11–20 of 578 posts
Based on recent events, I'm sure this will be well received...
Why? The protest that originated "gilets jaunes" was because the increase in gasoline price would affect low wage workers for which their car was one of the main tools for their job. I cannot imagine many low wage workers that depend on international flights to take home some bread...
(there is absolutely no indication that this will somehow help the environment. I 'm heavily against flying , but i m also appalled by the level of gullibility here)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tbh, I like it - only 25% of the population flies, and it's the top tier (mostly). My biggest problem is it's so low. 1.5/3 Euro for EU/non-EU travel.
And that sucks. More freedom is good. More taxing won't help more people travel. That is, of course, the intention here. But that's not a solution, its pretty regressive.
Generations from now, people will, if there are any left, look back on these bourgeois luxuries as a kind of grotesque oppulance, utterly out of whack with ecological reality.
I don't really understand what the purpose of this tax is. There's no alternative to burning fuel by energy density on an airline, so why go after flights? What do they expect them to do? If you're taxing petrol cars you'd expect electric cars to become more economically viable. Either way I disagree with carbon taxes. They're regressive, and ignore the fact that regular people are being badly hurt by them whereas th…
Use trains.
Isn't the title misleading? From the article: "The new French tax will be 1.5 euros for flights within France." Unless "out of France" simply means originating in France, regardless of whether the destination is in France or not. Either way, the original title is better, I would keep it: "France to tax flights from its airports"
Based on recent events, I'm sure this will be well received...
Why? The protest that originated "gilets jaunes" was because the increase in gasoline price would affect low wage workers for which their car was one of the main tools for their job. I cannot imagine many low wage workers that depend on international flights to take home some bread...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tbh, I like it - only 25% of the population flies, and it's the top tier (mostly). My biggest problem is it's so low. 1.5/3 Euro for EU/non-EU travel.
And that sucks. More freedom is good. More taxing won't help more people travel. That is, of course, the intention here. But that's not a solution, its pretty regressive.
If people want to travel, the continent's already covered with roads and rail.
I don't really understand what the purpose of this tax is. There's no alternative to burning fuel by energy density on an airline, so why go after flights? What do they expect them to do? If you're taxing petrol cars you'd expect electric cars to become more economically viable. Either way I disagree with carbon taxes. They're regressive, and ignore the fact that regular people are being badly hurt by them whereas th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tbh, I like it - only 25% of the population flies, and it's the top tier (mostly). My biggest problem is it's so low. 1.5/3 Euro for EU/non-EU travel.
And that sucks. More freedom is good. More taxing won't help more people travel. That is, of course, the intention here. But that's not a solution, its pretty regressive.
Every kg of CO2 you contribute to pushing out in the atmosphere is a little bit of freedom taken away from the generations coming after you that will have to deal with the consequences.
If airplane flights are inappropriately priced compared to the externalities they cause - which I’d argue is the case, as with any industry powered by fossil fuel - then taxes are a great way to deal with that.
What alternate solutions do you propose?