Boat builder wants to end red diesel!

Re: I think I get this...

To answer your last point. Numbers alone don't tell us anything. We need to make sure we are looking at all the relevant numbers rather than taking false satisfaction from the ones that look good.

100% of posters on this site (more or less) don't seem to want the cost of red diesel to rise in line with the cos of diesel on land or petrol on the sea. However, we live in a democracy of millions which is very strongly influenced since we live in the media age by campaign groups of one kind or another. Up til now, though I admit I haven't really looked into it yet, I am not sure that many of the environmental lobbies of one kind or another have piled in. The only campaigning has been done by motorboaters who are 100% represented by this board (yes, I know that is a bit naughty but you can see how it will play in the press and I have had a bit of criticism off you lot).

Now, I am not very good at maths and am finding it hard to pull another percentage together, but it is something to do with the number of people into the environment in this country compared to the number of abusive marine diesel heads, that will decide the issue. Sorry to be brutal, but you know what the world is like, and we can create a great new industry.
 
Re: I think I get this...

This can only be a piss take. Between the lot of us, we are more than capable of the maths

99+% of the forum, including yourself, seem to be be in favour of ignoring your suggestions. Even a layman wouldn't seem to have much difficulty working out those stats/maths and the really complicated stats that would make your case seem to be beyond you?

I'd suggest people stop replying to this guy, as he's a wind up merchant, in every sense of the phrase
 
Re: I think I get this...

anyone that wants to respond, don't. It's not worth it, and even verbose comments won't drive home how inept he it. Just lay a stake here
 
Re: I think I get this...

It's been a couple of hours...

Are you getting up gents, or have you had enough?...

...

...

Perhaps we can agree to wrap this up.

You took me on in a self-damaging way, as you now realise. You led with your mouths forgetting they are connected to your chins.

You set yourselves up for the fall that is coming your way.

I am sure the horse and cart men were similarly hacked off. Human nature.

You have shown the other readers and me why you are attracted to blasting about in your gin palaces and feel entitled to a tax break. Because you are king of the castle in your little world. You thought you would break me on this forum - but you were the crowing cockerel who tells the world he has scared the farmer away - every five minutes, before scarpering.

It's never too late to change, and you owe it to yourselves.

Don't be shy to come up and say hello in the future.
 
Re: I think I get this...

Just for the record Henry.

I guess most on this forum are hard working folks paying taxes and many struggle to keep their boats. The vision you conjure up about gin palaces etc shows where you are really coming from on this. Mind you some can afford those and I say good luck to them. They choose to spend what money they have earned the way they want... thats great. Some folks can afford private jets and that uses tax free avaition fuel so I guess you would also target them? Sorry, stupid of me of course you would not because you have no self interest in doing so.

You do not have any understanding whatsoever of the industry you are in or its customers.

You have made a complete fool of yourself and certainly placed your company in the worst light possible.

I have lived a fair time now but you a a rare example of a rare form of arrogance and selfishness combined with a total lack of grey matter to think a subject through and develop your own opinions. You jump on band wagons and when challanged simply jum off and onto another one.

You bunch us all together in a nice little part of your head as diesel heads and want to gain commercially yourself by trying to hurt us. I really do not know of a lower form of business life.

Your lack of understanding of economics and how the world works does not bode well for the future of your business.

So yes Henry the thread is over. I am sure that your arrogance does not begin to comprehend what I have written about here. I do not expect it to.
 
Re: I think I get this...

Problem is Paul, Henry showed his real prejudices when he mentioned 'Gin Palaces'.

Probably scanned your photo album and saw that you were seriously into boating with Ocean Deep.

As for me, I don't have a 'Gin Palace', I drive a 6.5m Antares which is probably best described as a 'Thermos flask palace.'

I know hundreds of boat owners who have eschewed a larger house or better car so that they can indulge in their hobby, who will be seriously disadvantaged by the failure to derogate red diesel. Luckily, I haven't bought my much wanted diesel boat yet, but many people I meet have already made the commitment based upon running costs of red diesel. They now face up to a tripling of their costs costs, which will force some to sell up.

As for me, if Henry gets his way, I will stick with my small boat and many will have to give up boating.

I still can't see why one man should get so het up about increasing the tax on a pastime, which uses a tiny fraction of the diesel used in this country. In fact, I am convinced that the true figure is probably not even 1% of the total diesel burnt.
 
Re: I think I get this...

>>>
"What I am going to do is see if I can interest a decent environmental campaigning group".......I can see your first stumbling block here. Any "decent" enviromental group will look at your product and dismiss its straight away. If it were any other form of day to day transport that was used by the populus in great numbers they might be mildly interested.
>>>
At risk of being seen to rig a jury, can anyone name an eco campaigning group with no "politics of jealousy" axe to grind? I would be surprised if one were found, and would expect any campaign to base part of its argument on "they are rich bu99ers and can afford to pay some more tax."
 
Errm, just one wee point......

... how do you MOBO guys know that Henry is who he says he is? I mean, just suppose someone on another forum............... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: I think I get this...

A common mistake on your part, I think, Andrew, thinking its about jealousy.

In my experience enviornmental leaders have grown up in a background when they can afford anything they like. They campaign for the rest of the population to be as paternalistic as they believe they are themselves. There can be nothing more thrilling than turning up in old clothes on a bike at a demo, knowing you will get back to your country pile the next day.

I'd give Jonathan Porrit and Zac Goldsmith as two prime examples. They're not jealous of what they despise, they consider those things rather vulgar and rationalise their condescension as being "looking after the planet".

Of course, they are right IMHO, even if their motivation is a bit suspect.
 
Re: I think I get this...

[ QUOTE ]
You have shown the other readers and me why you are attracted to blasting about in your gin palaces and feel entitled to a tax break.

[/ QUOTE ]
back to the numbers but I suspect that less than 1% of the people on this forum own 'gin palaces' by any objective assesment

additionally whilst some would appear to have a life's mission to turn everything into a red defence I had thought this thread started by trying to understand why you believe that changing the current UK taxation position on red diesel would achieve the objectives you have continually stated (but ducked everytime someone re raises them).
Gin palaces charging around the open sea burning diesel (any kind) are about as far removed from your companies products as they could be. That someone looking to buy a small crusier for use on an inland lake might reinvest future low running costs by buying an excellent ecocat and fuel efficent Yanmar diesel outboards is slap bang in your area - but no - you want them to pay more for their fuel so they now cannot afford either the additional 50% for an eco friendly cat hull or the diesel OB so they get a SH petrol V8 monohull instead - same lifetime cost to them / way way harsher on the environment............well done sir!

btw you weren't by any chance the Henry Mayhew who stood in the elections in West Ham were you?
 
No comment

fair enough.

You just couldn't be the same person anyway. Because that Henry Mahew stood for UKIP, which essentially wants out of the EU. One the one hand standing against the EU and yet also using the argument of tax harmonisation to press for higher fuel prices to support one's own business interests - that would be quite amazing hypocrisy, wouldn't it?
 
Re: taking bait

I understand your comments but there is little point in going into a detailed discussion about the operation of Income Tax as it isn't really relevant to this question.

In answer to your point to the effect that you thought I was saying that unless there's a reason to NOT tax something then it should automatically be taxed.....of course I am not saying that.
However what I am saying is that the Pro-Red-Diesel-Brigade (which I'll refer to as PRDB from now on! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif) needs to be making its case or it will loose the red by default. Like it or not there is a strong political case in favour of taxing fuel for leisure boats (environment, rich ba****ds, minority group, easy to implement, little public opposition etc etc). As I understand it the tax "concession" will go unless the Government makes a case against it and is able to persuade the EU.
Like it or not the PRDB needs to give the politicians the ammunition with which to make the case or they (the politicians) will do nothing.
From what I have seen nobody has put together a clear, persuasive case. There's lots of complaining, as there is about any tax. There's lots of mauling (I'm sure that Henry can take it) but there's no persuasion going on. Unless the PRDB gets it's act together you may as well accept that your tax will rise.
 
Re: taking bait

I think a pretty clear, persuasive case has been put together. That case has been presented to the Govt by the RYA, BMF and individuals writing to their MPs.

The case has obviously caused some reaction and the Govt have taken notice of it. What happens next remains to be seen (and its obviously "not over" yet) - but for you to claim that nothing has been done so far is a bit derisible.

Rick
 
Re: taking bait

The last paragraph should be justification enough......

Abstract- Controversy surrounds provisions of the luxury excise tax, which are contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. The controversy arises from ambiguities in the determination of tax liabilities for the automobile, boat, aircraft, jewelry, and fur industries. The excise tax is intended to reduce the federal deficit by enforcing a 10% surcharge on high-priced products but unjustly levies the tax on only the five industries mentioned. Difficulties are foreseen in the administration of the rule in terms of compliance of the said industries. Criticism is being directed to the subjective loopholes of the regulations. This subjectivity is most evident in the cases of the boat and automobile industry.


One of the more controversial provisions passed by Congress in its attempt to reduce the burgeoning federal deficit was the luxury excise tax. The tax, introduced as part of RRA 90, levies a 10% surcharge on certain high-priced items to the extent that they exceed certain statutory limits. Effective January 1, 1991, the tax applies to the "first retail sale" of luxury goods with a sales price above the following thresholds: automobiles $500,000; boats $100,000; aircraft $25,000; and jewelry and furst exceeding $10,000. the tax was originally projected to provide revenues of $9 billion over the next five years. It has become obvious that the original projections are, at best, unrealistic. In addition, on a larger scale, the imposition of the excise tax has been reported in the press as aggravating the plight of the luxury industries already hard hit by current economic conditions.

Legislators levied the tax on only five industries, allegedly to make the tax easier administer. It was decided, for example, that electronics should be dropped as a category since there are too many different types of dealers and equipment. Needless to say, the industries affected have been quite vocal in their criticism. The producers singled out are concerned that consumers who misunderstand the "threshold" concept may be resistant to purchase so called "luxury items." This would occur, for example, if consumers were to believe that $3,000 in additional tax would be owed on the purchase of a $30,000 automobile, when in fact none would actually be due. For the consumer, the tax is particularly worrisome because, once the statute is in place, it is simple to lower the threshold amounts or increase the rate. Opponents claim that the provision will affect not only the consumers, but also the industries, and in time will translate into lost jobs.

In the boating industry, this has already become obvious. According to a recent The Wall Street Journal editorial, the Labor Department estimates that in Florida, the nation's leading boat building state, builders laid off 5,000 out of 18,000 laborers by the end of 1990 and these layoffs are not isolated. Retailers, manufacturers, and services aligned to the boating industry are simultaneously affected. To provide even the slightest justification for these job losses, the government should at least be realizing substantial revenue gains. Nevertheless, according to the same editorial, the Joint Committee of Taxation has released collection estimates of which only $3 million were attributable to boats in 1991. Where is the justification?

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/old/11583345.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

steved
Original boat paperwork
2
Replies
30
Views
964
steved
steved
boatmike
Merry Fisher 695
Replies
3
Views
229
Bouba
Bouba
W
Budget diesel polishing
2
Replies
26
Views
717
Iliade
Iliade
Bouba
A boat for all seasons
Replies
2
Views
305
NBs
NBs
O
“The Dog that Didn’t Bark:” Yanmar. 4L HASTE.
Replies
2
Views
282
oldgit
O

Share this page

Top