Duty on Red Diesel

[Gordonmc]

The discretion on use of red diesel by boaties is nothing to do with favouritism over road users. Rightly or wrongly when the government introduced the current fuel duty regime it exempted the agricultural sector, fisheries and aviation.

As our interest is boating, lets look at the practicality of differentiating between bonefide commercial shipping, fishing and leisure use. The reality is that when the regime was introduced, the amount of fuel being used for leisure activities was insignificant in terms of the total pool. Not worth the beaurocracy involved in levying two duty rates at the same marine outlets, which would mean two sets of storage and delivery systems.

Things may have changed with more boaties motoring, motorsailing etc and leisure specific fuel outlets. But the amount of red diesel being used would not cover changes required to properly police introduction of full duty on "some" marine diesel.

However, I don't believe there is justification for a campaign to retain duty-free status until there is a real threat. It would only attract Mr. Brown's attention.

 

[Observer]

No, quite wrong

And so, I am afraid, is your suggestion on light dues.

I have some sympathy for the argument that leisure craft users should contribute to the costs of lights, navigation marks etc. However, applying duty to marine fuel, for that purpose (whether at road fuel duty rates or at a lower rate), would be at negligible cost to 'raggies' and bear (relatively) massively on 'stinkies' (use of terms not intended to be pejorative, just for convenience). Whereas, I think it may be argued, raggies make more use of said paraphernalia because: (i) sailing boats tend to make night passages more than motor boats; (ii) sailing boats make longer passages than motor boats.

Would that be your idea of a fair system of contribution?

 

[jimi]

Again you misunderstand, I would not wish a tax increase on anyone, IMHO the UK economy is well overtaxed anyway as a consequence on economic mismanagement and Tony's world leader ambitions together with the Imperial legacy leaving us with a huge burden of defence expenditure completely out of proportion to our current world status and defence requirements. However it should not change the fairness of the taxation system. Are you really trying to tell me that it is fair that someone should get untaxed fuel for his Sunseeker 75 when poor Nellie down the road is paying exorbitant amounts for the same fuel to get to work so she can feed her single family. Oh and by the way, next week she's got an MOT coming up and her engine is smoking a bit and she can't see where she's going to get the money from for a new exhaust sytem complete with catalytic converter. Bit extreme perhaps but illustrates my point.

 

[IanPoole2]

Agree - do n\'t atract the treasury

Soon as you do - we'll be taxed, and possibly agric. use and fisheries as well. It all goes into the pot, and from HM Treasury is concerned - the more the better.

 

[Observer]

It may illustrate your point

But I still disagree with it. I do not see how your argument is sustained by the illustration. I might equally argue that your hypothetical Nellie is employed in the Sunseeker factory and is able to support her family because wealthier people are willing to spend vast amounts on their leisure pursuits.

Generally, your argument has expanded outside the original point. Your argument for fairness has to end with a general redistribution of wealth. Is that the intention?

I've made the points I wished to and if I haven't argued well enough to persuade you to reconsider your position, we shall just have to agree to disagree.

 

[jimi]

Pardon ?

Fail to see why my illustration indicates a general redistribution of wealth, please spell it out to me?

 

[rhinorhino]

I can see no good reason why duty should not be levied on fuel.
What justification is there for this as opposed to general views on fuel taxs.
Not that it isn't nice, I just can't see any good reason for it.

 

[Observer]

Re: Pardon ?

If tax on marine fuel is imposed then it follows, all else being equal, that there is a re-distribution of wealth from the richer (Sunseeker owner) to the poorer (Nellie). Sunseeker owner pays more tax and Nellie pays less.

If the justification for the tax imposition is "fairness", why does "fairness" stop at equalising rates of duty on fuel? There are plenty of other "unfair" aspects of life in this country/Europe/the world which are potential targets for "fairness". Logical extension = general redistribution of wealth.

You may not agree with my arguments - that's your choice. As I stated earlier, I am (in financial terms) to a large extent indifferent to the issue because my single engined boat uses relatively little fuel and, unhappily, I don't get to use it as much as I would like anyway. Therefore, I believe I argue against the imposition of duty with a significant degree of objectivity. You argue for the imposition of tax, which would result in a massive increase in cost to other people, which you would not bear to any significant extent. Your objectivity is questionable. Generally, I have observed only one or two stinkies on this form and Mobo chat who support the tax. All other supporters are raggies (again, no pejorative intention).

 

[jimi]

Re: Pardon ?

Several errors of fact:
I did not indicate that Nellie should or would pay less tax. I am not arguing this from a personal viewpoint either. Just cannot see why the same bit of fuel should'nt cost the same in a car or a leisure boat. If I had a motorboat or aeroplane I would feel the same, no matter my self interest. Not only that but why are'nt emission controls applicable to marine engines as well as cars?

Are you indicating that all captains of industry or high earners should pay lower tax rates than the plebs because of their value to the economy?

 

[tr7v8]

Re: Pardon ?

I think you must have your head in the sand if you think Marine engines are not being subjected to emission laws. A. the engines are being based on the road vehicles so the Technology follows through and B. various goverments in a misguided attempt to be green are enforcing the standards anyway, eg. the Bodensee regulations.
Misguided because it is a typical tree hugging reaction, aircraft use vast amount of fuel but are not being forced down emissions routes etc. Also diesels generally pollute more in terms of particulates than petrol, but that has been conveniently ignored by the latest UK taxation regs!

Incidentally I think if you tot it up that red diesel consumption for liesure is probably minute, look at the amount of commercial traffic which is 24 x 7 x 365 then compare to the amount being used by leisure cruisers! Can you honestly imagine the issues of having 2 sets of pumps one red, one white.

Incidentally raggies could be caught more by emission regs than stinkies, they do lower hours and are not generally worried about high powe/efficiency per se so therefore have less interest in keeping engines better tuned. AKA the amount of smelly diesels in sail boats, that smoke away in my marina when they start up and keep making smoke even when warmed up.

And before you ask my engines are petrol!

Jim
-----

 

[jimi]

Emission Controls

What I meant was that a motor car is subject to an annual emission inspection as part of the MOT process. I am not aware that any leisure craft is subject to that. On Sunday when down sorting some thing out on my boat an elderly MB behind me started up and for 20 minuted chucked out a smog of thick sulphurous smoke which, quite seriously, made me cough and splutter. This boat was 100 yds away. We've all seen these boats wich leave a thick pall behind them, they need sorting out. I'd be quite happy to have an emission test as part of my annual service.

 

[Observer]

Re: Several errors of fact

Jimi,

I don't want this debate to get out of hand so, regardless of how you respond to this, I will add no more. You're welcome to have the last word if you want.

You asked me to explain how I got to the "general re-distribution of wealth" point - so I did.

You only pointed out one error of fact, which I don't think is an error. I carefully qualified my statement "all else being equal". In other words, if the total tax take is the same, the fact that some people (like the Sunseeker owner, who you introduced into the argument) pay more has to mean that others (I used the example of Nellie, who you introduced into the argument as comparison with Sunseeker owner) will pay less.

You may claim you would feel the same if you owned a fuel guzzling motor boat but the fact is (as I understand it) you don't. So your claim is untestable and your objectivity on this issue is questionable. It's not whether you are objective but whether you occupy a position which allows you to be seen as being objective. You don't. That is a simple, unarguable fact. In the same way, if the duty on marine fuel existed and I was arguing for a reduction or elimination, my objectiviity would be questionable.

Whether you like it or not, there is a status quo - which is that marine fuel is exempt from road fuel duty. You have argued for road fuel duty to be applied - changing the staus quo. I argue such an imposition is unjustified for reasons I have already stated in general and by reference to the arguments you and others have put forward. If somebody has arguments other than the ones I've read so far, I might be persuaded to change my view. I am likely to be sceptical of the intellectual independence of anybody who proposes a new or extended form of taxation by which he or she would not be affected.

I have no comment on emission controls. They're a totally new element in this debate.

Your comment on "captains of industry" I fail to comprehend. I don't think I have made any suggestion of tax reductions.

 

[jimi]

Re: Several errors of fact

another error of fact which makes me doubt if you've in fact followed any of the threads of the arguments at all .. emission control was mentioned in my initial post.
As to reduction of tax I did'nt mention that either, just stated that your argument justifies a high earner paying a lower rate (not amount!) of tax than a lower earner. With due respect I feel that I can take an objective stand point on this despite the fact that raising the cost of my marine diesel to road levels would have cost me an extra couple of hundred quid this year. I always feel the benefit of a discussion like this is to divorce logic from self interest.

How would you persuade me that Nellie should pay more for her diesel than the captain of industry?

 

[broadnorfolk]

Re: Duty on Red Diesel - Good News!

Good news for those among you who feel you should be paying more tax on red diesel - it is perfectly legal and acceptable to make voluntary contributions to the Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise.

Contact your nearest tax office for more details, or PM me your details and I will pass them on on your behalf...

 

[Dave_Snelson]

Completely misses the original target

I'm with Observer on this. Why? Simple. Duty on fuel was originally levied as road duty (along with road tax, of course). With diesel motors came DERV (Diesel Engined Road Vehicle) fuel, with the exception of agricutural uses that largely don't involve the road. Just so happens that boaters can make use of this 'cos funnily enough, they dont use roads either.

Now unless this government wants to change the taxation usage definitions (or have these changed for them by Brussels) then there will be that difference. As to pollution, boats don't make much 'cos there aren't that many compared to cars and besides, newer motors are becoming as efficient and clean as road engines.

Now, if we really want harmonisation, then that'll be lower prices for petrol please - thankyou very much, I'll have spanish prices.

Madoc Yacht Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk>http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk</A>

 

[AndrewB]

Intrigued

Is it really "perfectly legal and acceptable to make voluntary contributions to the Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise"? Well I know the Queen does ... will that make me Royal?

 

[hlb]

Maybe you should have declined your invite to the Mobo christmas party then. Only on principle of course.

<font color=blue> Haydn

 

[jimi]

Haydn, How could I have done that, that would have been unthinkable! Missing the elephant would have left my life incomplete. But in all seriousness if you take the value chain of food delivery, why is fuel cost of the marine or agricultural part tax exempt when the remainder is not? Ie if Tesco gets a delivery of potatos in the cost of a potato will be a bit of all the energy costs that have conspired to get it onto the kitchen table. seed , planting, harvesting, washing, road haulage,storage,car home,cooking, lighting to see it. Why is it that merely the agricultural bit is tax exempt and why do we as leisure boaters benefit from the same exemption? And should we? I'm not saying that all you Mobos should pay vast amounts for your fuel but if you did pay a bit more per litre perhaps engines might be designed more with economy in mind and it might end up costing you less!

Jim

 

[bigmart]

We the inhabitants of the supposedly Great Britain are incredibly highly taxed.

I am amazed, almost everyday I view this Forum, at the number of people who, seem willing, to rush headlong into paying even more tax.

When you get off the tax subject intrusive regulation seems to be the next love of these fools.

What is the matter with these idiots?

Martin

 

[jimi]

In all seriousness its a Labour Govt (or Tony one). Tax, spend & make rules. Yesterday my wife had to fill out a 4 page form in order to help out at the local junior school by supervising the kids from the school to the swimming pool .. depite this being the 3rd child we've had at this school .. lunacy.

Good sailing or boating

Jim