Kent International

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:46:20 GMT, "~~ Ray ~~" <Dont.exist@dont.bother>
wrote:


>thats like 1/3 for fare and 2/3 for the goverment. i mean i already loose a
>staggering 33% of my wage to the taxes and now they want another double
>chunk out of my airfare....... where is justice???

Right there.

Or would you like a cheap rate on the Air Traffic Control system with
your cheap flight?

Before whining about paying for what you use, try to understand what,
exactly, gets funded by those fees and taxes, and explain why the
traveler shouldn't pay for them. And why you believe a passenger on a
300 quid ticket should pay any more or less than a passenger on a 3
quid ticket.

Malc.

In message <h06rf0t4g9rkp5omvsl0oj36ibpol2jt2s@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>Before whining about paying for what you use, try to understand what,
>exactly, gets funded by those fees and taxes, and explain why the
>traveler shouldn't pay for them.

The departure taxes have all the hallmarks of a non-hypothecated Nu-Lab
stealth tax, and bear no relation to the costs of running ATC, or any
other part of the airport's operations - which should rightly be funded
by the landing fees, which in turn are part of the underlying ticket
cost. Think about it - the taxes depend highly on where you are flying
to/from, but all planes need the same amount of runway time, ATC, fire
engines etc.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bPmXpjJVpg$AFAQo@perry.co.uk...
> In message <h06rf0t4g9rkp5omvsl0oj36ibpol2jt2s@>, Malcolm Weir
> <malc@gelt.org> writes
> >Before whining about paying for what you use, try to understand what,
> >exactly, gets funded by those fees and taxes, and explain why the
> >traveler shouldn't pay for them.
>
> The departure taxes have all the hallmarks of a non-hypothecated Nu-Lab
> stealth tax, and bear no relation to the costs of running ATC, or any
> other part of the airport's operations - which should rightly be funded
> by the landing fees, which in turn are part of the underlying ticket
> cost. Think about it - the taxes depend highly on where you are flying
> to/from, but all planes need the same amount of runway time, ATC, fire
> engines etc.
>

I think we all know its a marketing ploy to try and make the 1p flight look
cheap when it is really a 40GBp flight. (that is still cheap)

Which, I believe, has actually been banned in Sweden where airlines have to
show the full price including all taxes, fees, charges, and anything else
they want to exclude.

Its really just a joke IMO, imagine if you paid for petrol in that way.
PETROL 1p per litre.
Taxes 60p
refining fee 8p
delivery surcharge 4p
etc

It still annoys me when I go to the USA to see a price for something then
get charged more because taxes are added - But I guess the locals get use to
it and think its normal.

Although it can be interesting to see a breakdown of costs of any product or
service, but only if the explanation is full and accurate.

In message <2m6nevFj4o0tU1@uni-berlin.de>, Miss L. Toe
<missltoemissltoe@m> writes
>It still annoys me when I go to the USA to see a price for something then
>get charged more because taxes are added - But I guess the locals get use to
>it and think its normal.

Yes, I find it annoying too, but there's a good reason.

The sales tax varies depending on what county you are in. In many parts
of the country, a county is about as big as a London borough [1]. So
when a store prices or advertise its goods, it uses the before-tax
price, which is the same everywhere. Trying to promote a new CD player
using the tax-inclusive price would be a nightmare (unless the retailer
was prepared to absorb the differences in sales tax).

[1] So you'd be paying the equivalent of 5% VAT in Islington but 6% in
Camden.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:16:53 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <h06rf0t4g9rkp5omvsl0oj36ibpol2jt2s@>, Malcolm Weir
><malc@gelt.org> writes
>>Before whining about paying for what you use, try to understand what,
>>exactly, gets funded by those fees and taxes, and explain why the
>>traveler shouldn't pay for them.
>
>The departure taxes have all the hallmarks of a non-hypothecated Nu-Lab
>stealth tax, and bear no relation to the costs of running ATC, or any
>other part of the airport's operations - which should rightly be funded
>by the landing fees, which in turn are part of the underlying ticket
>cost. Think about it - the taxes depend highly on where you are flying
>to/from, but all planes need the same amount of runway time, ATC, fire
>engines etc.

But they are consistent. If you fly on carrier A or carrier B, you'll
pay the same tax. Regardless of the fare charged.

Now, please try to argue *why* someone who paid very little for a
ticket should get a reduced rate on the taxes?

In fact, one could make the case that the opposite has some validity:
people who pay ridiculously low (i.e. below cost) fares are more
likely to be traveling "frivolously" (i.e. if the price matched the
cost, they wouldn't travel), and so are using resources, polluting the
environment, etc. etc. simply because of the below cost fare...

[ This would be impossible to sustain as a matter of public policy,
and it would be unfair to some who had good cause to travel but simply
benefited from the ridiculous fare, but it at least makes sense to
hold the operators liable for the larger consequences of their
promotions... ]

Malc.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:43:41 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <2m6nevFj4o0tU1@uni-berlin.de>, Miss L. Toe
><missltoemissltoe@m> writes
>>It still annoys me when I go to the USA to see a price for something then
>>get charged more because taxes are added - But I guess the locals get use to
>>it and think its normal.
>
>Yes, I find it annoying too, but there's a good reason.
>
>The sales tax varies depending on what county you are in. In many parts
>of the country, a county is about as big as a London borough [1].

Nonsense. The smallest county in the USA is in Hawaii, and is 13
square miles. The next smallest is in Rhode Island, at 25 sq. mi.
The smallest in California is San Francisco (47), in New York its New
York (29), (in both cases the county, not the city of the same name).

Many cities in the US are either independent from the county they are
in for tax purposes, or have supplemental taxes.

> So
>when a store prices or advertise its goods, it uses the before-tax
>price, which is the same everywhere. Trying to promote a new CD player
>using the tax-inclusive price would be a nightmare (unless the retailer
>was prepared to absorb the differences in sales tax).

And why not? They absorb the differences in property costs: a
MacDonalds in Manhattan will pay a damn site more than one in rural
Nebraska...

>[1] So you'd be paying the equivalent of 5% VAT in Islington but 6% in
>Camden.

Except that in the real world, the differences amount to fractions of
a percent (usually 1/4%).

Malc.

"Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message
news:esltf0560ff61d9jaahuqggivtjbg3iijc@...
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:43:41 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In message <2m6nevFj4o0tU1@uni-berlin.de>, Miss L. Toe
> ><missltoemissltoe@m> writes
> >>It still annoys me when I go to the USA to see a price for something
then
> >>get charged more because taxes are added - But I guess the locals get
use to
> >>it and think its normal.
> >
> >Yes, I find it annoying too, but there's a good reason.
> >
> >The sales tax varies depending on what county you are in. In many parts
> >of the country, a county is about as big as a London borough [1].
>
> Nonsense. The smallest county in the USA is in Hawaii, and is 13
> square miles. The next smallest is in Rhode Island, at 25 sq. mi.
> The smallest in California is San Francisco (47), in New York its New
> York (29), (in both cases the county, not the city of the same name).
>
> Many cities in the US are either independent from the county they are
> in for tax purposes, or have supplemental taxes.
>
> > So
> >when a store prices or advertise its goods, it uses the before-tax
> >price, which is the same everywhere. Trying to promote a new CD player
> >using the tax-inclusive price would be a nightmare (unless the retailer
> >was prepared to absorb the differences in sales tax).
>
> And why not? They absorb the differences in property costs: a
> MacDonalds in Manhattan will pay a damn site more than one in rural
> Nebraska...
>
> >[1] So you'd be paying the equivalent of 5% VAT in Islington but 6% in
> >Camden.
>
> Except that in the real world, the differences amount to fractions of
> a percent (usually 1/4%).

Although I believe that in some cases (near some state borders) it can be 3
or 4 percent different ??

Just as a point of interest, as I guess you have been over there a while
now, Do you actually add the sales tax to the base price in your head when
you buy something, or just totally ignore it.

"Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message
news:8hltf0drlgbfl3vm4s5tnuddpk9h8rstps@...
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:16:53 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In message <h06rf0t4g9rkp5omvsl0oj36ibpol2jt2s@>, Malcolm Weir
> ><malc@gelt.org> writes
> >>Before whining about paying for what you use, try to understand what,
> >>exactly, gets funded by those fees and taxes, and explain why the
> >>traveler shouldn't pay for them.
> >
> >The departure taxes have all the hallmarks of a non-hypothecated Nu-Lab
> >stealth tax, and bear no relation to the costs of running ATC, or any
> >other part of the airport's operations - which should rightly be funded
> >by the landing fees, which in turn are part of the underlying ticket
> >cost. Think about it - the taxes depend highly on where you are flying
> >to/from, but all planes need the same amount of runway time, ATC, fire
> >engines etc.
>
> But they are consistent. If you fly on carrier A or carrier B, you'll
> pay the same tax. Regardless of the fare charged.
>

Same tax yes,
Same taxes, fees and charges NO.


> Now, please try to argue *why* someone who paid very little for a
> ticket should get a reduced rate on the taxes?
>
> In fact, one could make the case that the opposite has some validity:
> people who pay ridiculously low (i.e. below cost) fares are more
> likely to be traveling "frivolously" (i.e. if the price matched the
> cost, they wouldn't travel), and so are using resources, polluting the
> environment, etc. etc. simply because of the below cost fare...
>

Polluting the environment ??

There was a program on UK television a couple of nights ago that claimed
that when all air movements were grounded over the USA after 11/9 the air
temperature actually rose (I think it was by 1 degree) because of the lack
of 'man-made clouds' created by the water vapour from the engines of planes.
So in theory (and I am always a little sceptical of claims like the one
above) us flyers are actually helping to prevent global warming, and maybe
therefore should be subsidised :-)

In message <2m9dg5Fk4m67U1@uni-berlin.de>, Miss L. Toe
<missltoemissltoe@m> writes
>Just as a point of interest, as I guess you have been over there a while
>now, Do you actually add the sales tax to the base price in your head when
>you buy something, or just totally ignore it.

Is that aimed at me? Well, I just ignore it (especially the 1% drop if I
drive more than a mile east to shop). Still irritates me to buy
something at 9.80 and have to hand over more than a ten dollar bill.

Worst feature is that secondhand cars attract sales tax (on the full
amount, not just their profit), if bought from a dealer. Whereas a
private sale is exempt.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ahmtf0l4m38lhatjppq173a64n3uvijajh@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>Ever wondered what those people at "customs" and "immigration" were
>doing?
>
>There are costs associated with operating an international flight that
>don't apply to domestic flights.

Yes, but not to the extent of several pounds per passenger.
--
Roland Perry