Labour attacks long-haul airlines

Moonchild

dmg24 wrote: »

These measures are designed to help a) the economy and b) those in financial difficulty. Those in financial difficulty are unlikely to have a holiday in Skegness as a high priority, let alone Australia or the US!

And that, I believe, is the most succinct and accurate answer we will have.

Jasper27_2

When does this go up? If you already have a flight booked (which I do) will I now be asked for the extra tax before I fly? I agree that if you can afford to travel long haul then it isn't a huge amount but the way it's increased in the past few years is ridiculous. At what point does it stop? Its like so many things with this government, penalising those of us who work, taking you when you earn it then taxing you when you spend it! If I believed the money was really going to support public transport I wouldn't mind but there's no evidence of improvements where I live.

meester

Voyager2002 wrote: »

If this (modest) level of tax is a problem for you, you obviously can't afford to go on holiday.

The government spends enormous amounts of money maintaining a safe system of air transportation (everything from air traffic control to transport links to airports). Why whinge about paying a small part of this as a surcharge on your tickets, rather than in income tax? At least this means that foreigners who use the systems we support get to pay some of the cost.

Hahahahahhahahahahahahah

I've never heard of anything so ridiculous.

Every single country in the world encourages foreigners to visit (foreigners with money to spend at any rate). If I travel to Indonesia, the Singapore government give all kinds of inducements to visit Singapore, where I will spend a couple of hundreds of pounds a day, supporting jobs, and adding to government coffers through taxes on hotel rooms and so on.

Tourism is 3% of GDP - £90 billion. What happens if all those tourists from California decide that rather than spending £380 to come to the UK, they'll go to Italy instead, because it only costs £300? I bet people will think twice.

sturll

dmg24 wrote: »

These measures are designed to help a) the economy and b) those in financial difficulty. Those in financial difficulty are unlikely to have a holiday in Skegness as a high priority, let alone Australia or the US!

I accept that. But what about those who whilst not in financial difficulty would struggle to find the extra tax?

They have effectively been priced out.

islandannie

sturll wrote: »

I accept that. But what about those who whilst not in financial difficulty would struggle to find the extra tax?

They have effectively been priced out.

And quite rightly so,you can either afford it or you can`t.

The world needs to be saved.

rainbow_carnage

I'm not necessarily against higher taxes, but I do get a little annoyed at how they are very arbitrary.

For example, you have the environmental angle. Air travel damages the environment. It seems fair to make travelers pay for it the same way as people who drive cars pay enormous duty on petrol. Fair enough.

But the cattle industry is responsible for a whole lot more damage than planes. So why not stick an environmental tax onto beef?

I realise that many people would consider long-haul flights a luxury and meat a necessity, but my entire family lives overseas and I'm a vegetarian, so I don't buy that argument. One man's luxury is another man's basic necessity.

If you're going to tax people to help the environment, why not do it proportional to the actual damage?

deegee999

islanddannie, how can taxing passengers stop global warming, do they pay it to go away. Much of my money goes to shore up this useless government, I work for my money & fervently beleive i shoud decide where to spend it. I have flown more the last 3 years than ever before, because i have managed my debts and can now afford it. i really begrudge paying for the !!!!less.