Boat builder wants to end red diesel!

Re: I think I get this...

Paul,

You're a sad, sad man - but you make some good points there.

My answer is that life's a compromise and it would be impractical to put value judgments on different types of commercial marine use. As stated, I am not in favour of raising taxes on commercial marine use for transportation, fishing, whatever. I accept that it could be reasonable to put taxes on commercial seal watching in principle, but the difference between your two examples is that the first is providing someone with employment whereas the additonal use you might make of your boat to go seal watching is not.

I also think that raising taxes on commercial vehicles beyond a certain point would be unwise for the reasons previously stated. We are a long way from that with 6.4p a litre on red diesel.

Cheerio to you too.
 
Re: I think I get this...

Ok Henry
I could not resist pointing out that expenditure over which we have a choice is the vast bulk of our expenditure.

"the first is providing someone with employment whereas the additonal use you might make of your boat to go seal watching is not"

You do not understand economics to state that the additional use I make of my boat to go seal watching does not contribute to employment - of course, all the use I make of my boat contributes to employment. There are many industries and people living of the expenditure that I make on the boat and the more I use it the more I spend the more they have

So if for example I employed a skipper to take me and the family in my boat under your logic I am providing the same employment as the seal watching boat and hence should qualify for low taxed fuel.

Ot how about chartering a boat and affording the employees of the charter business employment?

There is no difference between that and choosing to go out for a nice meal, go to the cinema or almost anything else anyone can do. You really should try and get a grip on basic economics Henry.

I have answered this point because I really think you consider you are making a rational response and I just needed to enlighten you to the fact you were not.

Maybe I should not have bothered responding, I suppose its in my nature but given the totally absurd lack of logic you adopt over air travel, I have to accept you are not rational. Your world of logic is simply that if Henry wants it that way then let it be that way ....... you need no logic with that.

I think I can resist being baited into any more responses.
 
Re: I think I get this...

If this thread shows how the pro-red-diesel fraternity is going to set about making the case for retaining the status-quo then it is inevitable that red diesel will go.

Whether or not Henry is right is irrelevant. At least he has come on here and attempted to make his case. All he has had is a ritualised savaging, with a lot of nit-picking and no real attempt at discussion.

All you have achieved is to convince him that he is right and it looks as if he has now also decided to recruit some environmentalists to support his case.

If you want to win your argument you should be trying to persuade people; shouting them down will achieve nothing. I think you've shot yourselves in the foot.
 
Re: I think I get this...

I disagree with you on that.
He has not made any sort of case at all that is the frustration of it.

He runs an small little boat building business and is of little consequence. He has clearly written that his reason for his camapign is to help his business.

There really has be no discussion on the issue of extending derogation just a futile attempt by myself and others to draw out of him the reasoning behind his little campaign.

I am sure that he thinks that he is right but I do not regret challanging him. However, even I am trying to put a stop to it now.
 
Re: I think I get this...

I didn't think for one minute that you would.

Just ask yourself though...... What have you achieved for your campaign out of this? Have you done anything to bring him rouind to your way of thinking? Did you succeed in making your case to him? Did you even try?

You've had the satisfaction of a group mauling of the "opposition" but no more.

At the end of it you need to win people like this over to your way of thinking. Not vice versa.

I can understand your frustration about the red diesel issue, but I cannot understand why you only seem to want to shout about it and never get down to actually doing anything about it.
 
shot in foot

aw, bit harsh tisme?

Henry primarily quoted Adam Smith as his justification for acting publicly and selfishly in his own interests. He was very proud to make the quote, perhaps the defining post in the series. "I suggest you read Wealth of nations" etc etc. Gosh, he was dead pleased with himself when he wrote that.

His argument was then torn apart, and quite correctly. It was a mendacious interpretation of perhaps the defining reference for a free-market economy (ie free of government intervention) .

After this, Henry remained cheerful - but dried up. I suppose that recent posts have driven home the win a little too hard. Naughty Gludy gave him his unique style of long-post hell long after the knockout!

Howver, I don't think dearest Henry's efforts to launch a campaign group will cause too much of a seismic effect. His cardboard exhibition stand is pictured proudly in his website, as are his organisation's efforts at building a modern and stylish powerboat.

So it's likely that his plan to assemble some eco-warriors will be similarly amateurish, hopeless, misguided, unprofitable and ultimately ineffective.

Even if he DOES make some headway - a mixed messge from boaters sounds nice and plausible - real democracy. Some will be in favour tho many more against a tax rise. No stitch-up there then.

Oh, and if red diesel DOES come in? I'll rent your boat and you can rent mine for the season. Then they're both on charter and can use commercial diesel, see? Another example of higher taxes reaping less revenue.
 
Re: shot in foot

The serious point is that while everyone has been attacking Henry for "acting selfishly and in his own interests" that's exactly what his accusers have been doing. They are simply interested in protecting their red diesel and if that isn't in their own interest I don't know what is. Don't forget also that many non-boaters would view the use of large quantities of fuel for leisure purposes as a selfish act in its own right; but that is a separate arguement which I am only throwing in to wind you up! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Of course Henry is acting in his own self interest. Selfish or not what do expect him to do?....he is running a business. (I must admit that I'm not convinced that he is going about this in the best way, but it is his business, he believes he is right, and he will either succeed or fail by what he does)

On the other question. I will happily swap with you for chartering, but as I am on petrol I'm not sure that you will be better off. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
taking bait

I'll reclaim your vat then, shall i?

Back to Henry, yep he's acting in his own best interests, and lots of companies do this. Some also lobby government. But they do so quietly, not overtly whilst tryiong to dress it up as being in the interests of the environment - when of course a true environmentalist wd not actually make er powerboats.

When questioned, it fell apart - he publicly admits that yep it's cos it will be great for his busines and correspondingly bad for competitors.

he fatuously says his demand is for a "level playing field" when in fact they are asking for the very opposite - he wants a very particular playing field that favours his company, not others. he quotes other taxes to justify this. Yet a level paying field according to Adam Smith is no govt intervention - as little tax as possible.

From the implication of yr post - do people need to "protect" themselves and argue AGAINST a tax rise? And if they fail to make a solid argument - should a tax rise folow? I don't think so. You post seems to assume/accept that unless there's a reason NOT to tax it or raise taxes - the govt should jolly well do it.

I'd like you to justify why income tax shouldn't be a flat 50% - half for community and half for the individual sounds a lot more fair doesn't it? How about a supertax on overseas investment profit such as second homes? That would be fair too- uk resident using uk loot but not investing in the uk, see? Much better to encourage them to spend it in the uk, and not burn airplane fuel too, see?

Loads more taxes can also be justified in the same silly upward-only style. Plenty of governments have managed to hypnotise us this is "normal". Prices go up, taxes go up, hey ho.

But note that these taxes are PERCENTAGES. So as the price goes up so does the tax take. Tax revenues are already inflation proof if the tax remains static forever.

A higher tax rate means that unlike every other organisation that producers anything or provides a service, the govt actually admits it is less efficient. Or of course it does better things. But there no free university and grammar schools and prescriptions nowadays is there? And there's no M25 or indeed any masive road project? Nor any britsh steel at £1m a day. Or money-losing coal pits either.

Boats have got cheaper in real terms as a percentage of salalries frexample. So have cars and loads of things, and especially governing people should be cheaper in real terms with computers and tv and telephones. But no - gioverning has madly become incredibly expensive, double the price even in real terms (ie double the tax rate) than in the fifties when we had world war to pay for and no computers. But still a police and nhs and schools too.

A mark of good modern government would be just like good modern boats - better AND cheaper, in real terms.

So much for the peace dividend eh...
 
Re: I think I get this...

Tisme
"At the end of it you need to win people like this over to your way of thinking. Not vice versa."

I am sorry but in this case you ask the impossible. I soon gave in even trying to do that.

Again - this thread was not about the debate over red. Henry was shot down on every point and then just ignored it - Ok I may well (as tcm stated) have gone on throwing a few long after the knock out (I am going to have to stop agreeing with tcm) but that was in the hope of trying to get somewhere.

I accept that I cannot win them all. The argument was easy to win - Henry has no real argument and just annoyingly hides behind issues. But to win Henry over to any rational views after the way he simply clothes himself in any available flag passing by eg Adam Smith, The Society for Preservation of Pauper Flyers etc makes it impossible to carry out any rational discussion with him.

There was a certain point when I just gave in and at least got what I was feeling off my chest .... so yes, maybe I should not call a spade a spade like that but there never was a chance of winning him over to any point because he actually has no real stance other than self interest himself.
 
Re: I think I get this...

Henry,

Not sure if your "Two supporters" was meant to include me.

You are wrong, I posed the scenario just to get you to answer the question.

I do not support a tax increase on any water borne vessels as I think they are already responsible for for removing people and goods from the roads.

If red diesel is abandoned I will not be upgrading my petrol boat to a larger diesel boat in the future, because I will not be able to afford the fuel bills.

I certainly will not be buying a catamaran as it cannot get it through the bridge to moor it in front of my house.
 
Re: I think I get this...

[ QUOTE ]
that the first is providing someone with employment whereas the additonal use you might make of your boat to go seal watching is not.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about you, but my small boat keeps half of North Wales in very lucrative employment.
 
Re: I think I get this...

[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not Henry is right is irrelevant. At least he has come on here and attempted to make his case. All he has had is a ritualised savaging, with a lot of nit-picking and no real attempt at discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the simple reason he is try to price me out of my new hobby. I've only been boating for a year and I like it so much that I want to get a bigger boat so that we can sleep on it. Now, I am being told that I should be taxed to the hilt for the fuel as if I want to drive it on the road.

I've have just paid the biggest tax bill of my entire life and I have quite frankly had enough.

As many forumites know, I am considering moving to IOM, before looking for somewhere a bit cheaper to live.

My pocket is not bottomless and unfortunatley, if push comes to shove, boating will have to be the first to go to save money.

[ QUOTE ]
non-boaters would view the use of large quantities of fuel for leisure purposes as a selfish act in its own right;

[/ QUOTE ]

Tisme, the amount of red diesel used by leisure boaters is a tiny drop in the ocean, if you excuse the pun. I reckon one Dublin/Holyhead ferry uses more red diesel in one month than all the leisure boaters do in one year. Wild guestimate!

The eco argument is not valid.
 
Re: I think I get this...

Name the one other supporter. You are in an overwhelming minority, as you've probably guessed by now.


Does that not say anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

steved
Original boat paperwork
2
Replies
30
Views
970
steved
steved
boatmike
Merry Fisher 695
Replies
3
Views
230
Bouba
Bouba
W
Budget diesel polishing
2
Replies
26
Views
722
Iliade
Iliade
Bouba
A boat for all seasons
Replies
2
Views
306
NBs
NBs
O
“The Dog that Didn’t Bark:” Yanmar. 4L HASTE.
Replies
2
Views
283
oldgit
O

Share this page

Top