Flights v Green Rights?

BaronGreenback_2

Coveredinbees!!!! wrote: »

Here is an alternative idea, why not make the airport duty optional. Then all you environmentalist can pay £250 or whatever and the rest of us can pay what we feel we should then everyone is a winner.

Bet everyone would opt for £0.00:D

Yep - spot on... although while we're at it, let's make income tax optional, too !

I'm with you anyway - let's build more runways... let's tarmac the entire country, and line the planes up. Think of the employment it'd generate. Let's give flights away with Big Macs - it's not like it'll cause any damage.

Coveredinbees!!!!

BaronGreenback wrote: »

Yep - spot on... although while we're at it, let's make income tax optional, too !

I'm with you anyway - let's build more runways... let's tarmac the entire country, and line the planes up. Think of the employment it'd generate. Let's give flights away with Big Macs - it's not like it'll cause any damage.

:T

Great idea's you should be PM

master_of_puppets

why are we getting taxed through the nose for one flight?
perhaps we should get 10,000 miles each tax free in our passports then taxed per 3000 miles? that would be much fairer, then the family of four can have their once a year holiday and the business executive who could hold a conference via web cam can get tax to the hilt!!

are the yanks still driving around in 8ltr cars--- answer yes!!!
what effort are they making to cut down?

how much do they get taxed on flights?- probably not or very little. bet a dollar they don't pay tax on internal flights.

pinkfluffybabe

Sans_Pareil wrote: »

Of all flights, domestic flights must be the easiest to eliminate on core routes. Most of Europe has cheap to travel on High Speed Rail networks, or are in the process of building these. I am told there are over 100 flights a day between London and Scotland. Surely this is classic example of where flying can be eliminated and rail travel (up to 20x greener) can be used. Especially if European style pricing is used for tickets (before 9am fares dont really exisit on mainland EU and national 50% discount railcards are common). Where High Speed Rail has been introduced, over time flights have been reduced or removed on matching rail routes. Also the capacity freed up on old lines can then used by some freight from roads that currently may only be able run at night due to day capacity issues! Just a suggestion.........

Trains are expensive (more expensive than equivalent flights in some cases). They get delayed, they aren't always clean and frankly why spend 6hrs getting somewhere we you can spend 1?

Like someone already said, paying all the taxes in the world isn't going to make emissions any less.

scheming_gypsy

chocmonster wrote: »

1. Flying burns fuel. Lots of fuel.
2. That fuel cannot be replaced in our lifetime.
3. Burning fuel emits carbon.
4. More carbon out than carbon in = imbalance.
5. Imbalance = problems (would you like to sit in a room full of C02?).
6. Taxing flights do not change a flippin' thing!

That said, the C4 Programme has stimulated a lot of (uneducated) debate.

Please think of your children and grandchildren, and prepare your excuses for the world they inhabit.

Just my thoughts...

i'm presuming that you typed that on a computer carved out of wood from a tree in your garden. Or are you spouting on about saving the planet on a computer with parts manufactured in the Far East? cars, planes, boats and cars again all probably featured in getting your computer to you..



Personally i think the airlines are just highlighting the fact that we're paying additional tax. Why can't they just increase the price and include it so we won't know? it's not as though many people do the same journey day in day out and would notice the price increase

Seakay

I don't think that individuals should be taxed for the flights that they take, but I do think that airline fuel should attract the same taxes as car fuel. This might well result in an increase in airfares, but it would be up to the airlines to decide how to balance their books, and then up to customers to decide who they fly with.
I cannot see that this airline passenger tax will raise much income compared to the administration costs which will be incurred, and I have seen no convincing evidence that income that is raised will be used to make non flying or other green travel more attractive or accessible.

Former_MSE_Natasha

Poll Started 20 March 2007: Budget Airline Passenger Tax

Air passenger tax on economy European flights doubled from £5 to £10 this year, yet environmentalists argue we still fly too much, especially on short and domestic flights; and part of the problem is we can still fly for pennies. Which of these is closest to your view on what should happen to the tax?

A. No tax. The current £10 tax should be dropped - 37.7% - (1365 Votes)
B. Back to what it was. Return it to £5 - 20.1% - (727 Votes)
C. £10 is about right - 19.7% - (710 Votes)
H. Ban most domestic flights & increase European flight tax to £250 - 7% - (251 Votes)
E. Increase it to £25 - 6% - (218 Votes)
F. Increase it to £50 - 4.3% - (157 Votes)
G. Increase it to £100 - 2.8% - (102 Votes)
D. Increase it to £15 - 2.5% - (91 Votes)

Thanks to all that voted