Post by ronturner on Mar 23, 2010 8:41:23 GMT 1
Following from a thread raised on KLM in the leading section:-
Adding to the comment from harbarcotter, the so called green tax, which he rightly says is no such thing, is a way of squeezing more money out of the working man's pocket. It is aimed at the low cost airlines and the taxes have become a disproportionate share of the total price. The government have seized upon this opportunity to make people pay more like the going rate (according to BA and others) , the difference being that it goes into the treasury, not the airline; and some of it finds its way into the pockets of fraudulent MPs and ministers. This is just one more interesting action of a so called "labour" government. After all, why should the working man be able to fly: have fun and improve his knowledge of the world. This kind of thing is better reserved for the elite. Its better just to keep the working man as voting fodder.
If and when these so called green taxes make an impact on passenger numbers, who do you think will not be flying? Will it be the guy on 15,000 a year, the guy on 30,000 a yea or the one on 100,000, not to mention all those in other parts of the world where such nonsense is not deployed. I have just read an article in "Flyer" claiming that Asian-Pacific airlines will buy 8000 new aircraft in the next 20 years.
I am all in favour of measures to limit pollution of our world, but first I want proof of the damage, not just a pack of lies from Cambridge University, with fair and workable measures, preferably technology led. My idea of a green tax would be a tax which was to restore some damage done, or to target specific measures of prevention. Just putting money into the treasury pot is suspicious.
Adding to the comment from harbarcotter, the so called green tax, which he rightly says is no such thing, is a way of squeezing more money out of the working man's pocket. It is aimed at the low cost airlines and the taxes have become a disproportionate share of the total price. The government have seized upon this opportunity to make people pay more like the going rate (according to BA and others) , the difference being that it goes into the treasury, not the airline; and some of it finds its way into the pockets of fraudulent MPs and ministers. This is just one more interesting action of a so called "labour" government. After all, why should the working man be able to fly: have fun and improve his knowledge of the world. This kind of thing is better reserved for the elite. Its better just to keep the working man as voting fodder.
If and when these so called green taxes make an impact on passenger numbers, who do you think will not be flying? Will it be the guy on 15,000 a year, the guy on 30,000 a yea or the one on 100,000, not to mention all those in other parts of the world where such nonsense is not deployed. I have just read an article in "Flyer" claiming that Asian-Pacific airlines will buy 8000 new aircraft in the next 20 years.
I am all in favour of measures to limit pollution of our world, but first I want proof of the damage, not just a pack of lies from Cambridge University, with fair and workable measures, preferably technology led. My idea of a green tax would be a tax which was to restore some damage done, or to target specific measures of prevention. Just putting money into the treasury pot is suspicious.
