Should smaller airports be subsidized?

[Havensdad]

Currently the government is unable to collect millions of dollars in taxes because parts of the FAA are currently unfunded. The argument is over whether smaller subsidized airports should continue to be subsidized. If the subsidies are removed many will have to close. People in those areas will have no air service other than if they drive to the nearest airport still open for business. In some cases that will be quite a long drive. For instance if the airport at Wolf Point, Montana is closed folks will have quite a drive to the nearest airport still providing services.

So, should the subsidies continue?

Here is a link to a list of such airports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service#Areas_excluding_Alaska

Where people live is up to them. They CHOSE to live a long way from an airport.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE GIVING MONEY TO ANY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL OR BUSINESS, FOR ANY REASON, UNLESS SERVICES ARE BEING PAID FOR.

 

[billwald]

OK, then freeway capacity should not be expanded because people choose to live a long way from their job and choose to commute by car.

 

[Havensdad]

OK, then freeway capacity should not be expanded because people choose to live a long way from their job and choose to commute by car.

Now your getting it. Freeways should be increased in size based on use, for the purpose of government infrastructure. Subsidizing airports cause they don't get used enough is like building a ten lane freeway to my house. It is a ridiculous waste of tax payer money.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Where did I mention corporate jets?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Where people live is up to them. They CHOSE to live a long way from an airport.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE GIVING MONEY TO ANY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL OR BUSINESS, FOR ANY REASON, UNLESS SERVICES ARE BEING PAID FOR.

Where people live is up to them. They CHOSE to live a long way from a road.

SHEESH!

 

[freeatlast]

Where people live is up to them. They CHOSE to live a long way from an airport.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE GIVING MONEY TO ANY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL OR BUSINESS, FOR ANY REASON, UNLESS SERVICES ARE BEING PAID FOR.

I agree. :thumbs:

 

[Magnetic Poles]

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE GIVING MONEY TO ANY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL OR BUSINESS, FOR ANY REASON, UNLESS SERVICES ARE BEING PAID FOR.

So you don't want the Social Security payments that you paid into your entire working life? Interesting. And you must really mean it since you are screaming it. :laugh:

 

[Bob Alkire]

So you don't want the Social Security payments that you paid into your entire working life? Interesting. And you must really mean it since you are screaming it. :laugh:

This one I differ on. I went for about 5 years that I paid my income tax but didn't pay SS tax. Each year I would send in a statement that I didn't want to receive payments from SS so I wasn't going to pay. Then in the 70's got a letter in the mail telling me I had to come into the SS office. When they finished telling me that they could and would put my house up for auction to take care of my back SS tax interest and fines. I was advise by my attorney to pay up, they weren't playing games. I paid up and told them I would keep it paid up, but I was going to draw every dime in payment that should come to me. They said if you pay in until you hit the age of 62 or when ever you wish to start drawing, it is yours, you have paid for it. I'll take them at their word, I want my money back with interest, just wish it could have been in accord to what I had to pay them in interest and fines.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Airports are transportation infrastructure as much as highways, and are equally important to our economy. I say, subsidize while looking for trimming any redundancies.

Totally agree....this idea of killing subsidies is also the largest contributing factor to killing super speed trains which I see as more viable than airports. If these trains were in place...perhaps they would reduce the need for air traffic....its tad amount to infrastructure rebuilding.

 

[freeatlast]

This one I differ on. I went for about 5 years that I paid my income tax but didn't pay SS tax. Each year I would send in a statement that I didn't want to receive payments from SS so I wasn't going to pay. Then in the 70's got a letter in the mail telling me I had to come into the SS office. When they finished telling me that they could and would put my house up for auction to take care of my back SS tax interest and fines. I was advise by my attorney to pay up, they weren't playing games. I paid up and told them I would keep it paid up, but I was going to draw every dime in payment that should come to me. They said if you pay in until you hit the age of 62 or when ever you wish to start drawing, it is yours, you have paid for it. I'll take them at their word, I want my money back with interest, just wish it could have been in accord to what I had to pay them in interest and fines.

I find this interesting. First based on what you wrote you decided to be a law unto yourself. You decided to opt out of the system and that is illegal. Then when you get confronted with what the consequences are so you become angry, but I will say you made the right choice to pay up.
Now you hold a grudge and claim you want everything plus interest. Again you are in rebellion. There is no interest and if you live a long life you will get way more then you paid in. You need to deal with your rebellion.

 

[freeatlast]

So you don't want the Social Security payments that you paid into your entire working life? Interesting. And you must really mean it since you are screaming it. :laugh:

How do you get that out of what he said?