this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
272 points (97.9% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No VAT or fuel tax is madness
I knew about the lack of a kerosene tax for flights but no VAT on international flights is just downright nuts to me.
Bread, Tampons, and books are more highly taxed than (most international) flights. Talk about distorted markets.
Why is this still a thing... this should be the top issue on all political agendas
Now I don't agree with it (in fact, I am strongly opposed to the tax exemption), but the reasoning is that this way you create an 'even playing field' for aviators all across the globe. In other words: it's doesn't become more attractive to tank in Arab Gulf states, making their airlines out-compete European airlines.
That's always the excuse they make. But it's highly flawed. You can tax the planes that land in your country. They can't evade landing in your country, and they don't get to decide where people want to go.
Either they are complete hypocrites or they are the most useless idiots when it comes to finding solutions.
I would add a third option there: the aviation lobby is too strong, sufficiently suppressing the urge to find solutions. ;)
I think the issue is solvable for continental flights, but it becomes really difficult for international flights. At least not unless you get others to also support it, for which many sadly wont have any incentive.
Want to tax the whole distance rather than just the portion flown within the airspace you control (which will be minimized as much as possible)? Airlines will split up long distance flights by utilizing airport hubs just outside your jurisdiction. Giving those a major advantage and moving a substantial business away.
Combat this by taxing on an airline level? Airlines will just split into two entities, one serving europe and the other the rest of the world. Again leading to a loss for your economy. And at least for long international distances there is no alternative to flying.
I've heard this reason being mentioned, but I'm not really convinced by it. If this is of concern, you can tax the combustion of fuel on flights going in or out of the country, instead of taxing the sale of the fuel.
You mean a CO^2 ^tax? Yes please!
But this could be said about every industry, right? Oh, if we would be not be taxed, we would be more competitive worldwide.
Indeed, but aviation is slightly more mobile than say steel production. It's a bad excuse nonetheless, if you ask me!
It's really not. It's the most immobile industry there is. They literally have to land in the places where people want to go to, they can't just produce their "goods" anywhere and ship them.
It's not like the plane has much of an option where to tank. Planes don't tank more than needed for any flight. I struggle to comprehend this point
Well I definitely see Ryanair making detours to, say, Algiers to tank cheaply.
That is just an objectivly wrong statement.
Fueling doesn't happend instandly and the whole process (inluding new fuel calculations, calling the Fuel-Crew, driving up and attaching/detatching the tanker, signing off paperwork, etc) can take up to an hour, without a single drop of fuel being filled into the tanks.
Planes often fly multiple short hops, well below they maximum possible range (e.g. between the Hawaiian Islands). If the pilots calculate, that they can stay below there landing weight, then they might opt to take fuel for multiple flights. Burning a few hundred kilos more fuel costs less than having a full crew twiddling there thumbs & letting ground personal run around for an hour.
Introduce tariffs on kerosene remaining in landing planes and used during the flight. Problem solved.
I wouldn't say madness. But it is certainly very unfair to the rail industry. They should both be exempt or neither.
I know a lot of people are big fans of trains, but I'm not taking a train from Madrid to Copenhagen for business. It's not gonna happen. Madrid->Paris maybe. They're opening a new line that'll cover the distance in 5 hours.
But within countries trains are absolutely the way to go. At least here in Spain Even if you are on the train longer than the plane, there is no security-state bullshit to deal with at the stations and the experience is much nicer.
And you don’t have to show up to the train station that long before your scheduled departure compared to flights. Train stations are also centrally located for most people compared to airports. My thinking has been that if it’s around 5-7 hrs by train, the flight will be faster but the time you spend waiting for the flight makes the time you spend pretty much equal out.
I agree! The time it takes to go from my home to the airport, then going through check in, security check, etc, is around the same as just doing the whole thing by train. And I can take a longer nap on the train, always a plus.
Cries in German's Deutsche Bahn.
I take the long distance train a lot, over 20 times a year a lot. These are informed tears.
Alright from where to where is this train you so frequently take?
The ICEs between NRW and BaWü: Stuttgart-Dortmund, Mannheim-Köln, sometimes but less often Karlsruhe-Köln. Then the occasional trips for pleasure from Stuttgart to Berlin or München.