Airline industry attacks Air Passenger Duty
Many families going on holiday will be forced to pay an extra £100 in air taxes from next week, making some trips abroad \”unaffordable\”, the travel industry has warned.


This is the point of the tax. That, peeps not having paid the full price of their travel before, now do so. That those pesky externalities of carbon emissions are paid for.

And yes, this is exactly what the point of the tax is, at least in theory. That people who don\’t think a flight is worth paying the full cost of a flight don\’t take a flight. In this manner we deter emissions which are not worth, in the value perceived by those emitting, the costs imposed by the emissions.

Now, it\’s certainly possible to argue that the tax is too high, I\’ve not run the numbers against Stern\’s $80 per tonne CO2. But the basic concept, the theory, is that it should indeed act exactly this way. We could also argue that it should be per plane, not per passenger.

Manny Fontenla-Novoa, Thomas Cook Group\’s chief executive, said the company was disappointed that the Government had continued with its plans to increase the duty.

\”There is no evidence of this tax having any environmental benefit,\” he said. \”We will continue to lobby on behalf of our holidaymakers.\”

Manny, you\’re arguing that some people will be dissuaded from flying as a result of the tax. That is the environmental benefit.

It\’s certainly possibl to make this tax better: but the existence of the tax and the dissuading of people from flying, well, that\’s the point.

6 thoughts on “Snigger”

  1. Or you could believe that global warming is not such a big thing after all and that it’s been hyped beyond all recognition by groups such as 10:10 who believe that all non-believers should be killed. Therefore such taxes are nothing more than pure money grabbing. Cynical? Moi?

  2. “Many families going on holiday will be forced to pay an extra £100 in air taxes from next week, making some trips abroad “unaffordable””

    If the extra £100 makes the holiday unaffordable for this mythical family, then it almost certainly wasn’t affordable for them before the tax change.

    If it was marginal , then cut the spending by £100 by going somewhere cheaper, spending less on ice-creams and trips or souvenirs.

    This is really not that difficult to understand.

  3. I go by train, not because I can’t afford the extra scam tax (train is more expensive actually) but largely due to what MadbutSadLad said.

    I refuse to contribute voluntarily to the illicit fortunes being made by Gore, Pachuri, and the rest of the AGW bandits.

    Especially as its all completely pointless anyway.

  4. Brian, follower of Deornoth

    Of course public-sector employees are travelling for business of vital national interest, so the tax bill will be picked up by the taxpayer, not the person on the jolly (sorry, business of vital national interest).

  5. It’s just like any carbon taxes – purely to keep the peons in their place whilst providing the necessary taxes so that the great and good can keep attending important conferences in far flung (and extremely attractive) corners of the world.

    Time to cut the UK subsidy to the UN perhaps?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *