EasyJet's "Tax Planes, Not People" campaign - let's send it viral!

[UKDEB]

A representative from EasyJet was talking a lot of sense on Sky News yesterday in relation to the proposed changes to APD. Apparently, there are no taxes on private or commercial flights, so she was proponing a tax on aircraft rather than passengers, to be applied across all categories. She suggested a sliding scale along the lines of car tax to encourage carriers to run newer, better maintained, fuel-efficient planes.

Of course, the current proposals are to increase taxes on short-haul flights and decrease them on long-haul, so we could be shooting ourselves in the foot, but the way the government is ripping off both the airlines and the passengers is nothing short of scandalous and I fundamentally agree with the "tax planes, not people" message.

Sign the petition and link to Facebook here.

 

[UKDEB]

 

[orangetiggs]

done and i shared on facebook and twitter

 

[Netty]

I've signed and also emailed the link to friends and family

 

[scottishgirl87]

I was number 2661 on the petition

 

[ford family]

A representative from EasyJet was talking a lot of sense on Sky News yesterday in relation to the proposed changes to APD. Apparently, there are no taxes on private or commercial flights, so she was proponing a tax on aircraft rather than passengers, to be applied across all categories. She suggested a sliding scale along the lines of car tax to encourage carriers to run newer, better maintained, fuel-efficient planes.

Of course, the current proposals are to increase taxes on short-haul flights and decrease them on long-haul, so we could be shooting ourselves in the foot, but the way the government is ripping off both the airlines and the passengers is nothing short of scandalous and I fundamentally agree with the "tax planes, not people" message.

Sign the petition and link to Facebook here.

So, the "tax per plane" works out at, say, £100 per passenger.
You pay your fare, including the tax.
You get to the airport.
"Sorry", they say, "we are only half full, that's another £100 each before you can fly."

This is a good thing?

ford family

 

[UKDEB]

Huh? I think you've misunderstood the premise.

 

[originalkk]

I agree with the logic of taxing planes not people IF it was truely to be a "green" tax, which it clearly isn't.

However, I think Easyjet are probably campaigning more on the basis of their own business interests, fearing a larger increase in short haul than long haul taxes. As fuel and CO2 use is much greater per mile for short trips (as most fuel is used at takeoff and flying at lower altitudes), I actually think this is the right way to go.

I believe the government does plan to bring private aviation into the tax regime in the future, but doesn't seem to have plans to move away from the ludicrous use of the mileage to the destination's capital as the basis for the charge (leading to less tax on flights to Hawaii than to the Caribbean), nor the incredible exemption of transit/transfer passengers from APD, despite their flights polluting the air over the UK.

I've supported the Daily Telegraph's petition on this in the past, and have written to my MP, who is a treasury minister. Ultimately I think the politicians may take more notice of their own electorate telling them they've had enough of the taxes.

 

[ford family]

Huh? I think you've misunderstood the premise.

I don't think so.
Under the system you are championing, the airline pays a set amount of tax regardless of how many passengers are on that flight.
To make money they either need to charge more tax per passenger if the flight is not full or reduce the number of flights.
If they reduce the number of flights then fares would rise as passengers competed to get on those fewer flights.

ford family

 

[steve_rob]

I'll sign Easyjet's petition only when they stop charging ridiculous amounts in booking fees just for the privilege of using a debit card. Yes, they're not quite as bad as Ryanair in this regard, but if as a company you're going to moan to the public about taxes and fees, at least have the decency to get your own house in order first.

Sorry, rant over - it's just a bit of a bugbear of mine. See http://www.which.co.uk/money/credit...and-debit-card/the-card-charges-hall-of-shame for more details.

 

[Kath2003]

I don't think so.
Under the system you are championing, the airline pays a set amount of tax regardless of how many passengers are on that flight.
To make money they either need to charge more tax per passenger if the flight is not full or reduce the number of flights.
If they reduce the number of flights then fares would rise as passengers competed to get on those fewer flights.

ford family

This. It's alson excuse for airlines to charge you more than the tax would be per passenger if the flight were full, on the grounds that it may not be. And if it is full - great - more profit for the airline!

At least this way, you can see how much tax you should be paying and then compare the actual fees of different airlines.

 

[oceanscape]

I don't think so.
Under the system you are championing, the airline pays a set amount of tax regardless of how many passengers are on that flight.
To make money they either need to charge more tax per passenger if the flight is not full or reduce the number of flights.
If they reduce the number of flights then fares would rise as passengers competed to get on those fewer flights.

ford family

Agreed. I won't be signing! I prefer the up-front transparency of the existing system.

 

[Kath2003]

I think the clue is in the organization - do you really think easyJet would be backing this if it weren't going to line their pockets?

 

[UKDEB]

I don't think so.
Under the system you are championing, the airline pays a set amount of tax regardless of how many passengers are on that flight.
To make money they either need to charge more tax per passenger if the flight is not full or reduce the number of flights.
If they reduce the number of flights then fares would rise as passengers competed to get on those fewer flights.

That would be true if we were talking about the same number of carriers under both schemes. This is nothing to do with whether the airline or the passenger pays the taxes (because, of course, that just boils down to the same end game - the passenger pays). The argument of the passenger airlines (not just EasyJet, btw) is that private and freight carriers should be sharing the burden. At the moment, the commercial passenger is is shouldering the lot. The cost per plane under the proposed scheme would then be a fraction of that under the current cost.

I have no doubt that EasyJet has its own business interests at the heart of all this, but I still believe in the fundamental argument that taxes should be shared by all those using the airways.

 

[ford family]

That would be true if we were talking about the same number of carriers under both schemes. This is nothing to do with whether the airline or the passenger pays the taxes (because, of course, that just boils down to the same end game - the passenger pays). The argument of the passenger airlines (not just EasyJet, btw) is that private and freight carriers should be sharing the burden. At the moment, the commercial passenger is is shouldering the lot. The cost per plane under the proposed scheme would then be a fraction of that under the current cost.

I have no doubt that EasyJet has its own business interests at the heart of all this, but I still believe in the fundamental argument that taxes should be shared by all those using the airways.

If freight planes are taxed then that cost will simply be passed on to the consumer by higher prices or the planes will land in France and the goods driven here thus robbing British Airports and British lorry drivers of work.
Anyway, the Governments intention is to increase the overall tax take from the airline industry quite sharply so there would not be any reduction compared to APD but, instead, yet another increase.

ford family

 

[Kath2003]

That would be true if we were talking about the same number of carriers under both schemes. This is nothing to do with whether the airline or the passenger pays the taxes (because, of course, that just boils down to the same end game - the passenger pays). The argument of the passenger airlines (not just EasyJet, btw) is that private and freight carriers should be sharing the burden. At the moment, the commercial passenger is is shouldering the lot. The cost per plane under the proposed scheme would then be a fraction of that under the current cost.

I have no doubt that EasyJet has its own business interests at the heart of all this, but I still believe in the fundamental argument that taxes should be shared by all those using the airways.

But why should they? It will mean higher prices for everyone on everyday goods and, at best, the government will make the same amount of tax, but most likely more. Why would they agree to something that's going to cut their income?

There are a gazillion tax discrepencies, not least that Jet A1 fuel isn't taxed yet petrol/diesel for domestic cars is taxed to the hilt. Oh and Avgas, which is used by most small private planes is taxed. Cars are taxed based on annual ownership, not milage. Trains are not exempt from fuel duty, nor are coaches - yet buses are?!

With the current system: you know what the tax is when you leave the country on a plane. You know how much of your fare goes to the airline and how much goes to the government. For some, such as myself, it's too high, so we won't be booking a holiday any time soon, but at least we have a clear oversight as to where our money is going. Changing the system so that everyone and everything is taxed in tiyn percentages will mean that everyone pays more, not least because it will be more difficult for consumers to make an informed choice.

At the end of the day, you'll still wind up paying as much tax, if not more.

 

[wayneg]

Unfortunately any more tax on freight would almost certainly be the end of my business. As 95% of my stock is imported, a lot by air, I would really struggle with more costs on produce. Its bad enough with the Euro down at 1.14.

With produce costing more than ever, electric at a high, Diesel at £1.40/ltr, van insurance up 50% this year (plus more) I am earning less than half I was 5 years ago, there is no way I can increase retail prices in a recession, all these extra costs have come out of my profit/wage. Air freight tax increase would be the final nail in the coffin, I am sure for many other businesses also.

 

[originalkk]

The bottom line on APD is that the government found this any easy way to raise more revenue to fund excessive public spending.

They may try to dress it up for public consumption by claiming it is aimed at reducing travel and hence CO2, but like tax on cigarettes and alcohol, they actually know that people will still want a holiday which involves flying, and will make other sacrifices to pay for it.

They also believed that this would have little impact on UK businesses, despite the fact that many people (myself included) have to travel to customers abroad.

They have excluded transit passengers from APD in order not to ruin the UK's position as an international hub, since other countries charge far less in taxes, but instead expect UK passengers to pay more, which is clearly iniquitous.

Simply continually increasing the tax burden, or spreading it across a wider range of targets is not a solution. We need to get back to a position where people feel it is actually worthwhile working harder or starting a business. If you don't like the continual escalation in APD, I suggest your MP should be contacted. They are supposed to represent us after all.