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)