Let's talk about airplanes and flying with some polls.
-
OK but we understand what we want to do. It should be much more expensive and rare for people to ride in private jets.
Just ride with everyone else for crying out loud instead of farting carbon all over the entire sky.
Yes, the people who like this kind of travel will wriggle and act persecuted and cry but I think "private jets" just sound deeply gross to most people at this moment.
@futurebird Sure. But the devil is in the details.
There was something like a "private yacht tax" in France, but the way it worked, hardly anybody had to pay it.
The danger is to announce a "private jet tax" and claim it as a victory for environment, though hardly anybody pays it because it can be worked around.
So it has to be well-designed.
E.g.: As far as I understand, most "private jets" do not belong to a private individual, they belong to companies and can be chartered for flights. If one taxes air travel that happens without a ticket being delivered, they will simply ticket the passengers.
It probably has to be something about "very few passengers compared to airplane size". And it has to allow cargo planes, but not as an excuse.
-
With oil prices under pressure again some airlines are cutting shorter flights. In the US these flights serve a real need that would be better met by trains, but that is a long term project.
Air travel, despite obvious harms, is heavily subsidized and regulated in many ways. The budget airline "Spirit" has been in the news and may get a bailout. No one is talking about reducing private jets.
2/
@futurebird of course tax the shit out of private aviation. But if one can, flying direct can cut emissions a lot and spares one from all the bullshit airlines made up around boarding to fleece customers.
-
"tax breaks for private jet"
Lord in heaven what on earth are we DOING?
(I know what we are doing)
@futurebird
wait what they need to show the private jet owners that actually pay taxes first
@MCDuncanLab -
Let's talk about airplanes and flying with some polls. Air travel can open whole new possibilities and allow people to learn about the world. It can connect far flung families. It's also terrible for the environment and expensive.
The super wealthy use private jets increasing the impact of their travel. In politics the specter of annoying environmentalists telling you that you can't travel, or taxing you if you do is used to fear-monger and protect the people in the private jets.
1/
Yeah the dissonance of guilting ordinary people while the private jet thing exists is huge.
It’s like guilting people who cram themselves into a bus for an intercity trip instead of paying attention to the rest of the highway crowded with private luxury vehicles.
-
First question. How often do you fly?
If you have not been in a plane for more than five years pick the first option. Also, this is about what you do now, not how much you may have flown in another period of your life. 3/
@futurebird It’s not the flying that bothers me. I love flying. The problem is the airport security that ensures I am reminded that I am not supposed to exist.
-
Would you support a high tax or other restrictions on private jets?
4/
@futurebird Hell, I'd ban first class.
-
First question. How often do you fly?
If you have not been in a plane for more than five years pick the first option. Also, this is about what you do now, not how much you may have flown in another period of your life. 3/
@futurebird
I take trains when possible.
I flew one-way west 3400km last summer, plan to fly round trip 3400km east in the summer of 2027. -
Would you support a high tax or other restrictions on private jets?
4/
Taxes would be irrelevant, because we're talking about a level of fuck you money that literally they'd just do some contortion or bribe a few hundred politicians and *boom* they're polluting and shutting down train projects all over again.
Restrictions, similarly, would just be either violated (who in our government will enforce them? Democrats?) or loopholed on purpose by owned and operated politicians...
-
With oil prices under pressure again some airlines are cutting shorter flights. In the US these flights serve a real need that would be better met by trains, but that is a long term project.
Air travel, despite obvious harms, is heavily subsidized and regulated in many ways. The budget airline "Spirit" has been in the news and may get a bailout. No one is talking about reducing private jets.
2/
@futurebird So, fun fact, due in part to the Jones Act there is no way to enter or leave Puerto Rico except by air.
Spirit has already canceled all flights to/from Puerto Rico. What happens when everybody else does, too?
-
@futurebird Depends on the definition of "private jet." The "general aviation" sector is pretty harmless in comparison to the Rich Fuckers with gold-plated interiors. (they also provide some value for pilot training and services like larger scale aerial photography/surveys)
The biggest issue is getting it precise enough to actually catch all the private jets while excluding other "general aviation" things, because you know the rich fuckers would have their underlings looking for loopholes the moment it was even proposed.
Every private jet will have 1 coach seat in the back to qualify as a commercial passenger jet.
'But first class just happens to be really big.'
-
Taxes would be irrelevant, because we're talking about a level of fuck you money that literally they'd just do some contortion or bribe a few hundred politicians and *boom* they're polluting and shutting down train projects all over again.
Restrictions, similarly, would just be either violated (who in our government will enforce them? Democrats?) or loopholed on purpose by owned and operated politicians...
The only solution is a total ban on all planes below a certain size (probably what we call mid-size today) w/ occupancy requirements for them to take flight (100+ people)
The smaller commuter jets used in short flights could easily be replaced by high-speed rail, and should be.
And if we have to endure some WFH years while that rail is being built, well, cry me a rive lol lmao
As many of us as possible should be WFH as much as possible for the rest of time.
-
@futurebird Depends on the definition of "private jet." The "general aviation" sector is pretty harmless in comparison to the Rich Fuckers with gold-plated interiors. (they also provide some value for pilot training and services like larger scale aerial photography/surveys)
The biggest issue is getting it precise enough to actually catch all the private jets while excluding other "general aviation" things, because you know the rich fuckers would have their underlings looking for loopholes the moment it was even proposed.
@becomethewaifu @futurebird I've got mixed feeling about private jets. I never, ever want to be on a commercial flight with e.g. Taylor Swift, because people lose their minds around her. I'm fine with quarantining her on a Swifties only flight. Random rich executive, sure, he should fly cattle car class with the rest of us. And, maybe regulate cattle car class so larger than average humans can actually fit in the seats.
-
@futurebird Depends on the definition of "private jet." The "general aviation" sector is pretty harmless in comparison to the Rich Fuckers with gold-plated interiors. (they also provide some value for pilot training and services like larger scale aerial photography/surveys)
The biggest issue is getting it precise enough to actually catch all the private jets while excluding other "general aviation" things, because you know the rich fuckers would have their underlings looking for loopholes the moment it was even proposed.
Why don’t we tax the shit out of all aviation and then provide breaks that are designed to make commercial aviation more efficient?
-
@futurebird voted "in this essay" because i'd tax not the jets per se, but overall wealth, which will naturally hit private jet owners
@futurebird in fact, i submit that any tax on private jets will accomplish exactly jack.
taxes on a thing just make it so only the rich can afford that thing. jet owners are already rich. tax them a hundred percent, a thousand percent annually of the jet's value and they'll just shrug and pay it. tax it ten thousand percent and they'll pay lawmakers to kill the bill instead.
tax the rich for existing, not for the things they do.
-
The only solution is a total ban on all planes below a certain size (probably what we call mid-size today) w/ occupancy requirements for them to take flight (100+ people)
The smaller commuter jets used in short flights could easily be replaced by high-speed rail, and should be.
And if we have to endure some WFH years while that rail is being built, well, cry me a rive lol lmao
As many of us as possible should be WFH as much as possible for the rest of time.
@johnzajac @futurebird Again that's a topic for after billionaires are gone. The bulk of the problem is private jets and business air travel driven by their demands. Punishing the public with reduced mobility is not helping anything just serving their interests until this problem is fixed.
-
First question. How often do you fly?
If you have not been in a plane for more than five years pick the first option. Also, this is about what you do now, not how much you may have flown in another period of your life. 3/
@futurebird I'm in Europe, I (or we as a family) travel almost everywhere by train for work or holidays, the exception is when I've travelled to the US for work in the past
We just went for a holiday in Malaga, in Spain, which would be a 22-23 hour drive, just over a day by train or 2-3 hours flight. We, of course, took a few days to get down
-
@becomethewaifu @futurebird I've got mixed feeling about private jets. I never, ever want to be on a commercial flight with e.g. Taylor Swift, because people lose their minds around her. I'm fine with quarantining her on a Swifties only flight. Random rich executive, sure, he should fly cattle car class with the rest of us. And, maybe regulate cattle car class so larger than average humans can actually fit in the seats.
@trachelipus @futurebird Eh, my attitude is that if you're that rich, private jets for travel are "fine", but they should have to pay for a lot more of what currently gets subsidized and/or externalized.
(Plus it makes it a good bit easier to track the probable whereabouts of certain fuckheads...)
-
@futurebird I'm in Europe, I (or we as a family) travel almost everywhere by train for work or holidays, the exception is when I've travelled to the US for work in the past
We just went for a holiday in Malaga, in Spain, which would be a 22-23 hour drive, just over a day by train or 2-3 hours flight. We, of course, took a few days to get down
I haven't been in a plane for a decade. Even when I've gone to CA from NYC. I took the train. It was more expensive but airports stress me out so much. All the security and tension I just feel like it's going to prison.
Which makes me biased in these debates since I know other people have different needs.
I just don't think flying is worth it even when it costs less and saves time.
-
I haven't been in a plane for a decade. Even when I've gone to CA from NYC. I took the train. It was more expensive but airports stress me out so much. All the security and tension I just feel like it's going to prison.
Which makes me biased in these debates since I know other people have different needs.
I just don't think flying is worth it even when it costs less and saves time.
@futurebird I 100% agree. I don't feel completely happy taking diesel trains either, I would much prefer electrification
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
