Give and take
Under a Tory government you’ll be wanting to spend the two weeks you have away from the daily grind abroad, won’t you? According to Tim Montgomerie, self-styled conscience of the Conservative party, in order to do so you’ll need a rich relative who’s recently popped his or her clogs:
Ryanair will undoubtedly be ready with a campaign against the Tories but higher taxation of transport is deemed necessary to pay for the cuts in inheritance tax that Tory strategists want to use to woo middle England
Not that you’d expect the Tories to give a sod about the proles or know the definition of regressive taxation but it looks like it’s Skegness again for those of us not fortunate enough to be members of David Cameron’s glorious new aristocracy.
Posted on August 23rd, 2007 at 12:28pm under Tories
| Related posts... • As desperation takes hold • Mandelson: party like it’s 1939 • A dippy egg with Dave |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 11 Comments |
Frankly I don’t care what the reasons for doing it are, taxing aviation fuel needs to happen. The sooner people are compelled to fly less by whatever means, the better for the planet.
Yes, I agree. But who’s being compelled to fly less? What are Cameron’s nouveau riche going to spend their money on? A nice holiday without feeling the pain of increased taxes. It’s Cameron’s deserving and non-deserving holidaymakers.
It’ll be the same with rising petrol and gas prices. Yes, we need to consume less but the attrition starts at the bottom – the responsibility is put on those who can bear it the least.
Agreed, it needs to be taxed at at least the same rate as diesel fuel for trains, and the proceeds put into railway electrification (which was cleverly ruled out by the Department for Transport last month).
Mind you, anyone taking the Tories’ advice on transport at present needs to be put in a rubber room with John Redwood.
It’ll be the same with rising petrol and gas prices. Yes, we need to consume less but the attrition starts at the bottom – the responsibility is put on those who can bear it the least.
Well, there’s something in what you say, Justin, but unfortunately I’m not sure it’s relevant in the long term. When it comes to carbon emissions, the object is to reduce the total amount produced. Less people flying eventually leads to less flights overall. And there’s far more poor people than rich, so if only the rich are flying, then it’s hardly ideal but in reality the planet doesn’t give a damn how wealthy the people on the plane are. The emissions produced are the same.
I’m also rather sceptical of the notion that it’s the poor who’ll suffer from rises in the cost of flights. Climate change is a global phenomenon and — globally speaking — the poor already can’t afford to fly. The millions of people living right on the poverty line in Bangladesh or sub-Saharan Africa; the very people who will be worst affected by climate change (at least initially); aren’t taking cheap two week holidays in the Canary Islands thanks to the low-cost airlines. And anyone who is flying to Portugal or Greece or taking weekend breaks in Barcelona really can’t be considered “poor” in global terms. If they have to get the train to Edinburgh for their long-weekend instead, then so be it.
I’ve also been rather sceptical of the claims (usually from pro-motoring organisations) that hikes in petrol tax hit the poorest the hardest. The fact is, the poorest 20% of the Irish population (and I suspect it’s roughly the same in the UK) don’t own cars. They travel less and use public transport when they do. As a result, any rise in petrol taxes that forces more people out of their cars and onto the bus will ultimately be beneficial to the genuinely poor.
I’m also rather sceptical of the notion that it’s the poor who’ll suffer from rises in the cost of flights.
It’s not the poor, no, but it is the people on not much, the people on average incomes or less. It’s people like me – with cheap flights I can occasionally afford to fly home to the UK, and without them, I won’t be able to.
Which is OK – if it’s got to be done it’s got to be done and the health of the planet is actually more important than whether I get to come home and see people. But I’d rather that was actually what the money went on, rather than paying for tax cuts for people with far too much money already. (I mean, I could wax ironic about it. Why did I emigrate? Because I couldn’t find anywhere secure to live on my salary. So what does Cameron’s chum want to do? Screw me in order to help out people with the money and property I had no chances of attaining.)
But I’d rather that was actually what the money went on, rather than paying for tax cuts for people with far too much money already.
Don’t get me wrong. The idea that tax breaks for the rich are going to be funded by taxing the middle / low incomes (who are flying quite a lot these days) is abhorent to me.
But as I say, in the greater scheme of things, where that money goes is actually less important than the fact it will result in less flights.
Any reduction in bus ticket prices due to extra subsidy raised from taxing more selfish forms of transport directly benefit the poor. Cue the Ken’n'Hugo show…
Oh, and one way to get poor fast would be to take a long weekend in Edinburgh by train, I suspect.
Oh, and one way to get poor fast would be to take a long weekend in Edinburgh by train, I suspect.
Yeah, that struck me as soon as I posted it. I guess I was thinking of some mythical Britain where the trains were run as a public service rather than as a licence to print money for the already wealthy.
As a result, any rise in petrol taxes that forces more people out of their cars and onto the bus will ultimately be beneficial to the genuinely poor.
No it won’t it’ll just mean there’ll be more people who can’t afford any other means of transport than the bus. Keep the proles in their place eh?
No it won’t it’ll just mean there’ll be more people who can’t afford any other means of transport than the bus. Keep the proles in their place eh?
My point is simply that the genuinely poor already use the bus. If more people start to use it, then there will be a greater incentive (more votes) for politicians to ensure the service is run well.
As for keeping the proles in their place? I don’t really understand what you’re saying, given that I think everyone’s place is on public transport and that private car use is a travesty. I use either a bike or the bus. I don’t own a car and haven’t in 15 years. I suspect I never will again.
Nought wrong with Skeggie.