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)