Aviation fuels for international and domestic flights shold be taxed to combat climate change?
Answer:
Yea, the true face of "global warming". An excuse to raise taxes.
nice theory.
Where would the collected taxes go? To the country that collects them,or to some imaginary uncorrubtable world bank,that exists to do what?
Aviation accounts for only about 1% of the emissions, so anything you do with aviation will only solve 1% of the problem. Cars account for something like 30% of the problem, so anything you do with cars will solve 30% of the problem.
Anyway, raising taxes does not help at all. People will just pay more for fuel and keep polluting. How does that help?
Good Idea... but no matter how much tax is imposed..planes will still be flying..the atmospere will still suffer...those who can afford will pay no matter how much it will cost.
I think it's much better not to use planes at all...
i wish aladdin's magic carpet is real and can be replicated..
ABSOf'inLUTELY!
Jet engines pump hugh quantities of combustion products and unburned fuel directly into the most vulnerable part of our atmosphere. They get the same m.p.s. (miles per seat) as a 5 passenger mid sized car, yet you pay tax for the gas for your car and they don't!
The people who whine that it's a "green meanie" tax are the same people that whine about everything and overpay for garbage.
Taxing anything because of alledged Global Warming or spending those taxes on Global warming is rediculous!
I would no more pay such taxes that donate money to a Buddist Temple!
And how exactly will taxing fuel combat climate change? All it will do is force people to pay more for flying since the cost will definitely be passed directly on.
There are a number of problems associated with increasing taxation and these are illustrated by looking at the historical record.
Firstly, an increase in tax does not lead to a proportional decrease in the use of a product or service. When we look at the tax imposed on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline etc it doesn't correspond to a decrease in consumption. Taxation of these commodities is at the highest level to date and yet we consume more alcohol and gasoline than ever before. The decline in tobacco consumption is more down to health and social issues than cost.
Secondly, governments have an appauling record on issues such as this and more often than not the revenue raised is spent in other areas. Europe for example has the highest fuel prices in the world - approx $8 or $9 per gallon, the majority of this cost being taxation. The respective gorvernments often claim that this tax burden is to reduce reliance on the motor vehicle. It doesn't work and vehicle usage increases year on year with no indication that the rate of growth has even be slowed by increasing taxation. What it does do is to push up the price of goods and services and ultimately the consumer pays more. Further, for every $4 collected in taxes from the motorist only $1 is spent on transportation. Those who have switched from private car to other forms of transport cite health, social and environmental concerns as being the reason - not the cost.
In short, any increase in taxation is unlikely to reduce the number of air miles flown, revenue raised is unlikely to be used to combat climate change and any increased costs are likely to be passed on to the consumer.
--------------------------
Unlike road trasnport, there is no viable alternative to air transport. Today people have more time and more disposable income and are ultimately going to take more flights. Globalisation of commerce means that in many cases business is conducted at international level and the opening and expansion of world markets means that goods are sourced from further afield than ever before. All these are leading to a rapid increase in the number of flights and predictions are that numbers will double in the next 30 or 40 years. Taxation on aviation fuels will do little to slow this growth.
Perhaps the emphasis shouldn't be so much on taxation but looking at alternatives. One possible solution would be carbon offsetting. A premium of approximately 5% on the cost of tickets would finance programmes that would completely offset the emissions from aircraft flights. The airlines themselves would raise the money which would be used to fund their own, or third-party, offsetting programmes. There would be no need for government involvement.
No, No don't even ask a question and you want people agree with you. You're wrong man and no taxes should be spent on global warming
No new taxes, NO NEW TAXES, NO NEW TAXES!!!!
Is there no tax on them now? That would surprise me. Everything is taxed except air and that's next.
What makes you think they aren't. Maybe, the person traveling should have to pay a higher rate the more they travel.
Who has the greater impact - the person who travels once a year or the person who travels fifteen times per year.
Yes aviation fuels for international and domestic flights should be taxed to combat climate change. Now a days due to time constraint & convenience and offer of apex fares by various Airlines people have started travelling by air. As a result there has been increase in no. of flights especially during the summer vacations and holidays. During this period the scene of airport is worth-seeing, it becomes worst even than railway platforms. Our atmosphere is getting polluted due to emission of CO2 and other harmful gases in the air. It is, therefore, necessary that aviation fuels may be taxed to avoid many people travelling by Air, thereby reducing emission of harmful substances in the environment.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: