[Dylan16807]

I don't need to define an airline. The tax applies to anyone fueling a plane, and I was just saying that airlines are huge and they're not going to hide.

A business with other things has no advantage or disadvantage.

> How do you deal with refueling at international destinations and possible carbon taxes in the destination country?

Pick an option. It won't make much difference.

> Do you actually want to tax carbon emissions or climate impact? A synthetic fuel could plausibly be carbon neutral, but burning it at the cruising altitude would still have an impact on climate change.

We can have that as a possibility. Probably it's worth wording the law so that the tax scales with the remediation cost.

[jltsiren]

First, you are thinking about the airlines that exist today, rather than the businesses that would exist under the new regulations. If it's more tax efficient to operate the hypothetical supersonic business jets under a multi-industry conglomerate, that may well be what's going to happen.

Second, international refueling has historically been the main reason why jet fuel cannot be taxed properly. In many European countries, gas has long been much more expensive than jet fuel. If you try taxing jet fuel without coordinating the tax scheme with nearby countries, the end result is increased emissions. Planes will refuel under a more favorable tax regime, fly with a heavier fuel load, and maybe even trade some payload for fuel. Airlines may also route their flights suboptimally to take better advantage of cheaper fuel.

Third, if you want to tax climate impact, it's not enough to tax fuel. You have to collect data on where the fuel is actually used and build new systems for ensuring that the reported data is correct. And then you need a model for calculating taxes from the data, which is going to be a politically contested issue. Especially when the model is changed according to the latest scientific understanding.

[Dylan16807]

> First, you are thinking about the airlines that exist today,

I don't see how business structure affects my suggestion at all. The main tax would be on fuel purchases.

> Second, international refueling has historically been the main reason why jet fuel cannot be taxed properly.

So make it an EU thing. And the US can do pretty well by itself despite that.

And you can charge planes at landing based on any fuel they recently used that wasn't taxed enough.

> Third, if you want to tax climate impact, it's not enough to tax fuel. You have to collect data

Nah you don't have to do that. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and don't try to make taxes too complicated.

[jltsiren]

> I don't see how business structure affects my suggestion at all. The main tax would be on fuel purchases.

Including fuel used by trucks when the same fuel could also be used in planes? If you tax it, businesses that operate both trucks and planes are at disadvantage. If you don't, you create opportunities for tax evasion.

> So make it an EU thing. And the US can do pretty well by itself despite that.

The EU has to deal with major hubs outside its regulations in London and Istanbul. As for the US, Toronto is conveniently located for many domestic routes.

> And you can charge planes at landing based on any fuel they recently used that wasn't taxed enough.

Assuming that you are allowed to do that, according to various tax treaties and free trade agreements you would like to keep.

> Nah you don't have to do that. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and don't try to make taxes too complicated.

Unfortunately it's 2023 and not 2003. The window of opportunity for a good outcome has already closed, and even an ok outcome requires understanding the difference between carbon neutral and climate neutral.

And as I mentioned, there is an alternative to making taxes too complicated: banning activities that are obviously wasteful.