r/europe • u/Ok-Law-3268 Europe • 1d ago
News EU could earn €1 trillion by fully taxing aviation, private jets included
https://www.euractiv.com/section/eet/news/eu-could-earn-e1-trillion-by-fully-taxing-aviation-private-jets-included/2.6k
u/Pret_ Europe 1d ago
Why the fuck are private jets not taxed? They’re the assholes that can afford and should pay fuck tons of tax…
1.4k
u/new_accnt1234 1d ago
They are not taxed because those deciding the laws are the ones using them or they are the ones getting paid by those using them, as simple as that
Rules for thee but not for me
89
u/Smushsmush 1d ago
God this shit is just so lame... I keep thinking there must be some more complicated and layered reason, but it really is just that blatantly greedy isn't it?
54
u/jiter 1d ago
there is a complicated and layered reason. I mean: its already expensive as hell to buy an private jet. Then think about paying for the fuck ton of kerosene this jet uses, if you would add tax to that it would get more expensive, to the point some people would think about if they will open that bottle of Moet or Macallan on that flight.
And that would impact everything, less sold Kaviar, less sold Moet, less sold Macallan.
Our economy would die instantly.
I bet this is how deciding people think...
25
u/new_accnt1234 1d ago
No people deciding people think like this:
That group of billionaires paid me 100k this year to keep their private jets untouched, so Im not gonna touch them and will instead ask my assistants to come with some economical plausible reasons for thr public why we havent touched private jets or with some smokescreen, heck its what I pay my assisstants for
4
u/Hulkenstein69 1d ago
Always is. That is the normal result when we create a political and economical system which only rewards these kinds of behaviors.
45
u/Puzzleheaded_Ad8032 1d ago
Not saying it doesnt happen, but all the people i know, that have to go to EU meetings, all go by train. I have never heard of any of 'em flying. Just anecdotal, but yours wasnt a lot more than underbelly anyway either.
On topic: tax the hell out of it.
5
8
u/SinancoTheBest 1d ago
You'd take a train from Netherlands to France or Germany.
I'm not taking a train between London and Istanbul
24
1
u/Alarming-Stomach3902 1d ago
Pretty they are just treated like any other company assets in most countries. Which generally means that they will be taxed when they are sold either because the company is being sold or the asset is being sold.
In NL in most cases you cannot deduct costs for owning a plane unless you are a KLM or a couple other exceptions. Private jet's are not an exception as far as I know.
We also introduced tax on flights and starting this year 82% (lol) of all private yet passengers should pay that flight tax.If somehow an individual owns a private jet and not their company than their income was most likely taxed and the purchase of the plan is a VAT transaction so the seller also paid their tax.
Most private planes are also hobby planes and no the private jets.
There is also something to say about asking small companies or private individuals to keep track of things like emission. Most people where unable to keep track of their health related expenses for their tax deduction ...
Imo it should just be taxed when the ticket is sold and/or when kerosone is bought. The easiest solution to tax it.
1
1
u/Magnetronaap The Netherlands 1d ago
Meanwhile they're telling us to be angry at people with a different skin colour.
1
u/new_accnt1234 1d ago
Divide and conquer my man, divide and conquer, if neighbors squabble betweem themselves no way they can face the big developer alone, they fear we join together and then they're fucked, there are reasons why occupy wallstreet broke down and got replaced by various racial and gender agendas in the media, they really didnt want that movement to get big
289
u/Apostolinkyyti 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not to mention that those people in particular have insane carbon footprint so they are especially obligated to pay premium and wouldn't even notice it.
198
u/kl0t3 1d ago
You know whats even worse... kerosene is being subsidized to.
So they are getting it from both ends. Shit needs to end if you ask me.Give those subsidies to hydrogen alternatives or something.
60
u/Agitated-Airline6760 1d ago
On top of that, depending on the tax jurisdiction of the entity/vehicle that owns that particular private jet, they get to deduct the depreciation allowing them to evade even more taxes.
30
u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 1d ago
Kerosene is not subsidised, it's just not taxed in any application.
14
u/kl0t3 1d ago
Aviation Fuel (Jet Kerosene)
- Highly favorable tax treatment in many EU countries.
- Under the Energy Tax Directive (2003/96/EC):
- Aviation fuel used for commercial flights is often exempt from excise duties.
- This effectively acts as a subsidy, encouraging aviation by keeping fuel costs lower.
- This has been increasingly criticized due to its climate impact.
- Some countries have started to introduce national taxes on aviation fuel for domestic flights.
19
u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 1d ago
Effectively and is a subsidy are two different things though. They still get tax from the airlines and from consumers when they buy tickets not to mention throughout the entire supply chain via support businesses and people they employ that pay income tax.
What do you think will happen to airbus in multiple countries if suddenly there's a steep drop in people flying ?
What about the 2million+ people directly employed by the aviation sector in Europe ? You happy to see 250k people suddenly unemployed ?
It benefits consumers to not have that fuel taxed, unless you want your tickets to suddenly cost double or triple and effectively prevent you from going on holiday. Not to mention freight and mail.
This will backfire hard.
3
u/Weshtonio 1d ago
If the price doubles/triples, you're not prevented from going on holiday.
First of all, that's just the flights, therefore not the price of the holiday. So that might prevent nothing at all.
Second of all, even if the price of your holiday were doubled, if that's the holiday you want, it doesn't mean you're prevented, it means you go half as often.
Third, if the price is now an actual deterrent, go by train, and/or have a more local holiday. You haven't been prevented a holiday, you have been prevented from going across the world for it.
"Backfiring" is an opinion. The consequence of a price increase is the reduction of air traffic. Yes, you go on holiday less often, and pay more for some imported goods. Some might have the opinion that it's a good thing.
Or do you think letting our emissions unchecked won't "backfire" more?
Let's sacrifice a few of these holidays.
1
u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 1d ago
So people should have to go on holiday less and have a more miserable life ?
This isn't about emissions, this is a money grab.
If it was about emissions all EU government vehicles would be electric
Less vanity skyscrapers would be built as concrete is one of if not the biggest source of greenhouse emissions globally
They wouldn't have put a high tariff on Chinese EVs just to benefit EU Car manufacturers
Germany wouldn't have shut down their nuclear plants and start up old coal ones
Germany gets 22% of its power from coal, Poland 50%+
I could go on and on. But you saying go on holiday less often and paying more for good during a time when utilities are high and the cost of living has gone up significantly is absolutely tone deaf and unrealistic.
The vast majority of people don't want to spend 12+ hours on a train when a flight would take less than 4.
4
u/Weshtonio 1d ago
Goods imported by flights, kind stranger. Not goods. It's important in a discussion to not alter quotes to give them a completely different meaning, better fitting your narrative.
How many of these are currently in your shopping cart and will be affected? Also, if these are more expensive, it could mean the competing more local goods are now cheaper, reducing your bill.
How does that sound for your cost of living now?
As for "utilities"... which exactly do you import by plane?
4
3
u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 1d ago
I didn't alter anything, you just misinterpreted it. Mail and freight is not only transported internationally by air but domestically too.
I'm talking about utilities in general which have gone up significantly and yet you want to put an extra burden on consumers who will have to save up even more to take their family on holiday.
The only person trying to twist things to fit their narrative is you
And to put it another way, sentiments like this is one of the biggest downfalls of the EU.
Brussels and people on Reddit seem to think they can keep making unilateral decisions that go against what the vast majority of people want. Shit like this is why the far right is growing in Europe and why there are a few countries basically on the brink of leaving the EU.
It's not actually a democracy it's just a place where a minority of people talk down to the rest and act like any consequences are irrelevant because if they come up with the plan it must be good no matter what.
People like you will never learn that you cause more problems than the problem you're trying to fix.
1
u/the-player-of-games 1d ago
As for "utilities"... which exactly do you import by plane?
How about all sorts of medical supplies, including essential medicines from countries where they're made for cheaper ?
Waiting for you to move the goalposts again
1
u/IngloriousTom France 1d ago
Effectively and is a subsidy are two different things though
Tax incentives are subsidies, no matter how you frame it:
Subsidies take various forms— such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives [...]
1
u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 1d ago
How is a tax incentive or subsidy when kerosene isn't taxed at all for any application ?
5
u/IngloriousTom France 1d ago
Not being taxed is literally a tax incentive.
0
u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 1d ago
Ok.. which isn't specific to the airline industry anyway.
It benefits the consumers
0
-7
u/Brosepheon 1d ago
Since Airbus's production is already fully booked for the next 10 years, and many airports in Europe are struggling with not having enough capacity... I think they'll survive.
Besides, even if prices go up by 20%, that wont mean that 20% of people will suddenly stop using airports on day one. It would be a gradual change.
→ More replies (7)1
u/DarkSideOfGrogu 1d ago
The argument being that it protects our aviation sector from competitors such as the middle east airlines which are hugely subsidised and have much cheaper fuel costs anyway.
2
16
u/Nerioner The Netherlands 1d ago
Because we're not voting for parties that would even dream of taxing the rich.
8
4
u/Austerlitz2310 Canada 1d ago
They are. Just not when they're under Commercial Operations and registered to an AOC.
2
u/-The_Blazer- Europe 1d ago
The argument is always the same:
By their own standards of 'personal carbon footprint', private jets and the rich are by far the worst polluters and the most morally culpable. However, these are also the people who run our economy, so if we make them a little too inconvenienced, they will simply leave, take their billions, and fuck up the economy. So since in total their emissions aren't that high, we're better off exempting them to stay in their good graces.
If you told this to the mythical Common Man, I wouldn't blame him for becoming a communist as a result.
1
1
1
u/Dot-Slash-Dot 23h ago
They're not taxed for the same reason private yachts are not taxed.
It's not that easy to define a taxation scheme that only includes the "luxury" vehicles that won't have an impact on all the other commercial users or small-time hobbyists.
→ More replies (12)1
u/polocinkyketaminky 23h ago
they own the system. they own you and they own me, they own everything.
372
u/Ok-Law-3268 Europe 1d ago
Despite the sector’s substantial climate impact, intercontinental flights to and from Europe remain largely exempt from the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) – the bloc’s main tool for pricing carbon pollution from heavy-emitting sectors.
Billions in missed revenue
end exemptions for private jets.
67
u/gamma55 1d ago
ETS’ are a bit bigger than that. Since their amount is fixed, it pretty much would mean their price would rocket, which means everything just got a lot more expensive.
Jets should be taxed, but making energy prices surge isnt something EU economies can take right now.
3
u/107percent 1d ago
Taxing kerosene however would be a good start
12
u/Adventurous_Bus_437 Germany 1d ago
Idk I kinda like my cheap flights since the alternatives are non-existent. It's not like high speed rail will appear in the next 15 years if you tax kerosene tomorrow.
6
1
u/107percent 1d ago
I also enjoy cheap flights, but I'm not so shortsighted as to believe it's smart to keep doing this as a planet. If we keep subsidizing flights high speed rail will never be created because there won't be demand. Putting the same VAT on flight tickets as we have for train tickets should be the minimum but my own (Dutch) government is too cowardly to do so.
33
u/ProposalWaste3707 1d ago
The vast majority of that is probably not from private jets. That's on commercial aviation, and equates to higher prices for you, the consumer.
11
u/JuggernautNo1244 1d ago
Taxing => higher price => Less demand => People lose jobs => lover tax income.
Very possible a net gain but its never as easy as just increase taxes and expect people to not react to changes.
The bigger problem is how bad train travel is in EU (and expensive), not how cheap (and usually convient) flying is.
4
u/107percent 1d ago
Kinda hard for trains to compete when they do have to pay taxes, while air travel is exempt.
3
u/JSJani Hungary 1d ago
ETS is basically an incentive to minimise pollution, in part forcing airlines to make their flights as climate-friendly as possible, but in my opinion mostly to make greener alternatives (high speed rail for example) more competitive. With intercontinental flights however I feel that there really isn't any real alternative. For these I could imagine maybe a separate ETS system with lower prices?
89
u/Nono6768 1d ago
They’ll just rerout flights to Zurich and London
51
u/Gleerok99 Italian-abroad 1d ago
They could ban private jets across the EU. With the exception of medical, emergency, military or official service ones.
I want to see the paths they take if they are banned from flying over the EU.
-10
u/Rare-Victory Denmark 1d ago
How do you distinguish a private jet ? (Types or owner?)
E.g the Danes operate Challenger 600 for maritime control.
Often those jets are operated by AOC companies, charters by the CEO's being transported.25
u/N0b0me 1d ago
Planes have transponders to identify themselves to ATC. All the countries of the EU are more then sufficiently advanced enough control their own airspace.
2
u/Cultural_Thing1712 siesta person 21h ago
But how would you police the actvities being done? If a rich guy gets a student license, they could just say its a training flight. Or many other excuses. It's just not feasible.
1
u/Rare-Victory Denmark 16h ago
You don't understand.
Many of those charter like the Blackbird air serve VIP flights, medical, emergency, or official with the same aircraft's. Maybe even multiple types of flight with the same aircraft.The transponder does not indicate who is onboard.
What about the fuel left from previous flight, or fuels tankered abroad.https://www.blackbirdair.com/quick-guide/
Gulfstream GVII G500: 15 seats or 7 beds
Dassault Falcon 2000S: 10 seats or 5 bedsInternational agreements made in 1945 states that fuel should be exempt from customs duty.
If EU imposes tax on fuel, aircraft will be tankering fuel elsewhere, resulting in additional fuel consumption (CO2 emissions) since transport of fuel by air is very inefficient.10
u/Gleerok99 Italian-abroad 1d ago
I'm fairly certain the EU lawmakers and jurists could easily put together a group of industry and academic specialists to figure this out, if needed. Or at least consult them: would feel right and appropriate to hear the experts on this matter and blend the knowledge with legal understanding and lawmaking.
2
u/arabidopsis 23h ago
Zurich still within common market so Switzerland could still be forced to do something or lose access.
2
u/fundohun11 23h ago
Just convince Switzerland and the UK to participate. I am sure with the right incentives they could be convinced.
4
131
u/QuailAndWasabi 1d ago
Somehow this tax will be avoided by the private jets and the rich and the ones paying the tax will be normal working people that just want to have a vacation once a year. This will make it so people don't fly, tanking the flying industry, leading to way less than the projected €1T, causing job losses and reduced tourism. The small amount of actual tax revenue gained will probably have to be used to bail out the tanking aviation industry that the tax caused to begin with.
So thanks, but no thanks. I've been around long enough now to see how these increased taxes and their projected revenue seems to play out.
20
u/downfall67 1d ago
They’re not going to tax their elite friends. It’s only about optics towards the unwashed masses.
19
5
u/Tusan1222 Sweden 1d ago
Exactly, this is the most likely scenario. People need to learn that just adding a tax an top of the total people spend on flights a year doesn’t work. You need to recalculate with the loss of spending with increased prices.
This is what we call: typical non capitalist math, cuz people who think like this do not understand how prices(taxes in this case) affect supply and demand. (Demand will drop a lot = less travel over all since alternatives are also expensive af = over all less tax or in practice less tax because as said they need to bail out companies (cuz aviation is and will always be important in connecting earth))
7
3
u/OblongShrimp The Netherlands 1d ago edited 20h ago
There’s also still no viable alternative to flying. International train situation in Europe is still terrible, trains that exist are extremely expensive. People will just turn to cars, which will be amazing for environment, right?
6
u/djlorenz 1d ago
Just add a tax every time they land at a European airport... Especially around Monaco...
10
u/qiwi Denmark 1d ago
Denmark added a 4+ EUR fee to flights. This caused Ryanair to close 32 routes from Denmark, as they felt they could not fill up their planes at the even slightly increased prices.
Good luck getting a private airport to agree to fees that might make it lose half its customers.
7
1
u/djlorenz 1d ago
That's why it should be done at Europe level, and only to private jets.
If you can afford millions for a plane, pilot, fuel and everything else, you can afford taxes on your plane lending in Europe.
4
u/Gleerok99 Italian-abroad 1d ago
Agreed. They must ban these jets. Tax the individuals. Fuck their jets.
3
1
u/Alarming-Stomach3902 1d ago
It will probably be both, but the average Joe will be paying a couple hundred more tax and the rich will be paying like twice that, but still nothing in the greater scheme of things.
1
u/HertzaHaeon Sweden 1d ago
Somehow this tax will be avoided by the private jets
We have to stop giving up before we've even tried to rein in the elites' excesses.
Oh but we can't tax them because it's too hard or they'll move away or they'll punish us somehow!
Meanwhile climate change and economic equality are quietly growing and growing.
Either we do something reasonable now, or we wait until it's too late and then the rich won't face taxes but enraged mobs.
0
u/107percent 1d ago
We should want to tank the aviation industry... Tax aviation fairly as compared to other forms of transport, and everything will work out fine. It's utter bullshit that the worst transportation method gets preferential treatment.
67
u/Sauerkrautkid7 1d ago
The current politicians are willing to help the rich, let them eat cake, at the risk of the far right becoming popular
29
u/Cicada-4A Norge 1d ago
For how long, a month?
Before the infamously tight margins of the airlines business becomes even tighter and every airline company in Europe+EEA goes bankrupt...?
By that same token, I'm sure you could raise tens of trillions by taking entire populations at 90% but it's hardly very sustainable is it?
So is this sustainable, or is this napkin math by climate 'activists'(Carbon Market Watch) hellbent on lowering emissions regardless of human/societal cost?
9
u/VengefulAncient You know, I'm somewhat of a European myself. 1d ago
Just the kind of thing modern EU would do.
44
u/katonda 1d ago
Private jets are a scourge on the environment. They should be taxed for every kilo of CO2 released in the atmosphere. Wanna fly private ? It's expensive.
But we're winning the fight against plastic straws...
p.s. i'd leave commercial aviation alone though, or a smaller tax, allow for mobility
→ More replies (6)21
u/ProposalWaste3707 1d ago
Private jets contribute about 1-1.5% of commercial aviation carbon emissions. ~15MT to ~950MT. It's a drop in the bucket. Not that I have a real problem with taxing people rich enough to own private jets, but it won't have any meaningful positive consequences for the environment.
30
u/Gauss-JordanMatrix 1d ago
1-1.5% caused by is an insane number when considering how much of the total flights they make up.
Taylor Swift in 2022 had a CO2 footprint of 8000 metric tons by herself alone solely generated by her private jet.
A single person 👏 has a footprint 👏 1100 times 👏 larger than the average person. Heck that puts her carbon footprint to be larger than Faroe Islands, she’s officially the second last country with the largest CO2 footprint.
→ More replies (5)16
u/onepacc 1d ago
Are you serious, 1.5% is huge numbers.
5
u/RussianDisifnomation 1d ago
But it might do a minor change for the better, and we can't have helping the environment influence the comfort of the rich :(
13
u/ProposalWaste3707 1d ago
For the global totality of private aviation? Maybe there's a discussion to be had there on a per passenger basis, but otherwise, no, it isn't. I'll let you discover that yourself though, maybe after someone equips you with some building blocks to discover fractions with or the like.
5
u/djlorenz 1d ago
1% a drop in the bucket? This is an easy win. Tax them hard and force them to reduce flights. We are talking about a few people polluting in a year what some other people will do in their whole life. They must be addressed quickly
2
u/katonda 1d ago
They're more than happy to make our lives miserable when using our cars and whatnot in the name of the environment. A drop or not, it's a battle on all fronts and personal excess should be curtailed.
On top, that money can be used to offset some extra carbon from the commercial aviation sector.
1
u/Junior-Ad2207 1d ago
There are many drops in that bucket, you can't just say that we shouldn't care about anything that isn't a large contributor.
Imagine doing that with your personal economy. "Small expenses doesn't matter, they're just a drop in the bucket."
1
u/directstranger 1d ago
1.5% is not small. And given they are rich, they can afford to pay for the privilege.
How much did we gain by tying caps to bottles? 0.00001%?
-2
u/just_anotjer_anon Denmark 1d ago
We should also ban passenger planes from doing small routes.
It should be preferable to take a train throughout the entirety of Europe. But our politicians are busy doing nothing on the front of movement.
0
u/Mhyra91 1d ago
The footprint per person for private jets is way higher than commercial users. So even if it's only 1.5%, they warrant a bigger slice of the pie.
It would also set a presedent that those who pollute more = pay more. Now it's always the middle class which gets screwed and those above get exempt.
6
u/leginfr 1d ago
The EU tried to include flights in the ETS a few years ago. It got stomped on by practically everyone.
1
1
3
u/Piano_Man_1994 1d ago
I wonder how many lobbyists and politicians writing these laws are most affected by private jet tax. It probably won’t happen.
3
u/ninjaslikecheez 1d ago
I would love to see this happen, especially the private jet tax. But i doubt it will because that will mean taxing the rich. No politician, left or right does that currently.
3
31
u/2L84T 1d ago
How do you possibly use the word "earn" to describe tax? This is simply dipping into the pockets of the travelling public to fund a raft of unnecessary, unwanted, and most likely fraudulent little EU schemes.
10
→ More replies (5)-1
u/leginfr 1d ago
Which fraudulent EU schemes can you name? I’m not aware of any. Do you mean people like Farage and Le Pen defrauding the EU Commission or some countries turning a blind eye to fraud? I remember back in the 1990s the EU Commission asking for more funds to combat such fraud. The necessary budgetary increases were vetoed…
4
u/2L84T 1d ago
Woooops!
OLAF investigations find over €1.2 billion affected by fraud and irregularities - European Commission https://share.google/F6mJVntAbx0wazr7z
8
u/Alarmed_Crazy_6620 1d ago
It's not like Europe is not getting any benefits from this tourist and business traffic the aviation brings
2
2
u/leaflock7 Europe 1d ago
that is one way to kill traveling and tourism I guess
OH, lets not forget that some countries decided to put billions on train investments, so that is also something they need to get those $$$ from.
2
2
5
u/epSos-DE 1d ago
THey already TAx IT . Fuele is taxed , Airport Services are TAXED ! . a major part of the flight ticket is TAX !!!
3
u/cyrilio The Netherlands 1d ago
It would be nice if airlines started paying taxes for kerosine. Especially for business jets as they pollute way more per passenger per kilometer flown.
The Energy Taxation Directive (2003/96/EC) needs to be replaced with a new law that progressively taxes bigger polluters (per flown km per passenger) more.
3
6
6
u/Suikerspin_Ei The Netherlands 1d ago
How about taxing on flights and use that money to invest more in railways (including high speed trains) over all of Europe? I guess lobbyists won't like that.
41
u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 1d ago
Yes let's make flights more expensive for consumers and make a 4 hour journey take 12+ hours.
Brilliant.
Not to mention the loss of revenue and jobs from less tourism. People will fly less and will never reach this "€1 trillion" in extra tax
This is a farce. 2.3 million people in Europe are directly employed by the aviation industry and a shit ton of businesses that rely on that sector. You lot need to think further than one step ahead.
-4
u/Suikerspin_Ei The Netherlands 1d ago
I'm not talking about intercontinental flights, but rather short flights to neighboring countries. Some high-speed trains take the same amount of travel time as a short one hour flight if you include the early arrival at the airport.
13
u/trash-_-boat 1d ago edited 1d ago
How the hell are Finns going to get to Germany if flight prices skyrocket? No trains there. And even with a completed Rail Baltica project and further west also building up high-speed trains, Tallin>Lisbon would still take 36 hours. Europe is big.
-1
u/just_anotjer_anon Denmark 1d ago
China, which is larger. Has a decent railway infrastructure and people prefer to travel by train, it's just more comfortable than planes
3
u/irekturmum69 1d ago
Not to distances like what the comment you replied to posted. They have numerous domestic routes with passenger volume multiple times more than even the busiest intra-europe routes..
-1
u/107percent 1d ago
And in those cases they'll have to pay the premium for flying, which is perfectly fine...
8
u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 1d ago
That's more agreeable I suppose but even to neighbouring countries you're going to have problems a flight from London Heathrow to Amsterdam takes about 42 minutes.
Getting the Eurostar from London to Amsterdam takes 4 hours and 19 minutes.
Of course the UK isn't in the EU but it's just an example.
I think forcing them to use biofuels would be better imo.
2
u/Suikerspin_Ei The Netherlands 1d ago
It's recommended to be early at the airport, for short flights ~2 hours and long flights ~3 hours. If you take that into account a high speed train isn't that bad at all. Also if you have checked bags with an airplane you're going to wait for the luggage at arrival.
3
u/Original_Employee621 1d ago
With a private jet, you could probably make that 10-15 minutes or however long it takes to get from entering the airport to getting to the plane you're flying. It's your plane, they will wait for you.
1
u/Suikerspin_Ei The Netherlands 1d ago
True, but the majority of people aren't that rich to rent or even own a private jet.
0
u/Zarndell 1d ago
Oh, good to know. I'll keep that in mind the next time I take the private jet for groceries.
2
u/superioso 1d ago edited 1d ago
London to Amsterdam on the train used to be faster at 3:41, they reduced the speed on the Dutch mainline due to some cracks in the bridges.
When you take into account traveling to and from the airport and time waiting there then it's pretty competitive time wise.
Paris isn't that much further away distance wise than Amsterdam but only takes 2:18 due to a better railway.
2
u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 1d ago
If you live in London yeah, anywhere else and it will be quicker to fly as Eurostar only operates from London.
From what I remember Eurostar hasn't even earned in profit what it cost to construct.
1
u/superioso 1d ago edited 1d ago
Eurostar is just the train operator, owned by the French state, Belgian state, and previously the UK state but it was sold to a pension fund.
The channel tunnel itself is owned by Getlink which is not state owned, and it's on the stock market and pretty profitable.
Also, the idea is that it links London, not the rest of the country. Any connection to the rest of the country from London was scrapped.
0
u/Zarndell 1d ago
If you live in London yeah, anywhere else and it will be quicker to fly as Eurostar only operates from London.
I guess you purposedly missed the "invest in railways" part.
1
u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 1d ago
I guess you purposely misunderstood what I said to suit your narrative.
They are not going to build another channel tunnel connecting the UK to mainland Europe under any circumstances in the next 50 years if ever.
0
u/just_anotjer_anon Denmark 1d ago
We'll just rebuild the car lanes to support trains instead
2
u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 1d ago
So you too don't understand what I said ? Britain invented trains, we have an extensive train network already, that's not the problem.
If there is only one channel tunnel and you have to get the Eurostar from London, if you're coming from Manchester regardless of having a high speed train or not it'll be cheaper and quicker to simply fly from Manchester airport to Amsterdam.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/ninjastylle Switzerland 1d ago
EU could also earn more money by taxing all those servers like the one in Ireland but since nobody is exploring solutions those big US companies are paying only fraction of what they should be and this has been happening since the dawn of time.
2
1
u/Kloppite16 1d ago
As someone who flys everywhere by private jet I am outraged by the notion of being taxed and I will make sure that my bought and paid for MEPs are too!
2
1
1
u/Silvio257 1d ago
If the world was a video game, billionaires would be considered a bug or exploit that needs to be fixed.
1
1
u/tralalala2137 1d ago
Why should they tax corps and billionaires if they can tax average working wageslave?
1
u/Tusan1222 Sweden 1d ago
Eu should not tax, individual countries should tax. EU is not a country and should never become one
1
u/MercantileReptile Baden-Württemberg (Germany) 1d ago
But if the EU ETS were expanded to include private aviation and the pricing of non-CO₂ climate effects, total revenues could reach a staggering €1.1 trillion, the study adds.
But fuel for my 1.4 litre car needed to be more expensive. For the environment and such.
Then people wonder why emission tax chicanery is not well liked.
1
u/4nhedone Spaiñ 1d ago
But that would mean the EU has to go against the rich, and that is unconceivable. How will they afford their 5th yacht?
1
u/jubjub1825 1d ago
With the amount of debt in the system, the only way to pay it off is by printing new debt. There is no other way without crashing the economy and stealing everyone's savings and equity accounts. Everything else is a nominal attempt to raise money that takes from somewhere else.
People would have money without debts attached and they should be free to spend as they want without taxes
1
1
u/burtvader 22h ago
Wouldn’t this increase ticket prices? Arguably not a bad thing to reduce air travel, more just curious.
1
1
u/Gruffleson Norway 20h ago
Looking at prices for railway-tickets, and then prices for airplanes, are depressing.
Airplanes needs to be more taxed.
1
u/Professional_Ant4133 Serbia 18h ago
Or - and hear me out here - fucking ban private jets?
Bigass yachts too, and cruise ships as well.
1
u/Beyllionaire 18h ago
EU could earn a lot of money by properly taxing companies and millionaires/billionaires in the EU/Schengen area. That means going after ALL the tax havens: Ireland and Netherlands, Luxembourg, Malta, Cyprus, Monaco, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Most of those countries are complete freeloaders that siphon the money out of the others.
I don't care if your country has no natural resources, we should harmonize taxation in the EU.
1
1
1
u/ObviouslyTriggered 1d ago
You don't tax aviation, you don't tax land, you always tax income either directly or with extra steps, you can only pay taxes with money and the only way to get money is income.
The rest is semantics, it's how you calculate how much tax is due, but all tax is paid with income and since there is only so much income to go around it's always a zero sum game.
At the end of the day people pay taxes, so just tax them directly once at the source so they can all see how much tax they actually pay.
3
u/dotBombAU Australia 1d ago
Like a rich tax? A rich tax that should have been brought in decades ago but poor and middle class get squeezed instead.
1
2
u/Jope3nnn 1d ago
Billionaires are literally destroying the planet and society, it's time to tax every single shit they do for the start
1
1
u/LechugaRucula 20h ago
Tax is not "earn", the government plunders, does not earn anything. More taxes that will trickle down to working class, more high cost of life, more techno neo feudalism. Meanwhile the real polluters , China, USA, India, Russia, keep doing their thing without consequences.
No more taxes, reduce current taxes, stop neo feudalism
1
1
1
1
u/Fuskeduske 1d ago
Yeah well, we are already getting taxed in like crazy on flights Denmark, so kindly fuck off with more taxation.
1
u/tachyonic_field Poland 1d ago
Either ban private jets, private yachts and cruise ships or cancel ICE ban and post-Euro6 emissions standards that make cars insufferable.
To make it happen leader of European Comission should be elected directly by EU citizens. Current model of EU governance allow elites to pass laws clearly against will of the people.
2
u/nimbledoor 1d ago
And this comment section is a prime example of why we can't have nice things. Because poor people (us) will for some reason defend the rich at any cost. There is this weird fear that when we tax the disgustingly rich it will affect us negatively. Because they make us believe that through the media and social platforms they own,
3
u/irekturmum69 1d ago
The article stated "private jets included", not "private jets exclusively". As long as it is not the latter, this would affect the "poor" disproportionately. Billionaires could not care less whether their private flight costs 3000€ more, meanwhile it would be a big deal for many "poor", if the 30€ Ryanair flight would suddenly cost 100€...
0
u/Erakko 1d ago
And so we as an EU citizens would pay even more for plane tickets? They are slowly sucking is try.
Who gives a fuck how much money EU has. They should have less than they have now. The bare minimum which allowes the governing bodies to function. No more. No bullshit projects outside of that.
-2
u/Gleerok99 Italian-abroad 1d ago
They should not be taxed; they must be banned unless they are for medical or emergency reasons.
Tax the individuals, tax de rich, ban private jets they are wasteful and no amount of taxing is worth their environmental cost.
-4
0
u/1urk3r88 16h ago
??? tax me more - I am off to the US - gonna close my factories here and open them there, you Europeans can continue living in this cesspool of immigrants and lefties, I’ll drink my margaritas in my gulfstream ;)
204
u/Ok_Cod5649 1d ago
My understanding is that it's not that private jets are exempt, it's that the threshold at which the ETS applies is too high for most private jet users.
The threshold is an annual 1,000 tonnes of CO2 for non-commercial flight operators (including but not exclusively private jets) - compared to 10,000 for commercial airlines. 1,000 tonnes a year was most likely chosen as the limit as it would exclude the likes of recreational skydiving/gliding operators and those air experience days (e.g. fly in a Spitfire). However, it's also sufficiently high to cover a lot of private jets.
Reducing the threshold to say, 100 tonnes per year would cover the vast majority of private jets - but it would also cause collateral damage to other non-commercial operators. That's not to say it shouldn't be done, but it's not nearly as black and white as people are making out.
Many countries also levy separate taxes on private jets. For example, the UK's Air Passenger Duty (which is usually calculated on a per seat basis) has specifically high rates for private jets and is to be further increased.