Come fly with me....not.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:17 pm

The governments latest plan to cut fuel emmission seems to be...tax the public. Seems early indications are that people making more than one flight per year will face taxes. This may not of course actually stop people flying, but it will get a few bob in the coffers. Could be a costly exercise for business people. Only heard a snatch of this just now but it seesm a very
debatable topic.

Henrik's fan club · Post by **Henrik's fan club** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:20 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:The governments latest plan to cut fuel emmission seems to be...tax the public. Seems early indications are that people making more than one flight per year will face taxes. This may not of course actually stop people flying, but it will get a few bob in the coffers. Could be a costly exercise for business people. Only heard a snatch of this just now but it seesm a very
debatable topic.

Not the government, it's the tories latest load of 'We love the environment' bullshit. That Cameron, what a grade A tosser he is

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:05 am

Tim Hames seems to sum up the situation pretty well:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 500228.ece

From a political point of view I think Cameron's Green push is fairly sensible, even it's not something I am overly exercised by myself, but I'm not sure that taxing holidays is the direction in which I would take the Conservative Party at this stage...

Nozza · Post by **Nozza** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:34 am

So basically anyone who leaves the country will be taxed?

FWIW, I think the whole "save the planet" is bollocks. The temperature of the earth has often flunctuated, in the 70's (?) people were worried about another Ice Age! Humans have helped "warm" the planet at a quicker rate than normal, but its a load of hot air (no pun intended). Anyhoo, I'll be dead, my kids'll be dead, their kids'll be dead etc before any major impact happens.

Athers · Post by **Athers** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:36 am

It does seem to be getting silly that if any possibly problem with the environment is identified, the solution is to suggest some sort of tax or carbon restraining order on us, despite the average Brit being what must be towards a billionth of the human carbon emissions total. (made up number).

Taxing our holidays is not a way to win votes. As The Times' writer says, low-cost airlines have been fantastic for the British. I'm going to Berlin in May and paying around £40 tax on top of a £15 flight bill. I wonder what that tax bill will be like if it was my second trip of the year in an attempt to disuade me?... £60, £100? Ridiculous.

enfieldwhite · Post by **enfieldwhite** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:39 am

Hoolio wrote:So basically anyone who leaves the country will be taxed?

FWIW, I think the whole "save the planet" is bollocks. The temperature of the earth has often flunctuated, in the 70's (?) people were worried about another Ice Age! Humans have helped "warm" the planet at a quicker rate than normal, but its a load of hot air (no pun intended). Anyhoo, I'll be dead, my kids'll be dead, their kids'll be dead etc before any major impact happens.

This could still happen Hoolio. If the Ice Caps continue to melt at the rate they are it could cause the Gulf Stream, which brings warm water from the caribbean to our shores, to be diverted south thus giving us a similair climate to our Scandinavian neighbours ie f*cking cold.

superjohnmcginlay · Post by **superjohnmcginlay** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:43 am

enfieldwhite wrote:
Hoolio wrote:So basically anyone who leaves the country will be taxed?

FWIW, I think the whole "save the planet" is bollocks. The temperature of the earth has often flunctuated, in the 70's (?) people were worried about another Ice Age! Humans have helped "warm" the planet at a quicker rate than normal, but its a load of hot air (no pun intended). Anyhoo, I'll be dead, my kids'll be dead, their kids'll be dead etc before any major impact happens.
This could still happen Hoolio. If the Ice Caps continue to melt at the rate they are it could cause the Gulf Stream, which brings warm water from the caribbean to our shores, to be diverted south thus giving us a similair climate to our Scandinavian neighbours ie f*cking cold.

This ice cap thing confuses me. I heard that although the artic ice is shrinking the antarctic ice actually increased by about 8% recently. WTF that all about?

warthog · Post by **warthog** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:19 am

If there's a bandwagon Cameron isn't prepared to jump on I've yet to see it.

Expect an estimate of how much this idea will cost business in the next few days. After that it will be quietly forgotten.

It looks like I'll be deliberately spoiling my ballot paper at the next election again.

InsaneApache · Post by **InsaneApache** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:28 am

Yup. None of the above should be put on the ballot paper. Daves just a Blair-lite.

As an aside the fascists seem to be gaining ground. Not a bit surprised.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 496782.ece

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:38 am

InsaneApache wrote:Yup. None of the above should be put on the ballot paper. Daves just a Blair-lite.

As an aside the fascists seem to be gaining ground. Not a bit surprised.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 496782.ece

Immigration is a major issue the government have failed to address with any positivity. Little wonder any party who makes it a prime objective is going to gain support. Think I'll start a "Happy Medium Party" who undertake their campaigns whilst having a pie and a pint in the local, rather than a two-hundred-strong paid for lunch every time they meet. There are strong indication of the Marie Antoinette philosophy evident in our present government...and we all know what happened to those.

Athers · Post by **Athers** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:46 am

Sounds like CAMRA, TD..

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:05 am

Where Cameron is making a mistake (well, ONE of the places) is that he seems to believe that all this band-wagon jumping is the reason he's rising in the polls when, in fact, it's because no-one trusts Blair any more, his whole crony-based leadership has gone to rat-shit & there's little appitite for Gordon Brown as an alternative.

Labours come of the rails mate, all you need to do is keep your nose clean.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:18 am

bobo the clown wrote:Where Cameron is making a mistake (well, ONE of the places) is that he seems to believe that all this band-wagon jumping is the reason he's rising in the polls when, in fact, it's because no-one trusts Blair any more, his whole crony-based leadership has gone to rat-shit & there's little appitite for Gordon Brown as an alternative.

Labours come of the rails mate, all you need to do is keep your nose clean.

Where they're all making a mistake is in the old maxim "Charity begins at home". Every single one of the great "Empire" nations has paid the price of their greed. We are paying the price of ours. You can't just "send in a gunboat" any more. The short-sightedness of our pre-decessors has finally come home to roost.

Bench · Post by **Bench** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:05 pm

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Tim Hames seems to sum up the situation pretty well:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 500228.ece

From a political point of view I think Cameron's Green push is fairly sensible, even it's not something I am overly exercised by myself, but I'm not sure that taxing holidays is the direction in which I would take the Conservative Party at this stage...

As I understand it, taxation will apply to anyone who flies more than 2,000 miles in a calender year. Sounds a lot right? Wrong. It's a return trip to the Costa Del Sol. Which means (and I'm just throwing figures into he ring here as I don't have the benefit of a few hundred civil servants to carry out the research), that a fair number of families (50-60%?) who annually holiday abroad will get hit with yet more tax (on top of all the taxes you now get on flights and at the airport).

Me and wife went to New York last year. It was the first time we had flown in three years. By adopting Mr Cameron's approach, whether we flew once in three years or ten would not matter one jot. If you surpass 2,000 miles in one year you get hit with the bill, so you get no annual credit by NOT flying.

Money making rather than environmental policy. Simple as. Most people will have their day in the sun no matter - we fecking work hard enough for it to pay the ridiculous level of taxation in this country as it is. Therefore, I doubt the number of people actually holidaying abroad will drop sufficiently - so what's the point? Add to that, that if numbers travelling abroad DID drop, most operators would offer deals with increased savings in any case, meaning that a fair few packages would cost the same as they did before tax increases.

Just my opinion of course.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:01 pm

I work in travel, and it confuses me.

Bertie · Post by **Bertie** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:27 pm

Bench wrote:
Me and wife went to New York last year. It was the first time we had flown in three years. By adopting Mr Cameron's approach, whether we flew once in three years or ten would not matter one jot. If you surpass 2,000 miles in one year you get hit with the bill, so you get no annual credit by NOT flying.

Money making rather than environmental policy. Simple as. Most people will have their day in the sun no matter - we fecking work hard enough for it to pay the ridiculous level of taxation in this country as it is. Therefore, I doubt the number of people actually holidaying abroad will drop sufficiently - so what's the point? Add to that, that if numbers travelling abroad DID drop, most operators would offer deals with increased savings in any case, meaning that a fair few packages would cost the same as they did before tax increases.

Just my opinion of course.

Easy way round it. Book a return ticket to Amsterdam (800 miles round trip from Manc?) as it's a nearby hub. Then fly on to NY with a non-UK carrier. Takes your money away from UK carriers and gives it to the Dutch/Germans/USA etc. Probably cheaper too.

Bench · Post by **Bench** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:44 pm

Bertie wrote:
Bench wrote:
Me and wife went to New York last year. It was the first time we had flown in three years. By adopting Mr Cameron's approach, whether we flew once in three years or ten would not matter one jot. If you surpass 2,000 miles in one year you get hit with the bill, so you get no annual credit by NOT flying.

Money making rather than environmental policy. Simple as. Most people will have their day in the sun no matter - we fecking work hard enough for it to pay the ridiculous level of taxation in this country as it is. Therefore, I doubt the number of people actually holidaying abroad will drop sufficiently - so what's the point? Add to that, that if numbers travelling abroad DID drop, most operators would offer deals with increased savings in any case, meaning that a fair few packages would cost the same as they did before tax increases.

Just my opinion of course.
Easy way round it. Book a return ticket to Amsterdam (800 miles round trip from Manc?) as it's a nearby hub. Then fly on to NY with a non-UK carrier. Takes your money away from UK carriers and gives it to the Dutch/Germans/USA etc. Probably cheaper too.

That is pure genius fella. I like your thinking.