Tim Worstall

3 responses so far ↓

• 1 Kay Tie // Apr 23, 2008 at 3:21 pm

  Re: Pigouvian taxes on flights.

  You didn’t address his other beef: that taxing a flight takes no account of the fuel efficiency of the plane.

  The displacement of long haul flights is an issue: £40 tax differential on a ticket price for a family of 4 makes it a lot cheaper to fly to the US via Dublin. I’m not sure if it is enough when taking a direct flight (if you lived close enough to Heathrow, for example, you would probably prefer to pay the extra tax to avoid changing planes). If you had to take a regional flight first before the long-haul then you’d probably hub outside the UK.

  Hubbing outside the UK deprives BAA of revenue. Hmmn. I’m starting to see the upside to this tax after all.

• 2 Andy Cooke // Apr 23, 2008 at 9:11 pm

  But, but, but … that very aviation duty was a prominent part of the Conservative consultation document about a year ago. I remember thinking “Ah-ha! A major political party has finally got Pigouvian taxation (possibly)”.
  Not impressed with Mr Graham Brady MP.

• 3 TDK // Apr 24, 2008 at 10:02 am

  Tim

  I notice that on the Spectator blog, on the linked page your name does not appear. Yet on the Trading Floor page (where you article appears amongst many others), your name does appear. Granted it’s no big deal for a You Tube posting but it happens on all your contributions. I suggest you let the Spectator know, because it’s obviously an oversight.

  Tim adds: Ta, still a work in progress over there I agree.

Leave a Comment