Duty on Red Diesel

[jimi]

I missed the RYA thingie as I was travelling on business over Tuesday & Wednesday however one thing I did pick up on was the issue of the RYA support of non taxation of fuel
As far as I could see their argument was that as the tax on road fuel was too high it was only fair that leisure boaters should pay a lot less. This surely is missing completely the point of the argument. Yes our road fuel taxes are high, much too high but I cannot see that justifies the non taxation of fuel for marine leisure purposes. If I buy an off road vehicle for leisure purposes then I pay my taxes. Fundamentally I believe the red tax exemption on leisure fuel is a historical anomoly which should be phased out, both on the grounds of equity and environmental protection.
I get pissed off when I fill up my diesel car, which I use to get to work, costing me £50 and a leisure boater can get 5 times the volume of fuel for that. Not only that but I've got to have a catalytic convertor on my exhaust system with the emissions tested at MOT, its about time that happened to marine engines!

It really is not fair and impossible to justify logically.

 

[lyc]

I do not see tarmac roads being built from fuel tax for boats, licensing centres, policing, hundreds of accidents daily needing hospital treatments but to name a few ways that fuel tax could be used.

We all pay high fuel tax with our cars so why should we pay it again for the boats that do not take the resources that land based activities do.

 

[jimi]

Its an absolute fallacy that income from tax on road use is used for road related costs. Its a source of inelastic priced income for government. If your argument were true we would have the best roads and hospitals in the world .. we have'nt!

 

[lyc]

I did say could be used.

So what is your reasoning for paying again and again and again.....?

 

[jimi]

Well its really quite simple but to use an analogy you might understand

If I buy a bottle of Gin at an offie in my village I pay a vast amount to the tax man why should I be exempt from paying that tax when I buy it to drink on my boat?

Same argument IMHO

 

[Chris_Robb]

Jimi - its just more taxation - and I'm b*****d if I'm going to pay more. I know - you're trying to drive the stinkies off the water!

Chris

 

[lyc]

Simpler still....I presume you are not an alcoholic so therefore do not need Gin to get you moving.

My engines need diesel.

 

[jimi]

Chris, as you know I hate paying for anything but my sense of equity rules my pocket and I really do think it unfair ... I'll continue to buy red diesel but logically and equitably I cannot see why the consumption of fossil fuels during a leisure activity is taxed at a lesser rate than when I need it to get to work!

 

[jimi]

Ok try cigarettes then, or if you work aboard are you suddenly exempt from income tax?

 

[Chris_Robb]

Jimi - there is too much charge on road fuels. I would agree with a higher charge if they sorted out public transport and thare was agenuine choice - but there isn't - I don't want to pay any more tax! that said - we are in France and have to pay tax anyway - albeit at a more reasonable rate.

 

[lyc]

Jimmi please go and have a mechanical course. Engines do NOT use cigarettes to work.

 

[jimi]

One m please! However most engines pollute the environment just like smokers!
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Observer]

Jimi,

Your sense of equity is misconceived and illogical. You acknowledge (I think) that the tax (road fuel duty) on road fuel is excessive (and therefore "unfair"), because the tax collected far exceeds the cost of providing the infrastructure on which it is nominally based; but you then argue that levying an equal tax on fuel used for leisure boating (which does not require that infrastructure) produces an equitable result, in terms of tax. It does not. It simply adds a new inequity. This is simple "two wrongs don't make a right" stuff.

Whether it's fossil fuel or not is a separate issue.

 

[lyc]

Ahhhh so its a polution tax you want and not a red diesel tax then. So why are you filling up your car and not using public transport?

 

[jimi]

You misread my argument. I argue that duty on fuel is a general tax levied by the government because demand for fuel is inelastic and therefore will engender greater amounts of revenue as the tax rate is increased. What it is used for I have no idea (in common with most people including the government!). I comment that it is high because relative to other countries it is. I think the rest of my argument is clear ie why should we be exempt from this duty when using it for leisure purposes when most of us need to pay duty when we need to use it.

 

[jimi]

I do'nt want to be taxed at all, but if I am ,I wish to be taxed on things I have the choice of doing rather than the thing I must do!

 

[IanPoole2]

Its just a tax

... It appears here in the UK we want continental levels of state support and US levels of taxation.

Road fuel duty IS just another tax. Tax on fuel, income tax, VAT - you takes your choice.

 

[AndrewB]

Quite right.

I'm with you on this. The present situation has always seemed to me to be completely anomalous. I quite agree with your equity argument.

Though I agree that the way it is used is irrelevant, at least it would have the merit of making us appear to be contributing to the cost of navigation marks, rescue services, pollution clean-up etc and would undercut the argument of those who demand compulsary registration and annual boat tax, things which would require a new layer of bureaucracy and extra cost.

 

[Observer]

Which is a position many would sympathise with. But why does the fact that you are overtaxed on the thing you need (fuel for your car) make you want to pay more tax elsewhere on something which happens to be relatively lightly taxed? You shoud be (and I am) grateful for the exemption and hope it continues.

I think I pay enough tax elsewhere and don't feel at all guilty about not paying it on fuel for my boat. As it happens, I don't use the boat much as I would like anyway and probably wouldn't be hurt if the same level of duty is applied. However, I'm not about to wish it on others who are fortunate enough to have large boats which require a lot of fuel. To my mind, they already contribute a great deal to UK plc already: tax on the high incomes they presumably have which enable them to purchase the boat; VAT on the purchase of the boat; taxes paid by the companies and employees who build the boat, berth the boat, maintain the boat etc.

Or (dare I say it) is it that you happen not to use the lower taxed fuel (or very little of it) so you think it's fair to wish it on other people who will be affected? Which is, in effect, voting for somebody else to pay more so that you can pay less.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Polluter pays

I'm with Jimi on this - most sailors have some level of environmental awareness and realise that the provision of 'cheap' fuel encourages consumption, which creates pollution, global warming, etc. The 'polluter pays' principle seems logical yet it is not fairly applied - private vehicles yes, commercial vehicles yes, petrol powered boats yes, diesel powered boats no, aircraft private or commercial no, fuel oil ships no.

Given that all 'oil burners' produce pollution, why should some pay and some not? And given that the amount of pollution is more or less directly in proportion to the volume of fuel consumed, a tax per litre seems the fairest way to achieve this.

As a side benefit, taxing high consumption vehicles and vessels might provide the commercial stimulus to develop less polluting power sources - hybrid engines, fuel cells, LPG fuel, etc.