Should private jet use be heavily taxed since it has terrible carbon emissions and adds to Global Warming?

[Jersey2]

Celebrities and large companies tell us about global warming so should they pay a hefty fee for contributing to it when they could ride in more efficient First Class seats? I think so.

Yep

Nope

I dunno

Updates

+1 y

What say you?

[Kiran_Yagami]

No, but you should NEVER take climate advice from someone who owns a private jet, because as you say, they have terrible emissions AND they are extremely wasteful. A Learjet burns through 2,000 pounds of fuel an hour at idol on the runway. That's more than my car burns in a year if I keep my foot down.

[Jersey2]

This is a good but short article.

www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-private-jet-has-carbon-footprint-15-times-average-2022-10

[Avicenna]

Absolutely. Let the elite lead by example.

[WindAtMyBack]

I think it's insignificant - both the tax and the pollution. Anyone who can afford that type of thing can afford whatever tax you throw at them. Plus, luxury items and fuel are already taxed pretty heavily. As far as pollution, there just aren't enough private jets to be significant.

Also, I assume that most of those jets are actually owned by companies. Ultimately it's the customers who end up paying the tax. There is nobody else to pay it. Who those customers are depends on the company, but usually it's normal average people.

[provokeesmokee]

Yeah.

If they can afford a private jet, they can afford paying heavily for polluting more than they need to and ought to pay more so that the rest of the world can fix the problems these stupid rich people create. Since they're clearly incapable of addressing them themselves.

[MORPHEUS_12]

I feel like you most not have much aviation knowledge because I stalk several celebrity private jets and they make up a very very small percentage of overall aviation traffic. I screen shot this picture the other day and it shows how crowded air space really is and it's not because of celebrities.

[Jersey2]

So leave the heavy polluters because so many more people take a more fuel efficient form of transportation? If people are to give up gas stoves and other things, the self righteous celebs and large businesses can share in the sacrifice. Maybe knock them down to just two houses in the future as well or 10,000 daft total would be good.

[Jersey2]

Sqft*

[Jonnyanalog]

There have been climate crises from about the late 60s. In the 70s and 80s it was the Earth is going into another ice age. In the 90s it was acid rain and global warming. That didn’t stick so now it’s just ‘climate change’ with concerned scientists saying year after year if we don’t stop using fossil fuels immediately the Earth is doomed and we will be living in a vast wasteland with no food, poisoned water, and no protection from UV rays. It’s all a load of horse shit. It’s a way to bring populations under the control of government entities who wish to rule in a totalitarian manner. They will use scare tactics and identity politics to ensure their agenda is fulfilled.
Jet fuel may be heavily taxed but ya know what, if these fools want to keep jet setting the globe traveling to their resource intensive mansions or mega yachts then let them pay. If you can afford a $60M Gulfstream then you can afford to pay a tax to use it.

[FunkyMonkee]

Absolutely not! Carbon helps plants to grow! Because of carbon dioxide, there are a LOT more places on the Earth that are now lushly green when, not very long ago, they were desolate deserts! The more plants we have, the more oxygen we get. In the end, there's no such thing as global warming! If the climate activists that CLAIM it exists knew for sure that it does, they wouldn't each be globe trotting from one climate change rally to the next on private jets and they certainly wouldn't be buying $10,000,000 mansions on the shores of the oceans!!
If you believe in that horseshit they've been feeding you, YOU'VE BEEN SWINDLED!!

[richardcory]

I don't want a tangle of taxes on specific things. Private jets? What about business jets. Large boats, Large houses? etc. Better to tax fuels that result in carbon emissions and then have an income tax (without loopholes) that balances things vs wealth how we want

[Drumlin2001]

You could try it. But as with all taxes for the rich, they will hire clever accountants who will find a way of reducing the impact. Money dosent seem to matter to the richest.
Probably better to just reduce the number of flights that can take off from commercial airfields. This would likely push prices up for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Leonardo Dicaprio is the worst, he scolds everyone for not having electric cars (which use just as much energy as gasoline in making the electricity), then flies constantly on a private 737 and has a garage full of gas-guzzling cars.

[jshm2]

No. Electric planes are coming in the next few years, so it will reduce their effect.

Also, first class still means getting swamped with trophy hunters. Hence why they opt for private jet.

[Jersey2]

Airlines can have a more Private First Class where everyone doesn’t walk past you. Perhaps a separate waiting area as well beyond the First Class/Business Class lounge. Electric planes would be nice but it will be many years before they are ready in terms of size and distance they can travel in one charge.

[Anonymous]

Libtards are all talk. Just look at the tard that blamed Trump for Biden. lol

[FreyaRed]

Poor people are the tax cattle, not the rich ones. Eat your larvae burger and go to work now! ... and don't forget to be happy

[rigmarole]

The proposal of a carbon tax is idiotic and anyone that would go along with one is retarded. You really want to be taxed for breathing?

[Jersey2]

My preference is to be able to breath, without pollutants carelessly thrown into the air. At your age, you will live to see the impact of our current usage of resources. Wait until another 2 billion people get discretionary funds in the next decade or two, that will be an eye opener.

[rigmarole]

There's only so much energy to go around. You can't endlessly mine at faster paces to meet growth demands. You think economies like China and India will magically grow exponentially and just keep using energy, but they can't. It's impossible. Energy use and GDP are positively correlated. They don't have the energy reserves to make that possible. They sacrificed and foolishly wasted a lot of resources to make a run at the USA with artificial growth. As a result their economies will crash hard and when I say hard, I mean real hard. You're living in a dream world... You can't do work without energy. At a man power level that energy is food. In an industrial economy, that energy is fossil fuels. They just don't have the gas to keep going.

[rigmarole]

For example, China only has enough oil to last 17 more years at their current GDP. If they grow faster, that clock ticks faster... China currently imports 8.5% of their food. Without food suppliers they will have a population collapse. They are in extreme economic trouble.

[rigmarole]

America in contrast has 400 years of oil shale at current consumption levels if it is developed and exploited. America will continue to move along at a steady sustainable pace, but other countries will have major issues trying to develop and maintain their current levels of development. They are over extended. When they don't have the energy, they can't produce. When they can't prodduce they can't buy enough food. Without food they face famine and population collapse.

[Jersey2]

You have some good points but in don’t understand the overall point. Anyway, we need a new energy source and better recycling.

[rigmarole]

You made the statement "Wait until another 2 billion people get discretionary funds in the next decade or two, that will be an eye opener.". My point is they won't. They do not have the energy to continue at their current levels to provide an economy that will afford them the luxury of discretionary funds. In population biology it's refereed to as carrying capacity. Economies like China have overshot the carrying capacity of their ecosystem. As a result, they are forced to face the consequences of a die off event. Additionally due to resource mismanagement they are left with a degraded carry capacity after they stabilize. They can only get smaller and more poor due to a lack of available energy.

[Jersey2]

I see. Well with that in mind there is a big f’ing problem coming to the middle class all over the world as there will be price increases on everything. That will drive new ideas for energy and recycling which is good. Necessity is the mother of invention.

[rigmarole]

If they want to survive under their current model they have to spread like bacteria and acquire new territory as a colonizing empire via warfare which will cost many lives and even more resources. If they make poor military decisions they can collapse their entire empire and fade into history.

[Jersey2]

I think the world will be against them. NATO, Asian neighbors and more such as Australia will hold them back. They aren’t going anywhere. Nukes are also a good deterrent as 90% of their population lives in a triangle formed mostly on their eastern coast. They also have an aging population problem as they have fewer young to pay for the social programs.

[rigmarole]

Worse yet for them, they believe they can decouple from the USA. So there is a common movement in China and in the USA away from interdependence on one another. The problem for China is that the USA is the world's largest oil producer and oil refiner. When you have an oil problem, you don't cool relations with the guy who produced the most oil... It's a strategic blunder for them...

[Jersey2]

China hurts their customers. They have no real friends. No one really trusts them so they won’t get traction their customers can leave them and move production sisters to other cheap countries. They will be more alone than anything if they want to split.

[Jersey2]

Production sites *

[ButthurtGAGpeople1]

Why do you think trump lowered taxes for THE RICH

BECAUSE HE HAS PRIVATE JETS

I keep telling people, he's IN IT FOR HIMSELF, HE DOES NOT CARE FOR YOU. HE IS A MASSIVE GRIFTER

[Jersey2]

So Joe should do something, right? He has a couple of years so will he do it? No…

[ButthurtGAGpeople1]

Nope. The new tax laws were written. He can't do anything about it. Unfortunately. Because you all voted the fucker in (trump)

[Jersey2]

He can raise costs in many ways on private jets with fees and taxes. It CAN be done. Lol

[ButthurtGAGpeople1]

Unfortunately, no. Not with republicans in congress, in control of the house

[Jersey2]

Well Joe just gave away $39 billion without Congress. Surely he can do something here.

[ButthurtGAGpeople1]

I highly doubt he did

[OlderAndWiser]

Biden can't do anything because Trump was president for four years? Then how did Trump do anything when Obama was in office for eight years?

[Alex-Snow]

Great answer I agree!

[slatyb]

We should tax carbon emission in general regardless of the source while reducing the tax rate on the less wealthy.

[John_Doesnt]

It should be banned altogether. Private jet use is stupid and so is TSA.

[007kingifrit]

yes, it also consumes a great deal of infrastructure as civilian air towers need to pay attention to those jets

[LiamJHayden]

The elitists in the wannabe Politburo don't give the first F what the peasantry wants. If they did allow something like this to pass, rest assured that we will end up paying it indirectly.

[RealMarek]

I propose a 100% net worth tax on all wealth above $500,000 for any elite who says or implies that we should do as they say, not as they do. Clear them all out!

[virtualwasp]

no, tax the people have 3 plus children, they population fewer houses move countryside.

[Jersey2]

That’s a bit incoherent. But the people having 3 plus children are the minority and they are raising future tax payers and fewer contributors to Social Security which will need the funds.

[AviatorTom]

The fuel a private jet uses is already heavily taxed. They don't need more tax.

[Jersey2]

I just like sticking it to the self righteous celbs and business people. If they can take gas stoves away from the poor they can give up private planes. We will have to make changes anyway.

[justabuddy]

I was going to say the same thing.

[haiuyu]

Yes, I'm sure the rich can afford the tax

[Jersey2]

Not all of them. It must be curtailed along with other wasteful inefficient carbon creators.

[imfreeze95]

Penalizing wealthy people for being wealthy has never turned out well

[Jersey2]

I am a conservative so we are not known for penalizing wealthy people. But I do believe we have an environmental issue and private jets are one of the problems AND they are being used by the biggest hypocrites on the planet who tell others to conserve energy while they use private jets, heat & cool 3 or 4 large empty houses, use a fleet of SUVs that they leave running so it’s comfortable inside when they get in… they need to stop wasting resources.

[imfreeze95]

@Jersey2 I agree we should not be wasteful, however I find that your argument is flawed. Cars and Cattle emit more “Greenhouse Gases” why if we are so concerned, do we not handle that first.

[Jersey2]

Fair points. There is a part of me that just wants to stick it to them as they are loud mouths hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Taxes are 4 peasants. They would just rewrite it that they can claim it back as expenses

[chicken_nugget24]

Ofc it should!