The Tories are planning to tax frequent fliers

News on the BBC site this morning about the Tories plans to tax frequent fliers, either through a per flight tax or VAT/fuel duty. The scheme is intended to penalise frequent fliers most.

Nice to see them up to their old tricks, after all the Tories introduced APD in the first place. And as for them not raising the overall tax burden by ensuring any so called green taxes applied would be matched by a reduction elsewhere ... total poppycock!

Please don't call Cameron a Tory. He is a Blairite so nearer to Socialism than a Tory. Torys would not tax as taxation is theft.

[Pete]

So, whom, one may ask is now your Conservative party? The BNP?

This was also on Sky News this morning ... It was suggested that people who holiday 2 or 3 times a year might be better off if everyone is allocated "x" amount of carbon emissions to use.

My question to the business travellers on here is in the age of video conferencing, and the internet how many of your trips are necessary ?

And now I'm off to put on my Flame Proof Suit and await your replies

If one takes the assumption that the burning of carbon fuels is a bad thing (I realise that there is a big assumption here and the other thread regarding Al Gore and the Ch4 documentary casts some doubt on it) then this seems a very sensibly tax. Certainly far better that a totally non-discriminatory tax like the poll tax, or excessive levels of duty (personal opinion there, but I do think they are a Chancellor's cheap shot) on socially unacceptable products like alcohol, or highly regressive tax/benefits situations like our social security system. And don't even get me started on why we have additional allowances for having children in an over populated world, or supporting the irrelevance that is 'marriage' or 'civil partnerships'.

Personally I don't really care which party the person comes from. If they come up with a half way decent idea, and have the ability to implement it in an unadulterated form then it would be a pleasant change.

Originally posted by pixuk
So, whom, one may ask is now your Conservative party? The BNP?

Cheap shot Pete

Why would I support a party who's philosophy is National Socialism?
Both of the current major political parties are nearer their views than mine. Botrh of them either beliove in forcing people to do as they say either by banning something or now in the case of Camerons Nu Labour Conservatives, taxing something out of existance.
I am a right wing libertarian, I do not support the "banning" of items just for the political sake of it. (unless its supporting Man Utd of course [:o)])

[Pete]

Originally posted by AlanA

Cheap shot Pete

Yes, sorry, couldn't resist it. [:w]

Has to be said, this particular policy announcement had me a little surprised given where the Tory party traditionally get their support. Business will not be fond of being penalised in their travel expenses.

P.

Originally posted by pixuk

Originally posted by AlanA

Cheap shot Pete

Yes, sorry, couldn't resist it. [:w]

Has to be said, this particular policy announcement had me a little surprised given where the Tory party traditionally get their support. Business will not be fond of being penalised in their travel expenses.

P.

Cameron is taking the same route that Labour did under Bliar, which is to disengage yourself from the traditional support to get the middle gound, i.e ignor the Trades unions and the left wing in the belief that they will still vote for you and tailor your policies for the floating voters.
Cameron is doing the same with the right wing of the party to get the Liberal voters on side (there have been quite q few defections to the Cameronians from Lib Dem councillors) no more Grammar schools, a tacit attack on thatherism, Hug a hoodie, no discussion on Europe, his new Green credentials etc etc.

Originally posted by andrew.m.wright
This was also on Sky News this morning ... It was suggested that people who holiday 2 or 3 times a year might be better off if everyone is allocated "x" amount of carbon emissions to use.

My question to the business travellers on here is in the age of video conferencing, and the internet how many of your trips are necessary ?

And now I'm off to put on my Flame Proof Suit and await your replies

Andrew,

Technology is just the tool to enhance communications. Bearing in mind, in a global world, we need to consider culture difference. This is particularly relevant to long-haul business travellors, becasue this is the main reason why we travel.

Trust me, not many business travellors enjoy that much of 12 hours flight every other week. You may say, we should quit the job. What's the difference? Physical presents in different locations is the key for many business, if we quit the job, someone else will have to do it anyway. It doesn't mean we can reduce the amount of total travel by quit one or two jobs.

I did 19 VS long-haul flights plus about 50 domestic flights in Far East last year. I can assure you that except two holiday trips (which I deserve, so no comments on this please), every single business trip are necessary otherwise my organisation will lose significant percentages of market share.

Once anyone understood what globalisation really means to us, you will believe flights are not avoidable.

Someone tried last year, took a train journey to China for business. After wasting 7 days on the outgoing journey, he has to fly back to the UK for urgent business (which he paid even more money to the airline company than a normal return ticket). This is the reality.

Snow

What I haven't seen are any details of how they propose to implement such a daft idea. Will they ask for records of how many flights you took on your tax return (unverifiable)? require airlines to handover frequent flier information (unwarranted intrusion)? check everybody's passport for endorsements (doesn't cover many flights)?

It might sound good as a soundbite (well, it might, but it doesn't to me - it just sounds stupid) but I can't imagine any sane method of implementing it.

To be honest, flying is just the latest whipping boy for the anti-gtreenhouse gas brigade as far as I can see. Any politician seeking election is going to be on the lookout for some way to appear "green" by trying to limit it somehow. In reality, all that any of these schemes will do (including Gordon's laughable increase of APD) is make money out of it without deterring anyone from flying in the slightest. The cost of flying would have to double (and more) before that will happen.

Increasing the cost will simply deter the ordinary holidaymaker whilst those flying on business will continue to fly pretty much as often as they do now. What is intended to be a "green" tax, becomes essentially a levy on business and on the poor.

Chris

Originally posted by Snow

Trust me, not many business travellors enjoy that much of 12 hours flight every other week. You may say, we should quit the job. What's the difference? Physical presents in different locations is the key for many business, if we quit the job, someone else will have to do it anyway. It doesn't mean we can reduce the amount of total travel by quit one or two jobs.

That's well said - video conferencing is useful once the 'deal' is done, but to negotiate, launch a new venture, or at other key junctions in a relationship, you still have to meet people directly to be successfull.

I have only scanned this thread but it was mentioned by the Tories that whilst they would introduce this tax they will take away other taxes that effect the demographic of frequent flyers. Dont ask me how though but thats what they said!

Originally posted by cshore
What is intended to be a "green" tax, becomes essentially a levy on business and on the poor.

Well, on business and predominantly the middle class, perhaps. What is it - 75% of people who use low cost carriers are from social class A, B and C, the average salary of passengers using Stansted is £46,000 p.a. and the net effect of the low cost model has been to encourage the better off to travel more? Though the low cost carriers could give access to lower cost flights to the less well off they don't, (a) in part because the business model is based on access to the internet and to credit and debit cards and (b) the flight is only part of the total cost of the holiday.

This isn't to say that the combined tax burdens won't tip some from being able to take a holiday to being unable to do so and statistics are open to interpretation (I always find it disgraceful that 50% of children score an average or below in exams) but let's be clear who the proposed taxes will impact the most.

Paul

Originally posted by slinky09

Originally posted by Snow

Trust me, not many business travellors enjoy that much of 12 hours flight every other week. You may say, we should quit the job. What's the difference? Physical presents in different locations is the key for many business, if we quit the job, someone else will have to do it anyway. It doesn't mean we can reduce the amount of total travel by quit one or two jobs.

That's well said - video conferencing is useful once the 'deal' is done, but to negotiate, launch a new venture, or at other key junctions in a relationship, you still have to meet people directly to be successfull.

Well said, indeed. You will not get far trying to do business in many cultures, especially in Asiapac, without meeting in person. Often several times. Many cultures place a very high value on building a personal relationship as part and parcel of a commercial one. Unless you make the effort and spend the time visiting, you will not be taken seriously. Video conferencing is often viewed, in my experience, as rude and cheapskate and will get you nowhere.

Chris

Alan - you share the same political philosophy as me:D

I've said this many times; the only reason there is all this hype about the impact of air travel is due to the media and for use as a scapegoat for politicians and so they can look like they're actually doing something.

Clearly, aviation is a cause of pollution, but it's certainly by no means the most significant or biggest. There are so many other factors involved and in my opinion, it's not huge lifestyle changes that we need, it's a cut - down on needless waste such as leaving lights on, leaving appliances on stand by, driving two minutes down the road...

VS.

Originally posted by VS045
Alan - you share the same political philosophy as me:D

There are so many other factors involved and in my opinion, it's not huge lifestyle changes that we need, it's a cut - down on needless waste such as leaving lights on, leaving appliances on stand by, driving two minutes down the road...

Though I clearly don't share the same political philosophy as your good selves, I do agree that the smaller personal changes are where we need to start. I do wonder, however, how you encourage people to make those changes ? Unfortunately legislation seems to generate headlines such as "Eco Snoopers" and "The EU Wants To Ban Our Lightbulbs".

Paul

The fatalsit in me says however that it's pure luck that the planet actually was put in the position to have life on it and that eventually, either by another big lump of rock hitting us or the day that the sun goes supernova, it will all end anyway.
But whilst we gaze at our navels and worry about standby lights on our TV's China, America and Brazil are in the time taken to write this message have caused more damage than 100 years of us not turning off the TV.
Add to that the obsession with certain relegions and cultures that you must have loads of children and the massive growths in population, that we as a form of animal will find another way to destroy our habitat. The next troubles will not be about global warming persay, but the war for water.
Even if we were not producing any form of CO2 then we would end up killing the planet through overpopulation.

[HighFlyer]

Finally, AlanA and I have found something we agree on!

Thanks,
Sarah

Originally posted by HighFlyer
Finally, AlanA and I have found something we agree on!

Thanks,
Sarah

Swoon! :D

Originally posted by AlanA
The fatalsit in me says however that it's pure luck that the planet actually was put in the position to have life on it and that eventually, either by another big lump of rock hitting us or the day that the sun goes supernova, it will all end anyway.

I'm not sure that a fatalistic outlook is a reason for relieving people of any sense of personal responsibility or duty. Granted, the specific impacts of no standby on TVs (and that does sound a bit like a policy from "the Thick Of it") may amount to p*ssing in the wind but saying to that we all have a role to play helps focus the mind on the issue in particular and promotes a wider sense of citizenship that can have impacts elsewhere.

Paul

We can Paul, however its a different form of action we need to take.
What we require is the citizens of this country to boycott Chinese, Brazillian and yes, even American goods until those countries come to the table. That would make a huge difference compared to individual Carbon offsetting

Originally posted by AlanA
Please don't call Cameron a Tory. He is a Blairite so nearer to Socialism than a Tory. Torys would not tax as taxation is theft.

Hmmmm seem to remember the tories increasing VAT to 17.5%......
Some major theft going on there

Oh and I remember my mortgage interest rate being in double figures due to their mis-management of the economy in the 80's and 90's

Jon B

Originally posted by Jon B

Originally posted by AlanA
Please don't call Cameron a Tory. He is a Blairite so nearer to Socialism than a Tory. Torys would not tax as taxation is theft.

Hmmmm seem to remember the tories increasing VAT to 17.5%......
Some major theft going on there

Oh and I remember my mortgage interest rate being in double figures due to their mis-management of the economy in the 80's and 90's

Jon B

Hasn't been a Tory government since before the war. The Conservatives increased VAT (A European tax) and I see how the Blairites have removed this.
Also, the only reason that Blair has been able to keep mortgage interest rates down is due to the state of the economy when he came to power. I don't call that mismanagement. I also seem to remember a certain Labour supporting financier who was behind the stock market crash.
However we are now the most taxed nation on earth and as an aside by population we are the most watched by any government through CCTV nation in the world as well.
Still I state taxation is theaft

[Decker]

Y'know guys I'm struggling with this thread. So much of it is OT that I want to move it into the OT forum but then we have snippets which link to both OT and OP which are tough to call... almost tempted to move the whole thread...

Originally posted by AlanA

Originally posted by Jon B

Originally posted by AlanA
Please don't call Cameron a Tory. He is a Blairite so nearer to Socialism than a Tory. Torys would not tax as taxation is theft.

Hmmmm seem to remember the tories increasing VAT to 17.5%......
Some major theft going on there

Oh and I remember my mortgage interest rate being in double figures due to their mis-management of the economy in the 80's and 90's

Jon B

Hasn't been a Tory government since before the war. The Conservatives increased VAT (A European tax) and I see how the Blairites have removed this.
Also, the only reason that Blair has been able to keep mortgage interest rates down is due to the state of the economy when he came to power. I don't call that mismanagement.

So having had 17 years of boom and bust under Thatcher and Major we now have a stable economy and John Major was to thank for that?.... I don't think so Alan

Jon B