This is exactly how I see it as well. See what Greece thinks about a decline in their tourism revenue at the moment.

 

The USA has the right approach by passing a law banning companies from paying.

 

The US has the right apporach by ordering their airlines to commit tax evasion? By making it illegal for their airlines to comply with the laws of the countries they are operating in?

 

The US has plenty of diplomatic options: imposing their own tax (and even only on EU airlines if they choose), restricting traffic rights, tariffs or quotas on other EU products. None of those involve ordering their airlines to commit a crime (which tax evasion is).

The US has the right apporach by ordering their airlines to commit tax evasion?

 

This isn't Tax Evasion as it is a trade tariff forced upon one nation by another. Trade disputes are nothing new and they have been going on for centuries. All this action does is forces the EU back to negotiations with China/Russia/USA and anyone else for that matter.

 

No one knows Trade Disputes better with the USA then the Canadian's. There's go back a long way, and goes both ways.

This isn't Tax Evasion as it is a trade tariff forced upon one nation by another. Trade disputes are nothing new and they have been going on for centuries. All this action does is forces the EU back to negotiations with China/Russia/USA and anyone else for that matter.

 

No one knows Trade Disputes better with the USA then the Canadian's. There's go back a long way, and goes both ways.

 

A tariff is a tax, thus refusing to pay it while continuing to trade is tax evasion. Also, this isn't anything forced upon one nation by another, it is a tax imposed upon all companies operating within EU airspace, including EU airlines, which will be hit hardest since all their flights will be taxed, instead of just some of them. There are plenty of courses one can take in a trade dispute, and if the US were to impose a counter-tariff for example I wouldn't blame them. Ordering your companies to ignore the law in foreign countries is a completely different matter however.

A tariff is a tax, thus refusing to pay it while continuing to trade is tax evasion. Also, this isn't anything forced upon one nation by another, it is a tax imposed upon all companies operating within EU airspace, including EU airlines, which will be hit hardest since all their flights will be taxed, instead of just some of them. There are plenty of courses one can take in a trade dispute, and if the US were to impose a counter-tariff for example I wouldn't blame them. Ordering your companies to ignore the law in foreign countries is a completely different matter however.

 

It's not evasion if the airlines doesn't violate the airspace there go no US tourism to Europe from US airlines. No one is saying they would continue trade violating the law under those circumstances.

I think the only post on this subject that makes sense is fencer's. Somebody needs to make a start and the hell with big business. In my opinion the only reason the so called free nations have so many people out of work and living on the streets!!! (I know what it is like to be penniless, had it not been for some kind people and one solid friend I would still be there maybe)

It's about time the free countries woke up and stopped as much as possible to create their own products and consumables. The money is in the hands of too few people and that's no good and that does not benefit anyone in any way shape or form. And to sum it all up we all need a huge dose of common sense and do what benefits the globe.

 

My two cents..............John

 

PS: I think companies who recklessly pollute should be breaking rocks not living at the expense of others lives. Now get off the soap box John. Hope it's cooler where you all are than it is here :Peace: :Peace: :Peace:

What do you think this bill in the US Senate does? It bars airlines from paying it, even if they want too!

 

US senate does nothing unless a lobbyist give them $$$$ Airlines make less profit margin than GM makes selling sliverado to the public. EU thinks the yeoman in the midwest or outside the coasts will play along with carbon tax scam you are wrong.

The EU ETS is more than just a tax. It is a complex scheme, that seeks to limit aircraft emissions outside of EU airspace. 26 ICAO member nations issued the "Delhi Declaration" last September opposing this unilateral action and declaring that the ICAO is the appropriate venue for dealing with emissions. If the EU determines to go ahead with this the signatories may request action under Article 86 of the ICAO.

 

If the EU wants to bankrupt itself with carbon taxes that's great, but don't expect everyone else to play along.

 

scott s.

.

I think the thread itself, the diversity of statements, is a nice overview on the ups and downs of international relationships and especially those where money is involved.

Thing is, while I disagree with this law, flights into, out of, and within the EU are within the EU's jurisdiction to legislate. The thing I find most troubling here is that the US has legislated to prevent it's Airlines complying with the rules in the foreign regions they operate in. The airlines will have to pay at the end of this year, for their emissions in 2012, and not doing so would constitute breaking EU law, so to those saying that the US hasn't told them to break the laws of the EU are wrong (to the best of my knowledge).

 

If the US brought this law in last year, and then the airlines stopped flying to Europe on the 31st of Dec. 2011, then they wouldn't be legally telling them to break the law, as they wouldn't have had any bill at that point to pay, but the fact of the matter is, is that at this point in time, those airlines now have a tax bill, that they legally have to pay, but are not legally allowed to pay.

 

The US should not be interfering like this in the affairs of other countries, it has no right to, we are not their colonies, we are independent countries that can tax what we like. If the Airlines didn't want to pay this tax, then they would have stopped flying to the EU back in January, however they have continued flying, and hence, shown that they are still interested in serving the European market, even though they knew that this tax would be in place.

 

That being said, I do think that this legislation on the part of the US will serve to set the EU straight and get them to back down on this notion they have that taxing air travel will suddenly save the polar bears. However that doesn't mean that the USA had the right to go interfering in the fiscal policy of foreign countries and legislating to make their businesses break the law, nor that I approve of the US interfering in our affairs.

 

Captain Rónán J O Cadhain.

The US should not be interfering like this in the affairs of other countries, it has no right to, we are not their colonies, we are independent countries that can tax what we like. If the Airlines didn't want to pay this tax, then they would have stopped flying to the EU back in January, however they have continued flying, and hence, shown that they are still interested in serving the European market, even though they knew that this tax would be in place.

 

That being said, I do think that this legislation on the part of the US will serve to set the EU straight and get them to back down on this notion they have that taxing air travel will suddenly save the polar bears. However that doesn't mean that the USA had the right to go interfering in the fiscal policy of foreign countries and legislating to make their businesses break the law, nor that I approve of the US interfering in our affairs.

 

I would agree with you if you were correct. The fact of the matter is that you have it backwards. The EU is attempting to regulate airlines inside and OUTSIDE their airspace. Carbon emissions emitted over China in route from Hong Kong to Frankfurt are covered in this "tax" or whatever you wish to call it. A United flight from San Francisco to Amsterdam is covered from the moment of takeoff to landing. How is that NOT interferring by the EU over aviation around the entire world? Please do not make this into an anti-American topic. It is being resisted by the entire world. The difference is that the U.S. is taking a position that products its industry. The EU obviously isn't doing the same.

I would agree with you if you were correct. The fact of the matter is that you have it backwards. The EU is attempting to regulate airlines inside and OUTSIDE their airspace. Carbon emissions emitted over China in route from Hong Kong to Frankfurt are covered in this "tax" or whatever you wish to call it. A United flight from San Francisco to Amsterdam is covered from the moment of takeoff to landing. How is that NOT interferring by the EU over aviation around the entire world? Please do not make this into an anti-American topic. It is being resisted by the entire world. The difference is that the U.S. is taking a position that products its industry. The EU obviously isn't doing the same.

 

Tom, I'm not Anti-America, and I am against the tax.

I didn't think of it like that, I considered it similar to "landing charges", A flat fee that you pay, depending on aircraft size.

I think that what the US has done will be one of the things that will force the hand of the EU to back down on this, for which I am glad, but, on an idealogical level, I don't think that any country should legislate not to allow it's businesses follow the laws in the countries they operate into, and would consider that interfering. I have been long opposed to some of the MAD ideas that have come out of Brussels, but, I chose to live here, just like those airlines chose to operate here, I and the Airlines could move elsewhere but we don't.

 

Rónán O Cadhain.

Keep in mind this legislation has a long way to go until it is passed and signed into law, and what it does is direct the US Secretary (minister) of transportation to study and gives him/her discretion as to what to do. It will be fought over like other trade disputes I suppose.

 

scott s.

.

I think that what the US has done will be one of the things that will force the hand of the EU to back down on this, for which I am glad, but, on an idealogical level, I don't think that any country should legislate not to allow it's businesses follow the laws in the countries they operate into, and would consider that interfering.

 

With respect Rónán, countries do that all the time and almost on a daily basis. There are many examples that cross ideological lines all over the place. Start with trade; oil, banannas, steel, pig iron, ad nauseam... You don't have to look too far to see examples.

 

I have been long opposed to some of the MAD ideas that have come out of Brussels, but, I chose to live here, just like those airlines chose to operate here, I and the Airlines could move elsewhere but we don't.

 

I hear you... I dislike about 99% of what comes out of D.C., but I can vote my bugger(s) out (or so I am told).

Keep in mind this legislation has a long way to go until it is passed and signed into law

 

Yeah will have to be reconciled with the House version... then who knows if the President will sign it.

 

Funny tho to see our congress finally springing into action... who knew it would be the EU that would cause us to "come together".

With respect Rónán, countries do that all the time and almost on a daily basis. There are many examples that cross ideological lines all over the place. Start with trade; oil, banannas, steel, pig iron, ad nauseam... You don't have to look too far to see examples.

 

I'm know it does, doesn't make it right though.

 

But as it stands and as I see it, these Airlines have run up bills, regardless of where those bills came from, if they were charged for the whole flight from SFO to LHR, or only once they entered Shannon's Airspace, they knew that they would have those bills, but chose that they would continue to operate the route, knowing that at the end of the year they would be faced with these charges. These charges were part of the cost of operating into and out of Europe now, the same as any other cost such as fuel, wages, landing fee's ect. They knew that if they wanted to fly to the EU, they would have charges, unfair as they may be. Now however, another place has come along and said, "Well, we don't agree with the principal behind these charges, we think there is a better way to solve the problem you are trying to solve, so we're going to legally force our airlines to default on the bill they've run up over the past year." - That is how I see it at the minute. If it were changed to say that, they could in future, no longer pay the charges, and must instead stop flights until the EU backed down, but could pay the charges they had built up, then I would be fine with it, though again, would think that the state was interfering too much with the goings on of a business in telling them to stop their operations...

 

I hear you... I dislike about 99% of what comes out of D.C., but I can vote my bugger(s) out (or so I am told).

 

I haven't a clue how the EU works, we do vote in the parliament members, but I think it's mostly the civil servants in Brussels that get the crazy notions on saving the planet...

 

Anyway, there's my little bit of perspective on the matter,

Rónán.