Calling out Hedley

[the_professor]

Ok Hedley:

In 2008, the government collected $38,751,572 from your beloved aviation fuel excise tax.
[http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/txt/72-eng.html, Volume II, Section 4.6]

In 2008, Nav Can's revenues were $1,192,000,000, plus $57M that was drawn from the company's Rate Stabilization Account in order to avoid a revenue shortfall.
[http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefiniti ... 008_en.pdf, pages 38 and 18, respectively.]

Note to the uninformed: The Rate Stabilization Account is a $100M buffer account which Nav Canada is required by legislation to maintain in order to fund unanticipated shortfalls in revenue. It was first used following the 9/11 attacks.

In order to fully fund Nav Canada's operations via the fuel tax, the fuel tax revenues would need to increase by $1,153,248,428, or 3,076%.

Ok then. Now that we've settled that, let's get on with the business of getting rid of Nav Canada's user fees (which someone like yourself virtually never pays, because you fly VFR everywhere) and let's hike the aviation fuel tax by more than 3,000%.

Happy now, Hedley?

[culver10]

I used to get upset and pissed off at some of the idiotic and stupid comments that many folks here make, but what difference does it make? Retards are retards and you can’t change stupid! When people make “thousands” of posts on an internet forum, do they have a life that is worth living and arguing with?? I would say get a life!! And quit making thousands of RETARDED, STUPID posts and get a useful hobby instead of reading an internet forum all fricken day!!
Bye forever!!

[culver10]

I was trying to support you professor, and now I see that you have over a thousand posts also, DOUGH!!!!! SORRY

[Rockie]

Actually the number of posts a person has is more indicative of how much they participate in a forum than how much time they spend on it. A person could spend 23.5 hours a day on here and have zero posts.

[trampbike]

I used to get upset and pissed off at some of the idiotic and stupid comments that many folks here make, but what difference does it make? Retards are retards and you can’t change stupid! When people make “thousands” of posts on an internet forum, do they have a life that is worth living and arguing with?? I would say get a life!! And quit making thousands of RETARDED, STUPID posts and get a useful hobby instead of reading an internet forum all fricken day!!
Bye forever!!

I have to say I enjoy reading most of Hedley's posts, and I'm glad he and other experienced pilots spend so much time posting here. Beeing wrong in a political argument does not make a person an idiot. It just makes the person wrong... As far as aviation is concerned, he does seem to know his stuff better than most of us, and we can all learn from people like him.

[2R]

Makes you wonder where ATAC got the number 1100 millions in fuel taxes disappearing into the blackhole of general revenue annually ?
When over 800 millions was spent on TWO airports (guess which ones large liberal voting base) the entire rest of the country was left with only the crumbs after the lions share was swallowed by the liberal strongholds.
So maybe they got the numbers wrong as well.Unless they got it wrong and transport was doing something right.
Any independant numbers out there ?
Any good sources for accurate non-partisan facts ?

[the_professor]

I have to say I enjoy reading most of Hedley's posts, and I'm glad he and other experienced pilots spend so much time posting here. Beeing wrong in a political argument does not make a person an idiot. It just makes the person wrong... As far as aviation is concerned, he does seem to know his stuff better than most of us, and we can all learn from people like him.

Never said we couldn't learn from him. But people like him, who make passionate arguments without the facts at hand, should be called on it. There are many others on here who also fall back on the long-running fallacy that Nav Canada could or should somehow simply be funded by the avgas tax, and that is obviously a pipe dream plain and simple.

The numbers I provided will hopefully quash that idiotic argument once and for all, because I for one am sick of reading it.

[the_professor]

I was trying to support you professor, and now I see that you have over a thousand posts also, DOUGH!!!!! SORRY

Joined three years ago yesterday, a little over a thousand posts (never paid attention to the number until you brought it up)... so that's an average of less than one post per day. Doesn't seem very excessive to me. You, on the other hand, have averaged one post every three days.

Some post way more, some post way less... <shrug>

[the_professor]

Makes you wonder where ATAC got the number 1100 millions in fuel taxes disappearing into the blackhole of general revenue annually ?

You mean, as in $1.1B dollars? Not even close, as shown by that document. Auto gas taxes were around $3.1B annually IIRC, but the avgas portion was a pittance by comparison. $38M, the avgas amount, would fund Nav Canada's operations for approximately eleven days, which leaves 354 days of funding that needs to come from somewhere. A huge portion of Nav Canada's budget is in fact funded by foreigners, thanks to the thousands upon thousands of flights that transit our airspace between the US and Europe or Asia. One can only imagine what the user fees would be if we had to fund it all ourselves, as Canadians, only.

When over 800 millions was spent on TWO airports (guess which ones large liberal voting base) the entire rest of the country was left with only the crumbs after the lions share was swallowed by the liberal strongholds.
So maybe they got the numbers wrong as well.Unless they got it wrong and transport was doing something right.
Any independant numbers out there ?
Any good sources for accurate non-partisan facts ?

Airports, their funding (through local governments and/or AIFs), and their landing fees, have absolutely nothing to do with Nav Canada whatsoever, if you're suggesting that $800M figure could have gone to Nav Canada otherwise? I'm not sure if that's what you mean?

What independent numbers are you looking for exactly?

[office_supply]

Nav Canada's user fees (which someone like yourself virtually never pays, because you fly VFR everywhere)

I need a bit of clarification: Every year I get an invoice from Nav Canada for a 71 dollar "annual" (on the invoice the 'type of charge' is 'annual') fee, which seems to only be because I own an aircraft. Is this the 'user fee' you guys are talking about?

[N2]

I too get an annual invoice from Nav Canada whether I use their services or not! What a friggen rip off.

Where the hell are my fuel taxes going?

[xsbank]

I don't wish to appear as a Hedley-apologist as he has a great ability to speak for himself, but why are you all so sure that the system of taxation that Navcanada and TC and all the rest of the 3-letter f*ck-ups in Canada are doing a good job? Can you really point to a single government or quasi-government agency that you can say is doing a good job, efficiently? Indian Affairs? CCRA? (sorry, 4 letters) Fisheries? Food Inspection? Anything medical? Anything in Quebec?

Why are we taxed to death up here and yet our 'services' are mediocre, at best?

Don't you think that instead of standing up for the dorks and dimwits that settle in to life-time jobs of no productivity (front-line FSS and Inspectors excluded ) that some of you sheople might express some indignation about how costly and inefficient and downright crooked our government agencies are? Don't you get p*ssed off every time a Customs Dickhead asks you how much gin you have brought in to the country? Why are we the ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD to have to fill out those stupid customs forms on the aircraft yet we probably have more crooks and bogus immigrants and downright terrorist organizations than maybe Pakistan?

Tons of illegal guns and illegal drugs and "missing" salmon?

You guys give me gas. Think it through one day.

[the_professor]

Xsbank, I don't know why you chose to bring a general anti-government rant into this thread. This thread is about how Nav Canada is funded. Nav Canada has nothing to do with the government, nor with Indian Affairs or all the other bullsh*t that you brought up.

Anyway, Nav Canada's charges are, today, more than 10% lower than the Air Transportation Tax previously charged by Transport Canada when they ran ATC 12 years ago, and that figure is adjusted for inflation.

Anyone who thinks the Nav Canada model doesn't serve the purpose more efficiently than a government-funded model (which is the only other practical alternative), then you've got your head way too far up your ass.

[sigmet77]

I have to agree with the professor, if you can't acknowledge the fact that NAV CANADA has nothing to do with the government then you lose all credibility of your post (in my eyes). That arguement is so old it is rediculous; research before you type. That being said xsbank makes a good point that all government agencies at all levels waste money (amoung other things), but that should be painfully obvious if you are anyone over 15 years old.

[Sulako]

Wow, this is actually a pretty enlightening thread. Thanks for the info Prof, it's nice to see actual facts presented in a discussion from time to time I have a better understanding of Nav Canada's structure now.

[2R]

I do not know just how accurate the 38 millions that you quote as being raised by the fuel tax.But i remember a heated discusion about one airport getting 730 millions from that fuel fund allocated to it for improvements in one tax year.I will look for the notes on that meeting and the press releases from Atac .As they where concerned that two airports where getting an unfair share of money that is raised by aircraft fuel tax throughout Canada and that the money should be spread through out the country to improve mobility for all Canadians.
The FAA uses a model of fuel taxes that their congress does not use for any other purpose ,hence the promotion of airports at all levels.The FAA uses the fuel tax fund to supply and improve the air service and the associated infrastructure.
A quick trip to all the manned towers in the south and the centerline lighted runways at municipal airports does make you wonder where all the taxes in Canada get wasted.

[xsbank]

Its always a terrific experience trading posts with you, professor, as you always manage to slip insults into each post.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its management is filled with former government employees who act like government employees, taxes us with user fees even if we have no choice like the TC medical charge, then it is ipso facto, a government agency. A duck. Or, if you insist, a quasi-government agency.

A company that renovates buildings, buys all new computers for a facility that is slated to be shut down but its alright because it all comes out of a different budget is a government agency. If its being funded by taxes, whether they are fuel taxes or whatever you call the hand that is in MY pocket, it is a government agency.

The view inside my ass is actually quite nice compared to what you must be seeing.

[the_professor]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its management is filled with former government employees who act like government employees, taxes us with user fees even if we have no choice like the TC medical charge, then it is ipso facto, a government agency. A duck. Or, if you insist, a quasi-government agency.

Filled with former government employees? Of course it is, you fool. Would you expect an ANS to be built from scratch, for Christ's sake? How well do you think that would work out?

"New ANS seeks entirely new management and employees: No experience required"

How is a user fee a tax? How do you expect the ANS to be funded? Do you think it should operate by printing its own money? Try and make some sense when you post, ok?

And lastly, have you ever worked at a private company? Government agencies hardly have a monopoly on wasting money, so don't kid yourself.

[the_professor]

If its being funded by taxes, whether they are fuel taxes or whatever you call the hand that is in MY pocket, it is a government agency.

If you've been paying attention, you'd know Nav Canada DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY TAX REVENUE FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

But you seem to consider user fees a tax? Does that mean admission to a movie theatre is a tax? Is a gym membership a tax? Is your cell phone bill a tax? You use these services VOLUNTARILY and you pay a fee, just like the ANS. It's really quite simple, unless you're a simpleton.

You are making yourself look like an idiot, sir. Go talk to someone about your irrational anger.

[the_professor]

I do not know just how accurate the 38 millions that you quote as being raised by the fuel tax.

So the government is lying in this document? Or did you even bother checking it? It was in the first post in this thread.

[http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/txt/72-eng.html, Volume II, Section 4.6]

[2R]

Oh please, do not attempt to misinterpret what i say or put words in my mouth.I never called anyone a liar.I just doubt the accuracy of the numbers you are using .I was looking for some indepedent numbers.As the Government accounting numbers have always been open to inaccuracies.It would not be the first time that they lost a few billions (HRDC)
To base your opinions on a single source statistics is a bit naive.As any real professor will tell you "Single source stats will get you a very low mark on any thesis"
So please if you cannot support you arguement with accurate reliable sources then please do not take offence if we give very little credibility to your biased flawed opinions

[the_professor]

Oh please, do not attempt to misinterpret what i say or put words in my mouth.I never called anyone a liar.I just doubt the accuracy of the numbers you are using .I was looking for some indepedent numbers.As the Government accounting numbers have always been open to inaccuracies.It would not be the first time that they lost a few billions (HRDC)
To base your opinions on a single source statistics is a bit naive.As any real professor will tell you "Single source stats will get you a very low mark on any thesis"
So please if you cannot support you arguement with accurate reliable sources then please do not take offence if we give very little credibility to your biased flawed opinions

#1) I did not intend to put words in your mouth.
#2) My opinion is not biased, it is based on the facts available, which have been clearly stated and referenced in this thread. That's more than can be said for the irrational and unsupported ranting of xsbank, Hedley, etc...

If you would like to somehow find out how many litres of avgas were produced and sold by every refinery in the country last year, that might give you another number to compare against the government's audited numbers. Be my guest, and good luck.

Personally, I am satisfied that the government is not misstating the avgas tax revenue -- or at least not to the degree that it would become relevant in the context of the discussion in this thread. I.e. They're probably not collecting a billion dollars a year from it, so the fact remains that it could not be used to fund the ANS, as some people would have you believe.

[hydro]

I do not know just how accurate the 38 millions that you quote as being raised by the fuel tax.But i remember a heated discusion about one airport getting 730 millions from that fuel fund allocated to it for improvements in one tax year.

The ATAC website quotes Fuel Excise tax amounts ranging from 40-80 million a year for the years 1999-2004, with a footnote linking to Canada's Public account documents. They seem to be content that the numbers are accurate. http://www.atac.ca/en/ourissues/advocacy/fuel_tax.html

Upon looking at the Public Accounts document they initially group diesel and Aviation fuel together. the combined Energy- Fuel Excise (aviation fuel AND Diesel fuel) tax for Canada is about 1.1 billion, so perhaps that's the number you remember. However when broken down, the Diesel component is aprx 1 billion, and the aviation gasoline and jet fuel is less than 100 million a year.

hydro

[SkySailor]

So where are ya, Hedley? Researching a response?

[the_professor]

So where are ya, Hedley? Researching a response?

He's made several posts on the board today, and I PM'ed him yesterday regarding the existence of this thread, so presumably he is aware of it.

...But it's hard to construct a response when your initial argument is nothing more than a sack of sh*t. There's not much for him to say here, and I wasn't really expecting a reply I guess.