5 ms·

Progressive taxation is generally a thing we accept. I'm happy to pay more tax than my friends who don't earn as much too. I think it makes sense to just whack

Progressive taxation is generally a thing we accept. I'm happy to pay more tax than my friends who don't earn as much too. I think it makes sense to just whack a huge tax on flying. Right, you can't easily cross continents without flying, but I imagine the percentage of flights that are being made for super crucial stuff like say, unwell relatives, is a low percentage of the total. So whilst we're in this transition period, tax it enough that you can offset or capture the emissions a few times over. It's a no-brainer. You don't even encounter the "but what about those in poverty" problem because flying is the quintessential luxury. edit: I should be clear, as responders seem to misunderstand me, that the mechanism I prefer would be to tax according to emissions. I just think that flying should have a multiplier because it's primarily used for leisure or non-essential business travel. My preference would be for the taxes to be used on actual carbon capture / storage / research rather than being redistributed, and in that model you need to pull more out of the top end because otherwise the poor eat fuel taxes and get nothing back.

Cenk 7y ago
Isn’t most of the cost of a flight already taxes and duties? I recently booked a 700€ flight from Europe to Latin America, and out of the 700 over 400 were taxes and airport charges.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Airport charges aren't taxes. Aside from that - sure, there are taxes on flying. Are they enough to offset or capture the carbon emissions (at a rate higher than 100% if we want this to be progressive), and is the money going towards either doing that or researching future methods of how to do that?
hamandcheese 7y ago
> tax it enough that you can offset or capture the emissions a few times over. Why should we tax any more than required to offset or capture emissions just 1 time over?
- esotericn 7y ago
  Because flying is a luxury activity. Ideally in the long term everything would be taxed precisely according to its' externalities. In the short term it makes sense to have a progressive system that more heavily taxes luxuries so that the poor don't get thrown under the bus (read: throw you under the bus).
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > Because flying is a luxury activity. For most people flying is anything but a luxury. Most people are flying in economy for business reasons that they have to do if they want to earn an income.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      Business passengers are not the majority, and of those, a huge portion would not happen if the externalities were priced in. Companies engage in huge amounts of wasteful travel.
      - chronic839 7y ago
        > Business passengers are not the majority Business passengers are the majority of airline profits. Airlines will gladly fly economy class half empty as long as the business class seats are sold out. Hell, some airlines have the business and premium economy cabin taking up over half the plane's available square footage. Economy class passengers are most negativity affected by the tax, yet this is unlikely to change airline behavior.
  - odiroot 7y ago
    That's a very moral-imperialist thing to say. You realise there's probably millions of foreign workers in various countries around the world who move abroad to support their families and flying is the only way for them to see their families.
    - 7y ago
ghouse 7y ago
Not all planes have the same greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of a huge tax on flying, tax on greenhouse gas emissions and let the market optimize based on including these economic externalities.
- esotericn 7y ago
  I agree, tax based on emissions. I think it makes sense for that tax to be progressive, at least initially. Heating a home for a year depending on climate may produce more emissions than taking a flight. But one is much harder to avoid (particularly if you are in a precarious economic situation). Even from a purely utilitarian point of view, it would stave off political unrest.
Empact 7y ago
A better version of this is a source fuels tax, that applies to all carbon-emitting fuels in proportion to the carbon they emit. This would impact flights, driving, and industrial processes in a manner consistent with their environmental impact. The problem with that is that while it does fall primarily on the rich, as they consume and therefore pollute more, it falls also on the poor and middle class, and as we’ve seen in France, this can be the basis for substantial political opposition, which if nothing else will act against our ability to price the pollution effectively. The solution for this is to return the source fuels tax funds to the people, such that the tax is revenue neutral. The carbon dividend leaves lower income and less pollutive people better off financially, in addition to everyone being better off environmentally and health-wise, providing a natural basis for the survival of the carbon tax. This is the approach the Citizen’s Climate Lobby is fighting for: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://energyinnovationact.org/ https://energyinnovationact.org/ It has the support of Presidential candidates including Booker and Buttigieg: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/2020-candidates-climate-change-carbon-tax/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/2020-candidates-climate-cha...
- dexterdog 7y ago
  If you tax the fuel there is no incentive to burn them cleanly, only efficiently.
  - eanzenberg 7y ago
    Why’s that a problem? Use the tax money to offset the CO2, plant trees in subsahara africa and other areas that would benefit.
    - DangitBobby 7y ago
      But before (and after) the trees re-uptake the carbon, the poisonous parts from dirty emissions are still harming people, animals, and other life.
  - llampx 7y ago
    Carrot and stick. Just like today, have CARB and EPA to make sure the fuels are being burned cleanly.
ARandomerDude 7y ago
Unintended consequence: you'll penalize shorter flights because achieving altitude is the least fuel efficient part. As a result, you'll increase travel via car and the net result will be increased pollution at the expense of the economy.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Driving and flying have approximately the same emissions assuming 1 person in the car. A bog standard 100g/km car would emit 600kg to go 6000km; a passenger flying London-New York also emits approximately the same. (Obviously you can't drive London-NY, it's an example). Short haul, as you say, it tips in favour of the car. Multiple people and it becomes a no brainer. Then take into account the fact that tons of journeys would simply not happen. It's common for people to jet around Europe for weekend trips. No-one would drive that. I have a sense that US domestic flights tend to skew discussion on this.
- adt2bt 7y ago
  If the emissions costs are constant in terms of $/ton of CO2, the incentive would only exist if the car route is less polluting.
ddxxdd 7y ago
If climate change is truly the harbinger of the apocalypse, and if it needs to be stopped at all costs, then the flight tax would have to be infinite. On the other hand, if a tree can be planted to capture 1 ton of carbon for 50 cents each, then a flight from NY to Sydney can be offset with $130.[1] That's about $1 per person on a 100-person flight. Some environmentalists claim that the social cost of carbon is $40 per ton of CO2[2]. That comes out to about $10,500 in taxes for a flight from NY to Sydney. That's basically $100 per person on a 100-person flight, enough to prevent many people from flying. [1] 53 lbs of CO2 per mile of flight, multiplied by 9,929 miles from NY to Sydney, divided by 2000 lbs/ton, times $0.50 of offset costs per ton [2] https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution
- esotericn 7y ago
  > If climate change is truly the harbinger of the apocalypse, and if it needs to be stopped at all costs, then the flight tax would have to be infinite. I don't see how that follows. On the assumption that we don't have infinite taxes in general, every $1 raised via a tax on emissions from flying can be put in to offsetting, capture, or research which wouldn't otherwise. > That's basically $100 per person on a 100-person flight, enough to prevent many people from flying. It's unclear to me what you mean by this. I think you mean that it would likely reduce demand? Sure, bonus.
  - dmix 7y ago
    > On the assumption that we don't have infinite taxes in general, every $1 raised via a tax on emissions from flying can be put in to offsetting, capture, or research which wouldn't otherwise. That’s very...optimistic of you. I wish I had the same trust in these systems. Regardless I highly doubt there will be a global movement to kill air travel any time soon, there’s no world gov to implement this mass tax so it will have to be a few very brave souls who do it while trying to convince everyone it won’t result in a massive brain and money drain which will be multiple x bigger than the tax “return”. Not to mention lost productivity. Asia and the US (I’m assuming EU would be the first) will suddenly sound like a far better place to live and do business, then there will be a ton of disincentives to follow suit. Remember when France was going to do their millionaire tax? That didn’t last long once the consequences became apparent and they could be dismissed with campaign slogans.
Aloha 7y ago
What you're essentially saying is, vacationing far from home (more than a days drive, or 500 miles) should only be for the rich or very rich. It's not even a question of poverty, this kind of taxation would take it out of reach of the middle class. While yes, generally driving generates less carbon than flying, If you have fewer than 3 people in your car however, flying puts out less carbon. I think there is a good argument for a fixed rate taxation however that makes shorthaul (less than 300 mile) flights wildly unprofitable, thus pushing people into other forms of transportation (ideally train or bus - but probably car)
- esotericn 7y ago
  > What you're essentially saying is, vacationing far from home should only be for the rich or very rich. If we reduce the number of people doing a thing, then by definition, the rich will be the last ones left doing it, because that's what makes them rich, yes. > If you have fewer than 3 people in your car however, flying puts out less carbon. As far as I can tell this isn't the case. It probably depends on whether you're talking about massive American cars or a 100g/CO2 car that's more common in Europe though. But yeah, people won't make those journeys. It really took off recently (oho) and should just go away again. We don't need Ryanair flights around Europe for student budgets.
  - Aloha 7y ago
    Europe is a very different world than the United States, the US is a county in which long distance rail is decidedly non-viable, nor does anyone have enough time to take 3 days to travel 1500 miles (which is how long it takes driving or by train - and even longer by bus) - a change like this would essentially put vacations out of reach of the middle class. I'll point out, we don't have as many short range flights as Europe does, and no equivalent to Ryan Air here.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Average trip distance in the US is not that much longer than in Europe. It certainly doesn't justify driving a truck instead of a smaller car.
lacampbell 7y ago
Progressive taxation is generally a thing we accept. I'm happy to pay more tax than my friends who don't earn as much too. Really? I'm livid I pay much more tax than those with a net worth much higher than mine. Real estate has all the tax benefits in my country, while gainful employment is punished.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Right, so you want it to be _more_ progressive, rather than the current imperfect state. It's broken in the UK as well. Capital gains taxes are tiny as compared to income. :P
  - lacampbell 7y ago
    If it were up to me we'd derive all our tax from things that actually effect the commons: land usage, water usage, pollution, waste. Taxing income or capital gains in the first place was a mistake.
    - eanzenberg 7y ago
      Unfortunately the reality is this leads to a regressive tax structure, as history has shown. Intelligent people can accumulate wealth many orders of magnitude faster than the “unwashed masses.” I’m actually surprised by this since I assumed 99% of people are ok with progressive taxation. I believe the real argument lies in how progressive it is, as the extreme limit leads to the wealthy paying 99% of the taxes. I think currently the 1% pay 50% of the taxes in the US so the sliding scale it more towards progressivism anyways. You could argue how much more you can squeeze vs. the repercussions of such.
scarejunba 7y ago
No, just make everyone pay for their carbon. I am carbon negative. I get to fly as much as I want because I always offset. You don't get to add a puppy to your household if you don't offset. That's much fairer than you deciding that my pet hobby is worse than your pet hobby. Everyone always has these grand market distorting schemes and they inevitably fail at the real goal.
- eanzenberg 7y ago
  This I agree with because it’s the fairest way to go.
- reitzensteinm 7y ago
  Out of curiosity, how do you offset?
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    TerraPass! All American so should be locally verifiable etc etc.

Cenk 7y ago

Isn’t most of the cost of a flight already taxes and duties? I recently booked a 700€ flight from Europe to Latin America, and out of the 700 over 400 were taxes and airport charges.

esotericn 7y ago
Airport charges aren't taxes. Aside from that - sure, there are taxes on flying. Are they enough to offset or capture the carbon emissions (at a rate higher than 100% if we want this to be progressive), and is the money going towards either doing that or researching future methods of how to do that?

hamandcheese 7y ago

> tax it enough that you can offset or capture the emissions a few times over. Why should we tax any more than required to offset or capture emissions just 1 time over?

esotericn 7y ago
Because flying is a luxury activity. Ideally in the long term everything would be taxed precisely according to its' externalities. In the short term it makes sense to have a progressive system that more heavily taxes luxuries so that the poor don't get thrown under the bus (read: throw you under the bus).
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > Because flying is a luxury activity. For most people flying is anything but a luxury. Most people are flying in economy for business reasons that they have to do if they want to earn an income.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Business passengers are not the majority, and of those, a huge portion would not happen if the externalities were priced in. Companies engage in huge amounts of wasteful travel.
    - chronic839 7y ago
      > Business passengers are not the majority Business passengers are the majority of airline profits. Airlines will gladly fly economy class half empty as long as the business class seats are sold out. Hell, some airlines have the business and premium economy cabin taking up over half the plane's available square footage. Economy class passengers are most negativity affected by the tax, yet this is unlikely to change airline behavior.
- odiroot 7y ago
  That's a very moral-imperialist thing to say. You realise there's probably millions of foreign workers in various countries around the world who move abroad to support their families and flying is the only way for them to see their families.
  - 7y ago

ghouse 7y ago

Not all planes have the same greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of a huge tax on flying, tax on greenhouse gas emissions and let the market optimize based on including these economic externalities.

esotericn 7y ago
I agree, tax based on emissions. I think it makes sense for that tax to be progressive, at least initially. Heating a home for a year depending on climate may produce more emissions than taking a flight. But one is much harder to avoid (particularly if you are in a precarious economic situation). Even from a purely utilitarian point of view, it would stave off political unrest.

Empact 7y ago

A better version of this is a source fuels tax, that applies to all carbon-emitting fuels in proportion to the carbon they emit. This would impact flights, driving, and industrial processes in a manner consistent with their environmental impact. The problem with that is that while it does fall primarily on the rich, as they consume and therefore pollute more, it falls also on the poor and middle class, and as we’ve seen in France, this can be the basis for substantial political opposition, which if nothing else will act against our ability to price the pollution effectively. The solution for this is to return the source fuels tax funds to the people, such that the tax is revenue neutral. The carbon dividend leaves lower income and less pollutive people better off financially, in addition to everyone being better off environmentally and health-wise, providing a natural basis for the survival of the carbon tax. This is the approach the Citizen’s Climate Lobby is fighting for: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://energyinnovationact.org/ https://energyinnovationact.org/ It has the support of Presidential candidates including Booker and Buttigieg: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/2020-candidates-climate-change-carbon-tax/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/2020-candidates-climate-cha...

dexterdog 7y ago
If you tax the fuel there is no incentive to burn them cleanly, only efficiently.
- eanzenberg 7y ago
  Why’s that a problem? Use the tax money to offset the CO2, plant trees in subsahara africa and other areas that would benefit.
  - DangitBobby 7y ago
    But before (and after) the trees re-uptake the carbon, the poisonous parts from dirty emissions are still harming people, animals, and other life.
- llampx 7y ago
  Carrot and stick. Just like today, have CARB and EPA to make sure the fuels are being burned cleanly.

ARandomerDude 7y ago

Unintended consequence: you'll penalize shorter flights because achieving altitude is the least fuel efficient part. As a result, you'll increase travel via car and the net result will be increased pollution at the expense of the economy.

esotericn 7y ago
Driving and flying have approximately the same emissions assuming 1 person in the car. A bog standard 100g/km car would emit 600kg to go 6000km; a passenger flying London-New York also emits approximately the same. (Obviously you can't drive London-NY, it's an example). Short haul, as you say, it tips in favour of the car. Multiple people and it becomes a no brainer. Then take into account the fact that tons of journeys would simply not happen. It's common for people to jet around Europe for weekend trips. No-one would drive that. I have a sense that US domestic flights tend to skew discussion on this.
adt2bt 7y ago
If the emissions costs are constant in terms of $/ton of CO2, the incentive would only exist if the car route is less polluting.

ddxxdd 7y ago

If climate change is truly the harbinger of the apocalypse, and if it needs to be stopped at all costs, then the flight tax would have to be infinite. On the other hand, if a tree can be planted to capture 1 ton of carbon for 50 cents each, then a flight from NY to Sydney can be offset with $130.[1] That's about $1 per person on a 100-person flight. Some environmentalists claim that the social cost of carbon is $40 per ton of CO2[2]. That comes out to about $10,500 in taxes for a flight from NY to Sydney. That's basically $100 per person on a 100-person flight, enough to prevent many people from flying. [1] 53 lbs of CO2 per mile of flight, multiplied by 9,929 miles from NY to Sydney, divided by 2000 lbs/ton, times $0.50 of offset costs per ton [2] https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution

esotericn 7y ago
> If climate change is truly the harbinger of the apocalypse, and if it needs to be stopped at all costs, then the flight tax would have to be infinite. I don't see how that follows. On the assumption that we don't have infinite taxes in general, every $1 raised via a tax on emissions from flying can be put in to offsetting, capture, or research which wouldn't otherwise. > That's basically $100 per person on a 100-person flight, enough to prevent many people from flying. It's unclear to me what you mean by this. I think you mean that it would likely reduce demand? Sure, bonus.
- dmix 7y ago
  > On the assumption that we don't have infinite taxes in general, every $1 raised via a tax on emissions from flying can be put in to offsetting, capture, or research which wouldn't otherwise. That’s very...optimistic of you. I wish I had the same trust in these systems. Regardless I highly doubt there will be a global movement to kill air travel any time soon, there’s no world gov to implement this mass tax so it will have to be a few very brave souls who do it while trying to convince everyone it won’t result in a massive brain and money drain which will be multiple x bigger than the tax “return”. Not to mention lost productivity. Asia and the US (I’m assuming EU would be the first) will suddenly sound like a far better place to live and do business, then there will be a ton of disincentives to follow suit. Remember when France was going to do their millionaire tax? That didn’t last long once the consequences became apparent and they could be dismissed with campaign slogans.

Aloha 7y ago

What you're essentially saying is, vacationing far from home (more than a days drive, or 500 miles) should only be for the rich or very rich. It's not even a question of poverty, this kind of taxation would take it out of reach of the middle class. While yes, generally driving generates less carbon than flying, If you have fewer than 3 people in your car however, flying puts out less carbon. I think there is a good argument for a fixed rate taxation however that makes shorthaul (less than 300 mile) flights wildly unprofitable, thus pushing people into other forms of transportation (ideally train or bus - but probably car)

esotericn 7y ago
> What you're essentially saying is, vacationing far from home should only be for the rich or very rich. If we reduce the number of people doing a thing, then by definition, the rich will be the last ones left doing it, because that's what makes them rich, yes. > If you have fewer than 3 people in your car however, flying puts out less carbon. As far as I can tell this isn't the case. It probably depends on whether you're talking about massive American cars or a 100g/CO2 car that's more common in Europe though. But yeah, people won't make those journeys. It really took off recently (oho) and should just go away again. We don't need Ryanair flights around Europe for student budgets.
- Aloha 7y ago
  Europe is a very different world than the United States, the US is a county in which long distance rail is decidedly non-viable, nor does anyone have enough time to take 3 days to travel 1500 miles (which is how long it takes driving or by train - and even longer by bus) - a change like this would essentially put vacations out of reach of the middle class. I'll point out, we don't have as many short range flights as Europe does, and no equivalent to Ryan Air here.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Average trip distance in the US is not that much longer than in Europe. It certainly doesn't justify driving a truck instead of a smaller car.

lacampbell 7y ago

Progressive taxation is generally a thing we accept. I'm happy to pay more tax than my friends who don't earn as much too. Really? I'm livid I pay much more tax than those with a net worth much higher than mine. Real estate has all the tax benefits in my country, while gainful employment is punished.

esotericn 7y ago
Right, so you want it to be _more_ progressive, rather than the current imperfect state. It's broken in the UK as well. Capital gains taxes are tiny as compared to income. :P
- lacampbell 7y ago
  If it were up to me we'd derive all our tax from things that actually effect the commons: land usage, water usage, pollution, waste. Taxing income or capital gains in the first place was a mistake.
  - eanzenberg 7y ago
    Unfortunately the reality is this leads to a regressive tax structure, as history has shown. Intelligent people can accumulate wealth many orders of magnitude faster than the “unwashed masses.” I’m actually surprised by this since I assumed 99% of people are ok with progressive taxation. I believe the real argument lies in how progressive it is, as the extreme limit leads to the wealthy paying 99% of the taxes. I think currently the 1% pay 50% of the taxes in the US so the sliding scale it more towards progressivism anyways. You could argue how much more you can squeeze vs. the repercussions of such.

scarejunba 7y ago

No, just make everyone pay for their carbon. I am carbon negative. I get to fly as much as I want because I always offset. You don't get to add a puppy to your household if you don't offset. That's much fairer than you deciding that my pet hobby is worse than your pet hobby. Everyone always has these grand market distorting schemes and they inevitably fail at the real goal.

eanzenberg 7y ago
This I agree with because it’s the fairest way to go.
reitzensteinm 7y ago
Out of curiosity, how do you offset?
- scarejunba 7y ago
  TerraPass! All American so should be locally verifiable etc etc.