Original practice question
Some people think flights should be made more expensive so that fewer people fly. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
- 1
Position
Disagree that a higher fare is a fair way to cut flights. It cuts the trip to see family before it cuts the third holiday of a richer passenger, unless the tax is aimed at frequent flyers rather than at every seat.
- 2
Body paragraph 1
- Point
- A flat rise in fares rations by income, and the trips people drop first are not the most frivolous.
- Explanation
- A worker who flies once a year to a parent will leave the route before a passenger who flies monthly for a short break and barely notices the tax. If the aim is fewer flights, the flat fare hits the wrong boarding pass. The climate case is real. This instrument does not match it.
- Example
- A care worker who stopped an annual visit home after a flat departure tax, while a monthly city-break ticket on the same plane stayed affordable for a higher salary.
- 3
Body paragraph 2
- Point
- A levy that rises with the number of flights a person takes in a year targets the repeat journey and leaves the rare one intact.
- Explanation
- That is the extent of agreement: price can be a tool if it is aimed. Frequent-flyer taxes, and an end to tax breaks that make the tenth flight cheaper than the first, change behaviour where the emissions actually pile up. A sermon about staying home does not.
- Example
- A tax band that left a single annual return untouched and rose sharply on the fifth return bought by the same passenger in that year.
- 4
Conclusion
Cut frequent flying with a rising levy. Do not use a flat fare rise and call it an environmental policy.