To think we need to increase taxes on flights. If you fly more you pay more.

[ThereWillBeAdequateFood]

Just that really. I think something like 70% of all flights are taken by 30% of people.

I think we need to move to a system where the tax increases the more you fly. Something like (per year)

10% tax for the first 1000 miles
20% tax for the next 1000 miles
30% tax for the next 1000 miles
40% tax for the next 1000 miles (etc).

AIBU? Should we tax flights more?

If I can find the deals & have the time & resources why shouldnt I fly multiple times

I think the argument is that the deals shouldn’t exist, or not in the form that enables multiples of that sort of trip a year, because it doesn’t reflect the true costs - including to the rest of us.

@CatintheFireplace but it's clear you do. You may not realise it but such an attitude is fundamentally about saying some things just aren't for poor people. That is what raising taxes on flights means. Flying is for the rich. It's why a carbon tax is an obscenity when there are people in this country that live in fuel poverty. It's saying that being warm in winter is for the rich. I don't know why more people aren't disgusted by this, unless they're completely blinded by their own priveledge, or they just don't think poor people should have nice things like holidays or warmth.

@hiddenmnetter To me that’s one of the attractions of a frequent flyer tax, rather than a flat aviation or emissions tax. That those who fly frequently - whether rich or via £20 deals multiple times a year - pay increasingly more per flight, while those who fly once - seeing family, or annual holiday - pay nothing. It deals with the fact that it’s not the annual holiday driving this, it’s those flying multiple times per year who account for the vast majority of flights.

I’d also like to see the revenue from that tax ring fenced and go either to climate change adaptation or research into genuinely low-carbon aviation.

My family are all in Australia. If we moved there, all DH’s family are here so same issue. We are fortunate to be able to afford to visit once a year.

But the flip side of all this is that in the case of catastrophic climate change, it is the poorest who will be worst hit as well. Striking the right balance between the right incentives and disincentives now (and offsets such as WHD to help with increased direct costs from low carbon electricity) in a way that’s properly progressive is difficult, I think.

@hiddenmnetter I don't think people should be taxed more for fuel to heat their houses, that would be a terrible idea. And I would be very pro a progressive taxation system as suggested above, so that the person who takes ones return flight annually pays a bit more, but the people like a pp upthread who take 100+ flights a year, or businesses who fly their employees about willy nilly pay a shit ton more, and are incentivised to reduce this, or take trains where possible for example. It's not about punishing the poor.

If you want to fly more than that you have to buy someone else’s ration. Would be a great way of redistributing money too.

So travel becomes even more the preserve of the rich - those who can't afford their one flight allocation are beaten down into selling it for a low price to somebody with masses of money. The rich get more priviledge to go with the priviledges they already have and can exploit the poor.

We don’t even tax aircraft fuel.

From a summary of the 2019 IPCC Special Report:

*Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.

“Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes,” said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.*

That means that - according to the best science available - to have even the vaguest chance of reversing climate warming, we have 20 years to cut emissions levels to nearly half of what they were 10 years ago.

"Unprecedented changes" will indeed be required. Increasing tax on flights is only a tiny part of what is required - and look at the outrage that provokes.

There are cold countries that are excellent to visit too !

The rich continue to consume, the poor don't. By raising taxes you've decreased CO2 output, but you've done if by punishing the poor for daring to want (even a cheaper version of) what the rich want. It's sanctimonious and arrogant in the extreme.

My point is rather than say 'oh this produces to much CO2 let's stop people doing it' why not invest in research to find ways of making it more CO2 efficient so that people can still travel but just by producing less CO2.

But the first part, which you object to, produces the market forces that drive Co2 reduction at a way more frenetic pace than it would be in the case of rationing.

Rationing is just bonkers.

Comparing a heated home to being able to get cheap flights is bonkers!

One is necessity, the other is a luxury.

Unprecedented changes" will indeed be required. Increasing tax on flights is only a tiny part of what is required - and look at the outrage that provokes

I know whatagot this thread is really depressing. My parents have been talking about the fires in Australia.
“Isn’t it awful” “something must be done”

They have 4 holidays a year. At least one of those is always long haul.

One is necessity, the other is a luxury.

Why does it matter?

All this rich versus poor is a false argument. Yes, it may be annoying that "the rich" do a lot of flying, but there are so few of them compared with the millions of "not rich" people. If "the rich" stopped flying, the effect on the environment/plant would be a drop in the ocean - barely noticeable.

It's a numbers game.

Just like "taxing the rich" - when we have a population of 50+ million who aren't "rich", then taxing a relatively small number of "rich" till their pips squeak won't actually give any tangible benefit to those 50+ million who aren't.

I once did an analysis of Tesco's accounts. If you divided their profit/dividends/directors wages between the staff instead, it would have just been a few pounds per employee - completely insignificant. All it would achieve is to make some people feel better that they'd stopped the "rich" bosses and shareholders "profiting".

At the end of the day it's the "masses" that matter - not the tiny number of "rich". If we really want to "save the planet" by flying less, then that means everyone flying less, even the poor!

All this rich versus poor is a false argument.

It's also ideological rather than pragmatic.

@Kazzyhoward thank you. At last some common sense

@Kazzyhoward this is a little bit dated but seems to go against your argument, it concludes that the 15% of adults in Great Britain who made 3 or more flights (our frequent fliers) made 71% of flights from March 2013 to March 2014.

fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/

Also this, which is more recent. Interesting that 48% took no flights at all.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows

Of course the rich are causing most of the damage. Families scrimping and saving for a short flight to Europe once every year if they’re lucky( many on average income I know don’t fly at all most years due to cost) are no comparison to the rich zipping backwards and forwards long haul, first class (which hoovers up space) every month.

There is no comparison.

@CatintheFireplace correct me if my math is wrong but surely that means 4/5 of the flights taken by people not part of the 1%. If you want to reduce flying increasing the price seems like a sensible option.

Why does it matter?

I would have thought it would be relevant from a moraliatic perspective. Going without one is likely to cause upset, the other is potentially going to be fatal.

Of course if you're arguing for population decline, the latter is preferable...

Great idea op

@Notenoughbookshelves yes but problem is because there is few of the top 1% if you add up all the flights done by the top 1% and all of the people below the 1% that fly because that group includes more people the amount of carbon used by the not 1% out weighes what the1% use even if on an individual level they use more

You don’t have to be in the top 1% to be rich.

@lovepickledlimes, sure, but if you can impact the number of flights taken by just that 1% it would still have a massive impact.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro increasing the cost for everyone (I'm not very rich but still took 3 return flights last year, 2 holidays and a work trip - if the cost had been higher then I (and my employer) might have decided against that) - but proportionally more for the very frequent flyers.

They do need to get rid of 1st class, private jets and actually limit the amount of flights individuals take.