How is this fundamentally different from the “my kids don’t go to school so I shouldn’t have to pay property taxes” people? Relax it’s a public good, the FAA. Everyone benefits from a public good.
The fundamental difference is the direction of the redistribution.
The capitalist system inherently distributes from poor to rich. With no state involved, a capitalist system strictly and always devolves into one person (or a very small group) owning everything and everyone else being owned by them. That’s why we have states that do have redistribution systems that try to counteract that: We have progressive tax systems that tax the rich more than the poor to fund free (or at least subsidized) public good systems.
To get back to your example: The rich don’t need free schools. Even without free public education, they would still be able to afford to send their kids to expensive private schools. A free school program is there to mostly benefit the poor.
Redistribution systems that redistribute from poor to rich on the other hand are inherently broken. The base economic system already does that redistribution from poor to rich, so allowing the rich to mooch even more off the system is not a good idea.
Keep in mind that as soon as the FAA becomes funded by billionaires their primary responsibility is to the billionaire instead of the flying public. Much in the way that the police are employed by the rich and could give fuck-all about ordinary citizens.
Stop vertical video syndrome.
I knew we’d lost the Internet when they started shitting on people who corrected spelling and grammar. Sure, let’s all just agree to remain ignorant.
I’d agree with you but that train (or plane, if you will) has left the station years ago.
Let it go, man, let it go…
People that like vertical videos have no breadth of perception and a narrow view. Think about that.
(This is to be taken non-serious.)
I’m afraid that fight is lost 😞
Old man screams at clouds
Most people watch videos on a phone where the vertical format is more convenient.
When I watch videos on my phone, I rotate my phone so the videos are oriented in the best way for videos to be oriented.
Not only are vertical videos trash, they often come packages with modified players that are equally trash. Thankfully (for now at least) you can fix YouTube by switching /shorts/ to /watch/ in the URL.
Most people don’t do that. The format of the videos is going to adjust to its public. Short videos meant for TikTok, stories or shorts, are going to have a vertical format because that’s the way most people will enjoy them.
Is it that people enjoy it, or is it that these shit platforms are shovelling it en masse so people are forced to adopt it? There is nearly 0 need for vertical videos
There’s no conspiracy here.
It’s far more comfortable to watch vertical videos in a phone instead of having to rotate it constantly for each video.
It’s also more comfortable to record videos vertically using a phone, which makes a direct translation to post a vertical video in a platform that’s phone oriented.
A platform like tiktok would be really shitty with horizontal videos. It’s clearly a platform designed around vertical videos and people enjoy it, it works just fine.
Wierd, I find it equally comfortable to hold the phone in either orientation, but way easier to record when holding the phone horizontally since I can get more in the shot at once. As an added bonus, I can also enjoy it just as well (or more) on a regular screen. Again, vertical videos are a waste.
This is only because you are a person of culture, taste, and good upbringing. It’s unrewarding to argue with these ignorant peons who somehow have been brainwashed to believe vertical is in any way OK.
Moat of these platforms are not recording things that benefit from horizontal recording. It’s not a cinematic shot, they are not making movies.
Take into account that the content on this platforms tend to be personal videos. A person talking, dancing, something like that. It’s a type of videos that get fits better in a vertical format anyway.
We all have read the copypasta about vertical videos back in 2002 but times have changed.
Except you can turn your phone. I’m not rotating my monitor or my laptop.
Most common route is atlanta to orlando
Why isn’t there high speed rail ??? The distance is only 700km ( 440 miles ) a french TGV can easily go over 300 km/h ( 185 mph ) so a direct line would at most be 2h30, given a plane boarding time it’s very competitive, conveninent and at a fraction of the operating cost.
High speed rail has a massive stigma in the US as hundreds of billions have been spent on failed rail projects (embezzled or just abandoned mostly) and 99% of us have never even seen it in existence. It’s like a myth scam sold to us by snake oil salesmen.
Sure, if we fund it again it will really happen this time.
Also based on an experience I had at work with a visiting American who point blank refused to get the tram, there seems to be a vicious cycle where public transport is seen as unsafe because only poor people get it, and only poor people get it because it’s seen as unsafe.
Was he genetic?
Because of the air industry (and car industry) lobbies.
Pretty much the hidden plot for who framed Roger rabbit
“The Okefenokee Swamp is a shallow, 438,000-acre (177,000 ha), peat-filled wetland straddling the Georgia–Florida line in the United States. A majority of the swamp is protected by the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and the Okefenokee Wilderness. The Okefenokee Swamp is considered to be one of the Seven Natural Wonders of Georgia and is the largest “blackwater” swamp in North America.” -Wikipedia
Add to this Indian Reservation land, National Park/Preserve/ Wildlife Refuge land, the Everglades, other swamp/marshland, etc and you start to see that there’s several environmental challenges to a rail system from Georgia to Orlando Florida.
According to gmaps there is a 4 lane highway between atlanta and orlando, I’m pretty sure you can squeeze train tracks there.
Yup. And there are several other 2 lane roads connecting Florida and Georgia to the west of the swamp. A direct line from Jacksonville to Atlanta would be challenging, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
Orlando to Atlanta is already a direct land route, and you see Georgia plates in Florida and Florida plates in Georgia regularly.
Just curious about what your thought is here? How straight are the roads? How often do they have to be resurface or maintenance? Just because there’s a road or highway, the area must be able to support high speed rail?
ItOr even regular speed rail? Should they continue to clear swamp land in order to erect high speed rail? Is the plan here to usurp the highway for high speed rail? If so, what happens to those people who still need a vehicle in order to get where they’re going? What happens if they need that highway?In case this is in good faith :
There is 4 lanes, you can remove one or two and set train tracks which don’t have a lot of constraints compared to cars due to train wheel being steel and having better adherence.
People who still need car for whatever reason can use the remaining lanes and have less trafic since train are a lot more efficient than car at moving people.
If you are woried about the swap I’m sure care exaust and tires particles which are know to damage environement a lot. Trains are electric so at least polution will be localized near power plants and thoose can be eventualy replaced by renewables.
If you are woried about the swap I’m sure care exaust and tires particles which are know to damage environement a lot. Trains are electric so at least polution will be localized near power plants and thoose can be eventualy replaced by renewables.<
Okay. So firstly, “the swamp” is an important and endangered part of the environment. It absorbs flood water and run off, it is a sink for greenhouse gasses, and it absorbs a lot of the toxic pollution from cars including exhaust particles and the shed particles from tires. In Florida and Georgia specifically, flooding is a major factor in the civil engineering and design of roadways and population centers, and the elevation is mostly at or below sea level. Both of these states are prone to weather patterns that lead to storms, hurricanes, flooding, and tornados
There is 4 lanes, you can remove one or two and set train tracks which don’t have a lot of constraints compared to cars due to train wheel being steel and having better adherence.<
So we’re not just talking about one set of rail on I95?
I’m going to preface what I say next with two points. One, there is already a rail system down the East Coast (including the east coast of Georgia and Florida), with an Amtrak line that runs stops between Georgia and Orlando Florida. Two, at least part of that railroad line is endangered because a lot of the East Coast, including parts of Georgia and Florida is sinking due to salt water intrusion.
Additionally, I95 (one of the major interstate highways that runs from through Georgia and Florida) is also running along the eastern coast and is endangered more and more every year because of the same salt water intrusion and sinking coast line.
There’s two options for rail. Diesel powered rail which would require refueling stations or at the very least places to store the fuel. But I doubt that’s what people mean when they say passenger rail. This would add to traffic (fuel delivery and maintenance isn’t going to be done using this train) because trucks would be required to carry that fuel.
You’d also still need to build ingress and egress points for the rail, things like park and ride, things like stations, things like dropoff areas. This will have to be in addition to what is already there because what you’re expecting is that more people in Florida/Georgia will use rail rather than drive. So no. We aren’t just taking two lanes off a highway and dropping in some railroad tracks. That’s not how that works.
To move the same volume of people in the event of a tropical storm, hurricane, or flood, a train has to be able to be powered. So I’m going to assume (since most people who argue for trains are people who think it’ll be more environmentally friendly) that we’re talking about electric rail. Meaning you’re going to need electricity to power those rail lines. What happens when power isn’t available? Where do we put electrical substations? Where do we put the rest of the infrastructure to support the rail? I’m guessing we’re clearing swamp land for that.
People who still need a car for whatever reason<
Evacuation due to weather is a big one. Can you evacuate on the train? If it’s running, sure. Should you? Questionable. Is it easier and are you more likely to be able to take things with you that you don’t want destroyed in a different vehicle? Pets? Old people with equipment like wheel chairs and other aids? And before you go “of course!” I’m going to remind you that buildings that are fully up to fire code expect paralyzed people to just figure it out. Elevator? Don’t use the elevator. Stairs? Guess I’m dragging myself down the stairs if I’m able bodied enough to do so. My multi-thousand dollar piece of medical equipment? Unless someone is willing to help me drag it down serval flights of stairs, the recommendation is to leave it. And it may not be reimbursed or replaced by my insurance company. Assuming I have insurance.
Tickets on the train that is already available? $140 a ticket one way.
High speed rail doesn’t pay for itself, and to get Floridians to use it you’re going to need to make it affordable. This will raise the taxes of Floridians just to build, and they don’t pay state income tax. Meaning this is going to be paid for using federal funding (which Trump has cut repeatedly in the last 6 months), sales tax, tax on titles and tags, and property tax which sounds great until you realize that those people who still need cars when and if this is built will absolutely still use cars, and the people paying the property tax will fight this to the death.
I was going to mention
theythe “in good faith” bit and respond to it but I’m trying really hard to be chill about this since I’m obviously not talking to someone with any background data for this subject, up to and including anything about Florida, and its water table, or it’s elevation compared to sea level and the kind of storms and acts of nature it normally gets.There are other factors too, but I’ve spent enough time on this specifically.
So if you would like to continue this conversation in good faith, do some research please.
Environmental concerns have never stopped any developed economy from doing what they want. Just look at this area on a map. These objections are not serious. The passenger rail service is trash in the US because of the automobile and hydrocarbon industries.
https://lemmy.world/comment/18865484 Your welcome to read my other comment, but I doubt you are knowledgeable about this subject.
If the government or the billionaires really wanted to they’d just do it and fuck the Indians on repeat like every other time, it’s just a talking point and it’s not going to be”ez money” like the keystone pipeline. I wish our government gave two shits about treaties with not only the natives but anybody.
So what you’re saying is you advocate for the government to clear swampland (fuck the environment I guess), and continue to disenfranchise Native American peoples because you want high speed rail so badly?
Yeah. Yeah. I know you didn’t say that. But that’s what can be extrapolated from your assertion that the government and billionaires could if they wanted to. Don’t normalize this shit. It’s wrong for the government to seize things that don’t belong to it regardless of the purpose they plan to use if for.
How many are a final destination? Orlando is a big hub for planes coming from South America and Atlanta is the biggest US hub, so probably a lot of people flying that route are connecting and wouldn’t make a lot of sense to get a plane ticket and then a train and then another flight
You can have a high speed train station at the airport as well. A lot of European big hubs have that.
It would absolutly make sense ? Especially if there are night trains that go slower and can help you get rest without paying an hotel.
It makes sense if you are going to Atlanta or Orlando, not if you are just connecting somewhere else
Don’t get me wrong, I love trains and I’d love to see a big network of high speed trains
ATL is the second largest hub in the US after Chicago?
If you can fly pretty much anywhere from ATL in the world.
ATL is the largest by total commercial emplanements
Exactly my point, people flying that route are taking connecting flights
Orlando to atl sure. But they would also go to Miami.
I doubt anyone flying ATL to ORD for connecting in ORD
But how can you expect me to think about things like this, when there’s a possibility of someone with genitals that don’t look like mine in my restroom?
Have you ever seen a ducks penis? Just be glad whatever genitals you have isn’t a ducks penis. It’s so fucked up that they don’t even GET a bathroom. They just pee in the drinking water. They pee in lakes. Ponds. Your bathtub. They pee anywhere they want, any time they want.
Thats why they all hang out at parks, and the government doesn’t stop them. Think about it man. You don’t see lions and tigers and bears at the park…because Disney owns the rights to The Wizard of Oz. So you can’t see those animals for free! They gotta get locked up in jail and then they call it a zoo, and charge you $22.50 per adult, and $12 per child under 12. Except on Mondays where it’s free if you’re a local resident of the county.
But they don’t do that with ducks. You know what else Disney owns? The Mighty Ducks. Darkwing Duck.
And NOBODY is paying money to see those properties. So they don’t arrest the ducks, because theres no profit there. Follow the money. It all leads back to those crazy duck penis’s, and nobody wants to admit that Howard the Duck is officially a Marvel character, living in the same MCU as Spiderman, and Ironman, and the X-Men.
THATS why ducks don’t have bathrooms, while humans fight over things like trans athletes being allowed to play sports in college, and throwing green dildos at female basketball players to promote cryptocurrencies.
We live in the dumbest timeline.
Except on Mondays where it’s free if you’re a local resident of the county.
I read this and immediately knew who posted it.
And yet Donald doesn’t even wear pants.
I’m going to right now start the conspiracy theory that the actual US president, Donald Trump, has not worn pants or underwear in decades. He’s somehow just hypnotized us all into not noticing.
did you know that donald has not worn pants/underwear in decades? I recently learnt about it.
like everything in the 70s and 80s, airline deregulation was a stain that never should have happened
And nothing will be fixed while “the left” in the US still worship and lionize Carter, who started all the mess.
Yes, Trump is literally worse, but both parties are two sides of the same coin. You cannot save the country by electing neo-liberals, it’ll always be further right than before.
Trumps in the process of nazi round two and your dumb ass is over here still throwing around both sides same
What the democrats are doing to oppose trump (basically fucking nothing) is the most damning evidence of all, in my opinion. They are controlled opposition.
maybe some, look at who had that lunch in Russia
I’m sure plenty are just old and corrupt(but not Trump directed), schumer doesnt give a ahit about the is long as Israel gets paid
it’s a class war first
Democrats enabled him and did nothing in the gap between his first and second term to prevent him from executing the out in the open takeover plan. They did start genocide and lost the election because they ran campaign on “the most lethal military” instead of stopping the genocide, and your dumb ass still think the Democrats are you friends.
u huh
when they are dragging our asses to the camps better tell all our fellow prisoners so they can tell moral you are
I’m sure you’re really worried about being dragged to camp. Meanwhile I actually have family in ICE detention, and I lay the blame on both the fascists in charge and the idiots who still insist we should have voted for a nonviable genocidal candidate running a platform of most lethal military.
you have family in ice detention and you are worrying about democrats atm?
you are either fake or hopeless either way just wtf
The Democrat started the genocide of my people and doubled down on it. They aren’t my friends, and one day they’ll come for you too.
My family is only in this country because of neoliberals destroying and stealing our homelands.
And no, I’m not worrying about them, I’m just crystal clear they won’t save this country.
The Democrats have proven over the last 50 years that they do not meaningfully oppose Republican values.
It’s time you start engaging with reality with the rest of us.
So by your logic, had Harris won the last election we would still be watching the fall of the USA and the rise of a second Nazi wave?
By my logic, if Harris were elected, the vast majority of Americans would see no meaningful positive change. People would get sick of waiting for these policies that will never reach or help them by design, then they elect another Republican out of spite and apathy.
So just the same things that happened with every dem in the last 50 years.
No positive change is surely still significantly better than seeing a massive downturn and an uprising of a second Nazi regime… I don’t get your point.
We’re all gonna die eventually, so should we be advocating for more murderers?
So if the only parties available result in decline, when does a party come along that wants to progress instead of stagnate or regress?
Time to grow up as a society and pull this baindaid off that we have apathetically suffered for our entire lives
I’ll agree with the Dems by and large being useless but if you thing there is no difference you are blind
Interesting claim, the Great Man Theory of Neoliberalism.
Every lefty I know certainly can’t stop talking about how much they love Carter’s 1976 political platform, which everyone remembers and cares about.
Before he died, people were always fawning over Carter. Don’t pretend that isn’t true. I always accrued downvotes for mentioning his crimes. Carter was a good person, on an individual level, but he was the first neoliberal president and the person you replied to was right to point it out.
i actually was on wikipedia looking up an article on eastern airlines (i was watching ernest saves christmas and old things make me go down wikipedia rabbit holes) and was shocked it started in the 70s under him
Could any kind soul provide a TL;DW for those of us who can’t watch a video (for whatever reason)?
- Tickets for flights are taxed at 7.5% to pay for the FAA
- Average flight with many passengers pays over $2,300 per flight
- Private jets don’t have tickets to be taxed, are only taxed on fuel
- Private jets pay an average of about $60 in FAA fees
- Private jets take up about 7% of the FAA’s resources, but only make up a fraction of a percent of the revenue
- Thus when you pay the FAA fees on your economy class ticket, you’re subsidizing operating the FAA for private jet flights, that don’t pay enough to cover their costs.
That’s. So. Fucked.
Is shit like this doesnt radicalize you then you are lost as a human. Unsavablle.
Of all the things you think the line is FAA tax, lol
My man… This bow everything into the US works.
The peasants pay and the rich free ride. He wouldn’t be the big man if he had to pay… Would he now?
If only the normie cared to accept these facts as their reality.
So not really the flights themselves, just the regulation overseeing the flights.
Parasite wrote the rules so they can leech.
The FAA gathers taxes per person, not per plane. So a commercial flight has every single passenger paying, while a private jet only pays for a few people. That’s a difference of about $2300 for a commercial flight, vs about $60 for a private jet. Private flights make up about 7% of air travel, but contribute less than a tenth of a percent in taxes. But the air traffic controllers aren’t handling individual people; They’re handling planes. So private jets fund the ATC a lot less than commercial flights, even though they have just as much need.
This video says Canada taxes planes based on weight rating and distance traveled. So larger planes that can carry heavier loads (more people) get taxed more, while smaller planes (private jets) get taxed less. But they’re proportionally paying the same in taxes, instead of the rich people paying less.
There are long standing problems with this. Not sure of the exact point of the video, but here is an older article with some info: https://www.newsweek.com/why-are-private-jets-being-subsidized-you-and-me-641890
Corporate jets use almost $1 billion of air traffic control resources, they only contribute around $200 million in fuel taxes, letting commercial passengers pick up their tab.
Generally, corporate jets are exempt from the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) air transportation tax, a fee on the number of passengers and amount of cargo transported, which funds 95 percent of ATC operations.
The maintenance and improvement of the ATC system’s equipment and infrastructure is paid through the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF), which is made up of excise taxes collected on aviation fuel, passenger transport and use of international air facilities.
This summary should be posted into OP so it gets more eyes balls.
It is in the wrong format anyway. Stop vertical video syndrome.
Jesus Christ america
You don’t get rich by paying full freight.
If you are paying full freight that means you ain’t in the club. And that’s just disgusting… Imagine being associated with the dirty peasants?!
Damn, that’s something else altogether
Ehhhh. I wasn’t very impressed with this video. For one thing, it felt more like a compilation of aviation-related clips rather than any kind of meat and potato that actually described the issue.
When they finally did, they started with the parking ramp analogy. If that truly is a good analogy, it’s not so much that a “fancy” car would pay less, it’s that a smaller car would. Pretty much any parking lot, ferry, etc that can hold different sizes of cars will charge more for a bus or semi truck than a regular car.
They also mention that fuel taxes are higher for small planes. I would love to know more about that, because that really could smooth things over but there aren’t really any details (also $2400 for [let’s just say] a 150-passenger 737 vs $60 for a private jet may scale similarly per passenger)
Finally, they very briefly bring up how Canada’s system is much better because it uses a factor of weight and distance… Wouldn’t that just mean those giant airliners pay more?!?
Bonus: let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that American Airlines is public transit. It’s still a for-profit corporation and if you lower a plane’s FAA taxes, it’ll directly benefit them.
Per-passenger is a stupid way to charge this tax because the service provided is per-plane.
The math in this video checks out, even when spreading the costs over all the passengers of a larger plane.
A lot of the FAA fee is used to fund the various airport facilities, so yes it does make sense to charge on per-passenger basis.
They weren’t saying the tax should be levied per passenger, only that the tax structure as it stands probably already scales well if you calculate per passenger.
The fuel rates are currently about $0.22/gallon, and are going up to $1.06/gallon over 5 years, but even that wouldn’t put them on par with commercial flights (they pay 0.6% of the fees, but use 7% of resources, $1.06 divided by $0.22 gets you 4.81x the current 0.6%, which is still 2.9% of the fees, while using 7% of FAA resources.)
So even with the current fuel rate increases, private jets would still be paying less than half of what they end up using.
As a percentage of the total weight of a plane, passengers and their luggage constitute a much larger percentage of a commercial flight than a private one. So they are “more utilized” than a private jet, and can spread that cost over all their passengers.
Also, larger planes that fly longer distances cross more ATC zones, using up more ATC resources. They also take up more “room” in the sky, as e.g. ATC needs to leave more room for jet wash behind a heavy. So it makes sense from multiple perspectives that bigger planes pay more.
You also have to consider hobby pilots. Charging them the same amount as a 747 would be insane.
So it’s a tradeoff: the Canadian system makes smaller planes pay more, proportionally, than a per-ticket model; but not so much more that it harms the smallest personal planes.
It’s also just simpler. Personal plane? Private jet? Commercial passenger flight? Cargo plane? Same calculation for all of them.
(Yes, you could try to make it “only for flights with paid passengers”, but then pilots of private jets would all of a sudden have a lot of very rich friends with whom they do a lot of personal flying. It’s just so much easier if there’s nothing subjective about it.)
But even if this tax was reduced or went away, what’s stopping the airlines from hiking up the price by that amount? Airlines are looking for any excuse to squeeze out more money from you. In that case you’d just be funding the airline execs’ private flights.
This is about taxes funding the FAA, and the implied conclusion of the video isn’t that these taxes should be removed, but that they should be weighted more heavily towards private flights for the sake of fairness.
How would that even work? Commercial airlines and private jet operators are different entities.
First class and business pays for the economy seats
While that’s true, and so First Class and Business Class subsidize private jets more than Economy Class does, that doesn’t change the fact that Economy also subsidizes private jets.
While that’s true, and so First Class and Business Class
Iwhats the math on this claim
Yeah I flew for $20 not too long ago. No bags, just a small backpack. I wasn’t subsidizing shit, more expensive seats were subsidizing me.
Strong modeling, I trust you bro.
Please do explain to the class how.
Theyee probably right. We’d need to work out how much money their tickets are vs how much space they take up and compare that ratio to economy.
That’s a weird way to look at it.
If they make so much money, why aren’t there planes just business class? Think of all the profit!
Also, tickets are priced based on max price people will pay, not if the rich people are flying.
They might be more profitable for the airline… Sure. But it doesn’t subsidize the plebs lol
