this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
158 points (99.4% liked)

Europe

6905 readers
1286 users here now

News and information from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
federalreverse@feddit.org
poVoq@slrpnk.net
anzo@programming.dev
EuroMod@feddit.org
158
EU could earn €1 trillion by fully taxing aviation, private jets included (www.euractiv.com)
submitted 1 day ago by nemeski@mander.xyz to c/europe@feddit.org
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] talkingpumpkin@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

As much as I like the idea of ~~anyone but me~~ rich and evil individuals and corporations paying more taxes, wouldn't this result in airlines dumping the extra cost on customers and in private planes being registered in some tax haven (and leaving the EU every six months to avoid taxation, quite possibly flying empty)?

I mean... I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea... I'm just saying that "studies" that just calculate how much could be made from some policy change as if the increased tax revenue was the only consequence are not solid bases for policy change.

[–] SebaDC@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 1 day ago

You typically don't pay these taxes where you register your plane, but where you land/take off and in which country you fly.

So it may reduce the number of flights (esp. empty flights), which is actually good.

If the money is reinvested to develop high speed trains, the impact on tourism would even be minimal.

[–] Womble@piefed.world 14 points 1 day ago

If the tax is on fuel then it wouldnt matter where they are registered, they'd be getting refueled in the EU and so would pay the tax.

wouldn't this result in airlines dumping the extra cost on customers

yes, partially. If the increase in tax results in a particular flight being Β£50 more expensive for example they will rise prices by an amount. But it likely wont be the full 50 as airlines are already charging what they think the optimum price is, the price going up is likely to result in less sales.

It also incentivises the airlines to be more fuel efficient (and so less damaging to the climate), and punishes worse offenders like private jets more as the use more fuel per passenger mile.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can't you make that argument for any tax? That's not really how it works. They charge as much as they can based on supply and demand. They can't just increase prices or they already would have. They aren't setting the price where it is to be nice.

[–] talkingpumpkin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Can’t you make that argument for any tax?

Yes, that's exactly the point. We could calculate how much taxing 100EUR per pair of horrible white terry socks would make in theory, and then people would just stop buying white socks and we wouldn't make whatever number we calculated (it would still be a win in my book).

They charge as much as they can based on supply and demand.

Not really: ticket prices (at least the economy ones) are mostly driven by competition and so cost is a big component of price.

Anyway, I wasn't arguing against taxing aviation: I was arguing that supporting extra taxation based on a "study" (in quotes because IIUC it's a publication from an interest group rather than an actual, peer reviewed, scientific study *) that solely calculates the potential theoric revenue is... it's just stupid.

* and even proper scientific studies are kinda a dime a dozen for any economic theory and its contrary, which doesn't however mean we shouldn't at least try to think about what actual, practical, tangible consequences a change in economic policy is likely have

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Yes, that's exactly the point. We could calculate how much taxing 100EUR per pair of horrible white terry socks would make in theory, and then people would just stop buying white socks and we wouldn't make whatever number we calculated (it would still be a win in my book).

Oh, if you're just saying that specific number is wrong, then yeah, probably. It's an estimate. I don't know if this estimate includes estimated decrease in consumption or not, but yeah it's likely not completely accurate, and that's always going to be the case.

Not really: ticket prices (at least the economy ones) are mostly driven by competition and so cost is a big component of price.

That's true when there aren't alternative methods of transportation competing with them, but travel inside of Europe has to compete with trains. If they increase prices they lose customers to trains. For other routes, sure. All their costs will increase and you don't have another choice.

and even proper scientific studies are kinda a dime a dozen for any economic theory and its contrary, which doesn't however mean we shouldn't at least try to think about what actual, practical, tangible consequences a change in economic policy is likely have

Isn't this why we have studies?

[–] claralistensprechen3rd@friendica.myportal.social 3 points 1 day ago

@nemeski Every nation should tax all private jets.
ALL of 'em.

[–] kebab@endlesstalk.org -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This revenue would come from us paying higher prices for airplanes. It’s just another tax on us. Private jets - sure, but the majority of this 1€ trillion would come from us, plebs flying to Mallorca on holidays.

[–] SebaDC@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wrong. It would mainly come from companies flying consultants around for their daily work.

You may fly once? Twice? Thrice ? For your holidays. Some people fly every single week.

And it's mostly American firms. So make them pay.

[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Do you have any sources for those claims? It seems crazy to me that the majority of European air travel is American companies flying consultants. That can't be true.

[–] SebaDC@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Actually, air travel for work is about 10% of the trips, while tourism is 90%. But super flyers represent a disproportionate amount of the leisure flights.

So most people would hardly notice (those who fly more often can afford the tax, and the others don't fly enough).

You have some stats here: https://neweconomics.org/2025/06/introducing-the-ultra-frequent-flyer

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Don't you think they'd already be charging more for flights if they could? They are trying to set them as high as customers will reasonably pay always. This tax doesn't change that. It only changes their costs.