Tax Plane Tickets to "Help" 3rd World?!?

[Atlanteax]

BLEEP NO!!! :mad:

Damn Socialists.... :flame:

.

.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=646523

G8 wants tax on airline tickets to help world poor
By Philip Thornton, Economics Correspondent
13 June 2005


Airline groups have condemned plans by the world's richest countries to impose a tax on airline tickets to fund extra money for poor African countries - and make a gesture towards fighting climate change.

Finance ministers from the G8 agreed at the weekend to look at using income from airline traffic to boost aid.

Although the tax might only amount to a few extra pence on a ticket, experts believe the move would be a major blow to cut-price airlines that sell tickets for as little as £1.

The move, which could add a pound on to air fares, was greeted with delight by environmental groups who said it was a first step towards making people pay the true cost of plane travel.

The plan emerged in the text of the communiqué issued after the two-day meeting in London but was initially overshadowed by the high-profile agreement by the G8 to wipe out $40bn (£22bn) of Third World debt.

The G8 backed a pilot project, led by France and Germany, for a "contribution of air travel tickets to support specific development projects."

Hans Eichel, the German Finance Minister, said: "The air ticket tax ... is now on the working programme of the G8. No one in the G8 has said anything against it."

Gordon Brown is understood to have consented to the new plan, seen as a sign of a trade-off in exchange for France and Germany dropping their initial opposition to the terms of his debt cancellation plan.

BA said the notion of the tax was "illogical". A spokeswoman said: "There is no justification for singling out airline passengers for an additional tax to fund development in the Third World."

She said it was hard to see why aid for small business in Mozambique should be funded in part by a family travelling from Glasgow to Malaga for a holiday.

A spokesman for easyJet said the proposal was "confused". "Why only target airline passengers - why not bus passengers?" he asked. "If you want to go after a particular industry why not go after the oil industry, where companies such as BP and Shell make record profits."

There would be no side-benefit for the environment as the tax would not give any incentive on people to alter their behaviour, he said. "Aviation could put hundreds of millions of pounds into the Treasury and it would have no impact on the environment."

Ryanair said it would "strongly oppose" anything that would increase charges for consumers.

But John Stewart, the chairman of Transport 2000, a pressure group, said the proposal was a step forward as the aviation industry was undertaxed.

"Aviation is a great contributor to global warming and it is African countries which will be the greatest sufferers from it," he said. "It seems there is a logic about a tax on aviation, which is a great polluter, to help those will be the top victims. It could be a Live Aid of the air."

The G8 also warned that "sustained high energy prices are of significant concern since they hamper global economic growth".

[Edited on 6-13-2005 by Atlanteax]

[Groldar]

Do you post every news article you read without any commentary on the boards? Not being a dick, just wondering. Because its quite uninformative about anything besides... well the news.

[Wezas]

Boo hoo, I might have to pay a few cents in tax when flying through Europe.

Shouldn't you be posting in the Hilary thread?

[Atlanteax]

I think could set a bad precedent. Next thing you know, there's all these "little extras" on your plane ticket purchase.

G8 also includes the U.S. where most of us fly about.

[xtc]

There is nothing worse than a rich white socialist who inherited his/her money.

They would add a tax to the already struggling airline industry. Since 9-11 the airline industry has been on life support, add to that the rising cost of fuel and taxes added to cover increased security at airports. Now they want to add a third world tax? How arbitrary and random is this? Talk about stupid.

[Gan]

For those of us who travel, we are already taxed for local efforts such as new football stadiums and the like. We dont need any more taxes like this.

All this tax will do is be passed along in increasing prices of goods and services to the consumer (passed through). So if you dont think your money goes far enough now, it will go even shorter distances if you keep adding taxes like this onto it.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Groldar
Do you post every news article you read without any commentary on the boards? Not being a dick, just wondering. Because its quite uninformative about anything besides... well the news.

Why dont you follow your own advice and say something informative instead of just whining about someone else's post.

:troll:

[Back]

I’d rather see nationalized natural resources than this.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
I’d rather see nationalized natural resources than this.

You mean government owned and run utilities, farms, etc?

Didnt Russia try that back before they went bankrupt? Doesnt Chile have that now and is having massive corruption trouble?

That gives way too much power into the hands of way too little people in my opinion.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash
I’d rather see nationalized natural resources than this.

You mean government owned and run utilities, farms, etc?

Didnt Russia try that back before they went bankrupt? Doesnt Chile have that now and is having massive corruption trouble?

That gives way too much power into the hands of way too little people in my opinion.

No doubt there needs to be close scruitiny for corruption, but how is the profit of a nations natural resources in the hands of a few intstead of the people of that nation any better if not worse?

[Gan]

Following Russia's example, the government would redirect resources into other areas like army etc. instead of re-investing into fixing/upgrading the resources used to harvest the natural resources. Things break and people do without (starve etc.).

If it were driven by a competitive market then you'd see several players in the field vying for business/customers which encourages bringing a better product to the consumer without gaps in service. If the service providers fail in being the most efficient in provision and delivery of services then they lose business and will be forced out of the market until they adapt. Whereas if the government fails to deliver then the people do without instead of having a substitute good/service to turn to. That woud suck being without food, water, electricity.

It also ensures there are no gaps in services due to government misdirection and red tape. Most natural resources in the US have been part of the competitive market except for electrical which have just recently (past 20 years) been released to free market firms. There are still mountians of regulation but it allows for more than one firm to be in place instead of a government run/owned monopoly.

A monopoly in any service is never a good thing. Unless you're the one holding ownership of the monopoly.

[Gan]

What I'd like to see is a stable government established with the power to incorperate and manage their own natural resources programs through a competitive market. There are plenty of successful models to follow in the world. Anything but being the proverbial 'crack fiend on the corner begging for money while wearing $50 headphones attached to a $300 Ipod'.

[Hulkein]

As one of those interviewed in the article said, it sounds pretty damn illogical.

Again, 'boo hoo, a few extra cents,' isn't the point, it's the principle of it.

I don't hear you or any other democrat accepting the claim of 'boo hoo, the chances of the government actually looking at my library and health records because of the Patriot Act are infintesimal' as a reason why it should stay around.

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by Hulkein]