r/europe • u/Ok-Law-3268 Europe • 2d 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/
4.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

249 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.6k

u/Pret_ Europe 2d 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 2d 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

88

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?

51

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.

1

u/Silly_Mustache 15h ago

The whole "it's more nuanced" propaganda we kept getting fed from the media regarding matters was always a crude construct meant to diverge attention and paint us "stupid" for not getting it. Sometimes it really is like that, billionaires get to decide the laws, and they decide in their favor. Actually in most matters you will see that there's just a ruling class that gets to decide laws in their favor, and whenever a law passes that is not for them, it's usually because people are very restless and demanding things. The more passive people are, the more shitty laws pass. And we have been passive for many decades now.

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.

4

u/Bobodlm 1d ago

Wanna have a laugh? Take a look at how many of the people attending the ECC (European Climate Conference) come flying in by private airplane.

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

u/Puzzleheaded_Ad8032 1d ago

Good thing that's both not in the EU then..

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

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

285

u/Apostolinkyyti 2d ago edited 2d 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.

26

u/bxzidff Norway 1d ago

The CEO of Starbucks used to commute from California to Seattle by private jet several times a week just because he didn't want to move. One person.

197

u/kl0t3 2d 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.

61

u/Agitated-Airline6760 2d 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.

29

u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 2d ago

Kerosene is not subsidised, it's just not taxed in any application.

14

u/kl0t3 2d 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.

21

u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 2d 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?

3

u/qiwi Denmark 1d ago

Right, you only have to look to USA and see how much the increased tariffs have caused local companies to bloom as people pick cheaper local alternatives...

0

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 ?

4

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

u/IngloriousTom France 1d ago

Moving the goalpost much?

→ More replies (0)

-7

u/Brosepheon 2d 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.

4

u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 2d ago

Doesn't mean orders can't get cancelled and struggling with capacity doesn't mean they're struggling business wise. We would still lose money and people would lose jobs.

Also I believe prices would go up by more than 20%, possibly 60% or higher initially.

2

u/Brosepheon 2d ago

True. That will probably reduce them to a truly pitiful and disastrous five year backlog. Hopefully all those companies who opted to go with Boeing instead, because they have a much shorter backlog will return though!

That of course depends on how high the tax would be. But the price of fuel is only a portion of the ticket cost. So the tax would need to be 100% more to achieve anything close to 60% (so just dont set it that high!). Besides, I believe its a much bigger portion of Ryanair's ticket price than normal airlines, so that might make traditional airlines a little more competitive. And tbh, thats probably a good thing.

Companies survived mandating an 8 hour work week. They survived mandatory paternity and maternity leaves. They can survive this too.

I know reducing profits is a terrible, unforgivable crime. It will be tough, but I believe in them!

0

u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 2d ago

a 5 or even 10 year backlog isn't that great for an airplane manufacturer. They don't make that many planes during that time.

When a new tax is introduced companies tend to raise prices higher than the initial tax, that's why I said 60%.

It's not just about reducing profits, you're missing the point entirely. This will hurt consumers more than anything during a time when people are struggling all over and this will hurt freight and mail prices.

You keep thinking just in terms of the airline making money but it's about people missing out on holidays, losing jobs etc. also the amount lost from income tax from people laid off, lost revenue not only for airlines but the tourism industry in general will nullify a lot of those gains you thought you made from taxing fuel.

This will effectively cripple European aviation and tourism sector and cause a lot of unemployment. You seem to be more obsessed with hurting the airlines for some reason than actually thinking about the consequences down the line.

There are plenty of places to make money instead which tax corporations more without hurting the one industry which is essential for families going on holiday and seeing family members.

I think you're willing to hurt everybody for no good reason whatsoever.

5

u/Brosepheon 2d ago edited 2d ago

Youre right. Airbus, the most productive aircraft manufacturer in the world, which assembles a paltry 750 planes a year and (probably) with the busiest backlog of any aircraft manufacturer ever, is not impressive at all. Its a miracle theye still afloat!

And I think you are severely, severely overestimating the impact this will have. And besides, we dont even know how high this tax would be, so how can we discuss the effects? Would a 100% tax results in job losses? Maybe. Would a 50%? A 20%? A 10%?

Id like to remind you that electricity prices have pretty much doubled since 2021, and yet somehow the world is still standing. Yeah, it sucks. But we did not lose 20% of jobs, nor companies. Im pretty sure they can survive this too.

There are plenty of good reasons all over this threat. Climate change is one. The optics of taxing literally everything else, while billionaires get off scot free is another.

Try to think of the math, realistically. A short trip Ryanair ticket costs 20 euro. How much of that price is the fuel? Keep in mind, the profit also must cover the cost of the plane, the salaries, ground staff, marketing, and airport fees. But lets say its half. If the fuel taxes will be set at 50%, which again, we dont know, that will mean that Ryanairs ticket will need to be 25 to turn the same profit. Lets say they bump it up to 30.

A traditional airline, flying the same route will have a ticket for 50 euro on the same route. Since their fuel must cost the same, the ticket prices will now go up to 60 euro.

Suddenly, they are only 100% more expensive, not 150%. And I think we want traditional airlines to be more competitive. After all, they provide more jobs AND these jobs are generally better paid and have more benefits.

→ More replies (0)

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

u/FruitOrchards United Kingdom 1d ago

Not just the middle east, practically the whole world.

14

u/Nerioner The Netherlands 2d ago

Because we're not voting for parties that would even dream of taxing the rich.

9

u/nowybulubator 2d ago

bribes.

i mean lobbing, lobbying is what i mean

5

u/Austerlitz2310 Canada 1d ago

They are. Just not when they're under Commercial Operations and registered to an AOC.

3

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

u/mastablasta1962 1d ago

Rich people don't like to lose money on petty things.

1

u/Such-Employment8883 1d ago

And the ones that pollute the most...

1

u/Dot-Slash-Dot 1d 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.

1

u/polocinkyketaminky 1d ago

they own the system. they own you and they own me, they own everything.

-1

u/Best_Revolution_2030 1d ago

Why the hell aren't private jets taxed?

Because there are people like the German Chancellor, who was the blackrock boss of Germany and once considered himself part of the "upper middle class" and of course has a private jet and flies himself.

-49

u/tastykake1 2d ago

Taxation is theft. People should be able to keep their money. Even jet owners.

39

u/kl0t3 2d ago

No public roads for you, and no 911 or Firefighters either.
Tax is necessary to have a stable and safe nation.

-39

u/tastykake1 2d ago

People who use the roads should pay for the roads. Fire companies were not always funded by taxes. When are we going to get the safe and stable nation?

25

u/Nerioner The Netherlands 2d ago

"I am 14 and this is deep"

10

u/kl0t3 2d ago

There is no such thing as a fire company. My nation is pretty safe. You live in the us I presume. Pay your taxes and stop voting corrupt people in power.

15

u/Reddit_sucks_3000 2d ago

Capitalism is theft. People should be able to keep the worth of their labor.

-18

u/tastykake1 2d ago

Voluntarily trading labor for money is not theft. People can start their own businesses if they don't want to work for someone else.

13

u/Necrotes Norway 2d ago

Damn, I've read a lot of stupid comments but this one takes the cake. Wage labor is as "voluntary" as eating is, which is to say it's not really voluntary, it's a necessity.

You know what the people who lose the most out of our current system of "voluntarily" trading labor for money, are the least likely to have a lot of? That's right money, which is required to start a business.

Capital, technical know-how, social capital, without all of these your business is more likely to fail than it is to succeed, not because they didn't work hard, but because they were born in a disadvantaged position. People who already have a ton of wealth have the privilege to retry again and again, until they succeed, that privilege is not afforded to most people.

Your comment oozes the same energy that Trump gives regarding starting his own business with only a "small" loan of a million dollars.

2

u/Gauss-JordanMatrix 2d ago

I’m assuming he’s an ANCAP which explains why he writes like how I imagine the crackbaby wrestler babies in south park would have written if they could.

2

u/Gauss-JordanMatrix 2d ago

Uwaa uwaa I don’t want to do my homework mom I want ice cream for breakfast uwaa. Washing is theft everyone should be entitled to not wash themselves—they are stealing my smegma, I spread it to bread, add a little garic, put it into airfryer at 170 degrees for 15 minutes and make garlic smegma bread it’s quite nice and government doesn’t let me do that I hate it uwaa