About Gordon's increase in air tax

[Lucifer Box]

It's only fair

Do you think it would be OK to retrospectively put up my rate?

In this country it's okay to retrospectively criminalise you in this country for something you did in another country that was and still is legal there, so I would say it's anything goes. Still, if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear.

Oh no, sorry, that's "you might think you've done nothing wrong but you just don't know it yet".

[expat]

Out of interest, it's not a tax on passengers, it's a tax on the airline. They ain't paying it though, they're passing it on to us, the consumer

So are they actually collecting the tax specifically (as for example we do with VAT), or are they simply charging a price, some of which happens to be there so that they will have the money to pay their tax?

[wendigo100]

Out of interest, it's not a tax on passengers, it's a tax on the airline. They ain't paying it though, they're passing it on to us, the consumer, just in case it is passed by Parliament and they have to cough up.

The budget airlines are working to such tight margins that they have no choice but to pass it on to passengers. I don't know what else Gordon Brown expected them to do. Therefore it is a de facto tax on passengers, and Gordon is a c***.

Oh, I've already called him that.

[malvolio]

So are they actually collecting the tax specifically (as for example we do with VAT), or are they simply charging a price, some of which happens to be there so that they will have the money to pay their tax?

Ermmm - and the practical difference is?

[Lucifer Box]

The budget airlines are working to such tight margins that they have no choice but to pass it on to passengers. I don't know what else Gordon Brown expected them to do. Therefore it is a de facto tax on passengers, and Gordon is a c***.

Oh, I've already called him that.

Yes, the typical profit margin on a seat on a budget flight is £3 - £5, so it's simply not possible for them to take the hit themselves and stay in business.

[expat]

Ermmm - and the practical difference is?

The difference is who is putting up the price. If it's the airline then you might argue with them that you already had a deal with them at a given price. If it's HMG then your argument is with the Govt, and not with the airline. The point being that you have a deal with the airline, you don't with the government.

[malvolio]

I already said, the tax is imposed on the airline, not the passenger. You are at liberty not to pay it to the airline, but I somehow doubt you'll get on the plane...

[hugebrain]

still don't think you have to pay

A question raised this morning on Radio 4. The finance bill containing the tax hike hasn't gone before the house yet so technically if it were overturned the tax would have to be refunded.

How can it be overturned if it has never been passed?

Are you saying that if Gordo unilaterally declared that we had to send him all our money (instead of the paltry sixty something percent we give him now), that we should all pay up now and hope that we get it refunded later? It makes no sense at all.

[Moose423956]

Legal expert says passengers can refuse to pay

From the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...577583,00.html

I like this bit:

"Airlines insist that the small print allows them to pass increases in tax on to passengers, but Mr Jack said that small print does not legally apply if the tickets were bought before December 7, the date of Mr Brown’s announcement."

That's me excused.

[The Lone Gunman]

The airlines deserve a kicking here.

When I quote for a job it is based on what I think it will cost. If I agree a price I stick to it. If inflation goes up or Gordo stiffs me with a tax I have to wear the costs.
The airlines just refuse to carry you untill you have paid. That has got to be illegal.

It can not be right that someone can demand extra money after an agreed (and paid for) sale.