All,
I had a read of the below and think to myself… the UK trys to do all these things to cut down, but its alway use the tax payer/user that suffers..
Last week it was Road prices.. this week addtional taxes of Frequent Fliers.
All i can see is that if they hit the tax on fliers up too high, people will use their “cars” instead of internal flights if its going to be cost effect.
Then they have you on the peak roads at peak times costing you more!! We can not win….
Looks like its going to be Video calls all the way and we wont be able to move soon!!
Frequent Fliers Face Tax
Updated: 08:55, Sunday March 11, 2007
People who fly regularly could be hit by radical Tory plans for environmental taxes intended to curb air travel – but the airlines are already fighting back.
The Conservatives hope the measures unveiled by shadow chancellor George Osborne will convince voters of the party’s “green” credentials.
A fuel duty, VAT on domestic flights, and scrapping air passenger duty in favour of a tax per flight based more closely on carbon emissions are all being considered.
Mr Osborne insisted that the measures were not intended to hit people enjoying their annual holiday abroad and would be targeted at “frequent fliers”.
But they run the risk of alienating voters who have become accustomed to enjoying the benefits of cheap flights.
Virgin Atlantic claimed “green” taxes on flights had already been proven not to work and that bringing in a “per flight” tax could harm the UK’s economy.
British Airways agreed that taxation was ineffective as a means of reducing carbon emissions.
But budget airline easyJet cautiously welcomed the idea of a “per flight” tax, claiming it would weed out those airlines using older, less efficient aircraft.
The dangers of the Tory strategy were underlined by an ICM poll for the Sunday Mirror which showed strong public opposition to additional taxes on air travel.
It found 58% of voters thought there were already enough extra taxes on the airlines while just 38% thought it was a good idea.
But another survey showing holidaymakers would be prepared to cut down on foreign travel to help the environment.
Half of those asked by Travelodge said they would be prepared to cut down on 50% of their trips, sacrificing 14 million visitos overseas.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1255227,00.html
By: J Boyle - 12th March 2007 at 16:34
If governments really want to do something green..instyead of taxing the middle income bloke (why only middle income…the rich don’t miss the money, the poor don’t have any to pay…) they should get draconian…
–Ban all non essential driving.
-Ban private aircraft and boats.
-Limit the size and numbers of homes people have (I have a friend with a huge London townhouse, a large surburban house, a flat in France, a seaside flat in the UK. All of which use some energy even when he’s not there).
-Limit the number of children…any idea the amount of waste generated by a new baby…disposable nappies and the like Plus they grow up into hungry/driving adults.
If they are serious they could do any of these. But they won’t…why?
It’s politically unpopular.
Also, its the rich and politicians are the ones with multiple homes and who use private jets.
It’s easier at the end of the day to continue to tax (and in doing so, lower the standard of living of) the average Brit.
Soon, air travel and driving will only be the provence of the “upper classes”..while the “lessers” are put back into the 1930s.
By: Skymonster - 12th March 2007 at 09:43
Well, considering that the Conservatives are making a fuss about this at the moment, its very difficult to find any real information about their thinking on their website – in fact, I can’t find it. Typical headline grab with no substance then! 😮
Anyhow, taxing frequent travellers will not reduce air travel but will simply move the extra costs to the consumer – as a regular travellers on business, my travel is viewed as a necessity by my company (we do have to justify our travel), and what we charge our customer will simply be adjusted to reflect increased travel costs. The ultimate end consumer is you and me, so at the end of the line we will all pay for this stupidity. I also cannot see how an individual can be taxed for business flying – it will be the business that will have to pay. Can you see a scenario where a person who has to travel for work then, as a result, has to pay much more tax to go on holiday? No, so business flying and personal flying will have to be treated seperately, which will create an interesting administrative challenge for the government.
I am concerned that targeting domestic UK flying in particular will simply move more travel back to cars, as in many cases the train isn’t a viable or price realistic alternative. Is moving people back to cars a good idea – oh, I forgot, they’re going to tax that more too! :rolleyes: And anything that actually REDUCES air travel (rather than just constraining its growth) will put jobs at risk, which again I don’t think is a good thing – of couse, the tree-huggers will say that a few job losses are worth taking to save the planet, but I’m not so sure…
And taxing fuel is totally meaningless unless it applies globally. There are agreements on such matters anyway, but in any case most airlines will simply tanker fuel from the continent if fuel costs are substantially higher here than elsewhere – that in turn increaes fuel burn and creates more emmissions.
I suppose that the good news is that, if less people travel then slots at LHR will be easier to come by – with the possible ending of Bermuda II later this month, I guess that’ll make new trans-Atlantic entrants happy! 😮
Andy
By: mongu - 11th March 2007 at 23:01
I think with this kind of policy the Conservates could easily loose votes from people who have to fly. Personally i think they are relying too much on the green vote but this is a Commerical Aviation forum so not the place for that topic.
They claimed on the BBC yesterday that this would not effect families taking one holiday a year. They quoted their flight price as something like £50 each which meant VAT would be £8.75. Hence saving on the £10 APD.
£50 seems the wrong figure to me so i checked an average MYT flight from LGW in late July to Lanzarote for 2 adults 2 children.
ADULT BASIC PRICE £278.00
CHILD BASIC PRICE £258.00
FUEL CHARGE MH £40.00
FUEL CHARGE MH £40.00
APD (EU) £20.00
APD (EU) £20.00
FUEL CHARGE MH £40.00
FUEL CHARGE MH £40.00Total: £736.00
So if we take the £40 list APD off it brings price down to £696. VAT on this would be £121.80 which is £817.80 in total. Some £81.80 more than with APD instead of VAT.
Just doenst work and no one who flies even a small amount would be wise to vote for this.
Wrong end of the stick there I think.
They can’t charge VAT on the ticket price (as supply of air transport is exempt under EU VAT law).
What was suggested was that fuel companies charge VAT on the fuel they sell to airlines.
So in your case, the fuel cost is 40*4 = 160. VAT at 17.5% is 28.
As an aside….I doubt that the fuel cost really is 160. More likely that’s just a flat surcharge to show a lower base fare.
By: mongu - 11th March 2007 at 22:51
oh no!
It won’t work. I don’t believe that taxing air travel will decrease consumption of it materially. The only real effect will be to divert money from airlines to the government.
Basically it’s a tax grab.
And as a rule of thumb, when a government says a new tax will be compensated for by reducing existing taxes….they’re lying.
By: OneLeft - 11th March 2007 at 18:06
Obviously in my position I don’t think there should be any further taxes on flying, and I also don’t seriously think it will discourage flying anyway, therefore discounting any Green argument.
My personal feeling is that if governments must tax flying further then the truly regular flyers are not the people to target, as they are arguably some of the people sustaining the economy by running industry and commerce.
If there are to be truly Green arguments then the people to target (and I know I may well be shot down in flames for saying so on here) are surely the people who fly for the fun of it, not because they have to, the £2.99 return weekenders to Prague, or the lets fly to Barcelona because it’s cheaper than the train to Brighton day trippers.
I know more of us on here (myself included) are the latter rather than than the former and would therefore be affected, but taxing the regular flyers would seriously damage UK.PLC in my opinion.
1L.
By: andrewm - 11th March 2007 at 12:29
I think with this kind of policy the Conservates could easily loose votes from people who have to fly. Personally i think they are relying too much on the green vote but this is a Commerical Aviation forum so not the place for that topic.
They claimed on the BBC yesterday that this would not effect families taking one holiday a year. They quoted their flight price as something like £50 each which meant VAT would be £8.75. Hence saving on the £10 APD.
£50 seems the wrong figure to me so i checked an average MYT flight from LGW in late July to Lanzarote for 2 adults 2 children.
ADULT BASIC PRICE £278.00
CHILD BASIC PRICE £258.00
FUEL CHARGE MH £40.00
FUEL CHARGE MH £40.00
APD (EU) £20.00
APD (EU) £20.00
FUEL CHARGE MH £40.00
FUEL CHARGE MH £40.00
Total: £736.00
So if we take the £40 list APD off it brings price down to £696. VAT on this would be £121.80 which is £817.80 in total. Some £81.80 more than with APD instead of VAT.
Just doenst work and no one who flies even a small amount would be wise to vote for this.
Sign In
March 11, 2007 at 11:02 am