply under White House budget proposals on Monday aimed at deficit reduction.
The Obama administration wants major carriers, their passengers, business jets and airports to pick up more of the costs of air travel and airport improvements that for years have been borne by taxpayers.
New fees are sure to trigger strong opposition from airlines and other aviation groups who argue that the industry is already over-taxed and over-regulated.
Ideas quietly floated and then discarded during congressional budget negotiations last summer reemerged in the fiscal 2013 transportation and homeland security portions of the White House budget sent to Congress that outlines $4 trillion in deficit reduction.
Under the proposal, ticket fees that help pay for passenger and bag security screening at more than 400 U.S. airports would double to a mandatory minimum of $5 per one-way trip.
The fee would jump 50 cents per year beginning in 2014, raising the total to $7.50 in 2018. The administration hopes the changes will yield between $9 billion and $25.5 billion in new revenues over 10 years.
The budget proposal would also permit the Homeland Security Department to raise the fee on its own after that through regulation.
The administration is also proposing a $100 departure fee for airlines, business jets and other aircraft to help cover the costs of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control.
The new fee would raise $7.4 billion over 10 years, the administration estimates.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I support this action. Those who use services should pay for it - not the rest of us.
I’d be willing to pay an extra $5 per trip if they did away with the TSA!
The airlines should be angry about this. It’s just another reason not to fly and a systematic destruction of another American industry.
I agree. Taxpayer subsidies distort economic choices for the worse. Pay-as-you-go is not a bad principle.
But I'm sure the video-conferencing industry is all for it.....
"I support this action. Those who use services should pay for it - not the rest of us."
We shouldn't have many of these "services" in the first place- we don't need to be providing massive funding for the TSA so they can search 80-year old grandmothers in wheelchairs.
Plus, focus on the goal- cut spending. Don't stick it to customers.
Setting aside the point that TSA is just security theater and nothing more than another public sector interest group....
Airline passengers and business jets already pay taxes -- a lot of them. There's a federal tax on aviation fuel: 19.4 cents/gal on aviation gasoline, and 21.9 cents/gal on jet fuel.
But, here's the catch: if you are a commercial airline (like American, Delta, etc.), you only pay 4.4 cents/gal on jet fuel. In exchange, passengers pay a 7.5% tax on airfare. What a deal, huh?
Imposing additional taxes on business jets is yet more class warfare. They are already paying for their services via the fuel tax.
Is there any service fee collected by the government that is actually used exclusively for the service as claimed? Doesn't everything go into the big steaming general funds pot when all is said and done?
This will all be worth it if it turns the majority of people who use air transportation to turn against THE 1. He’s already pi$$ed off the Catholics. Who else will he tick off before the sheeple get it? Come November 6th, vote this nightmare out. The country can’t stand much more of his BS. ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!
It was just a week or two ago that the FAA implemented a new policy to prohibit airlines from breaking out taxes and fees separately on top of their fares. Spirit Airlines publicly objected, saying that once taxes were hidden the government would waste no time in introducing new airline taxes.
I think even they would be surprised at how quickly and brazenly this was done.
Every mode of transport has some kind of government subsidy because the flow of goods and services at market prices is what drives the economy.
Of course, airline travellers are not in zero’s core support base; probably the opposite. So this group is to get taxed.
Did zero come out with some spending decreases lately? Besides the military and NASA.
A 100 dollar fee per flight will kill some parts of small general aviation. Say for instance hot air ballooning. A 100 dollar fee will kill the sport of ballooning. I imagine that even recreational fixed wing pilots will also have a tough time with a 100 dollar fee every time they fly. So, any round trip flight for a fixed wing craft would be 200 per jaunt. Insanity.
“”I support this action. Those who use services should pay for it - not the rest of us.””
I believe those who use air travel already pay for it with the taxes included in the ticket price.
To fly home for Christmas, this past year, from Vegas to NC cost my husband and I $925 for 2 tickets.. purchased early, flying on the off days (Tues, Wed) and flying at non peak hours! The same tickets 2-3 years ago were always around $600-$650 (for 2) with all the taxes.
So now Obama wants us to pay even more?
I truly hate this piece of fecal waste!
Planning on moving my 172 to my private dirt strip for good if this goes through, as it is I keep it at the airport for about half the time.
Conservatives are never supportive of raising taxes. Just so you know.
If a business has to raise prices for a product because of business reasons, that’s one thing. To have government taxes be that reason, that’s totally different.
You should never be happy or pleased government is raising anyone’s taxes. Geez.
I don’t need a lecture from you.
Then don’t post here expecting only smiles and roses when you do. This is not a public school where all we care about is boosting your self-esteem no matter what you say.
And telling you you aren’t a conservative isn’t a lecture. It’s based on the ideas and words you posted that you write you are in favor of.
I see that you don’t have the guts to post publicly what you sent to me privately. I am sure you know what you sent to my mail account would get you suspended from the site if you posted it publicly. And also show what a whiny crybaby you are when someone disagrees with you.
So how does that work for you, throwing a bunch of f-words around when someone disagrees with you? Sounds like a real game winning strategy there. Requiring a lot of intellect to pull off.
I would estimate by your foul mouth you were an enlisted guy who probably kept getting busted down your entire career because of your mouth and temper.