E-MAIL PROTEST AGAINST RED DIESEL TAX - SIGN HERE NOW!!

[ QUOTE ]
I have just checked a bill and it seems that I pay 0.0778 Euros per kilowatt hour - on this there is a tax of 27.9% so, if I have the sums right, that is about 6.7 pence per unit - what is it in the UK? I haven't a clue what heating oil costs. Mostly I burn wood which is about 170 Euros a cord

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to check this with my elec bill at home.
 
Yes, there are certainly arguments for and against which, imho, both have merits to them. HOWEVER, the fact is that we are talking about a very small amount of money (relatively speaking) that the Government would get in extra tax from leisure boat users should the tax increase to that of white diesel.

When Gov't put their case to the EU against the tax rise, they argued that the cost of its implementation as well as cost and difficulty of ongoing policing would far, far outweigh the extra 10 million or so that they would gain per annum. I am sure if the Government were able to financially gain from this move then they would have greedily speeded the process up themselves. So what bugs (no pun intended) about this diesel tax is that a very valid argument from the Government is not even considered.

Whatever the outcome, I am going to sign the petition if only to get my voice heard. No one can hear a person who whispers!
 
Sorry, started this post earlier, but got waylaid by friends with Jamesons...

My last bill for heating oil (fioul domestique) - 554.37euros per cubic metre, ex tax. Add 19.6% VAT. 250 litres costs 165 euros including VAT. I live near La Rochelle.

And in the UK?
 
Well, we've certainly digressed have'nt we?

UptheSolent - Good for you!

To the Gentleman from France, your neighbours have a long tradition of dumping ordure on Politicians doorsteps when they dissaprove of their actions. I heartily approve of that too, have you tried it yet?

Summing up there is one inescapable fact that has emerged, the British Government feel that it would cost more to implement a Red Diesel change than it would bring back in revenue. Therefore it is highly probable that, being a waste of money, they'll do it!" (DSS Computer systems, Health Service Computer systems, Poll Tax, etc) They have a long tradition in the UK of pursuing "white" elephants at our expense.

The Hosts of this Forum are against the tax hike on red diesel, I say support them as it is their Forum, it's also our money, however little it is.

Other faux-pas by the Government have been tossed out through the people's protests, CSA, Poll Tax, possibly National Identity Cards. People can make or force changes, so long as ernough pull in the same direction, whatever that is.

This particular thread was about Red Diesel Tax protests. Whether Tony Blair's lot care about French electricity prices is a moot point, I suspect we pay their electricity and aviation fuel bills anyway, along with Cherie's, not to mention their wine bills!

Those of you with other issues, I'll gladly support any petition/protest that brings Politicians/Quangos to heel, after all, they are supposed to be OUR Civil Servants and OUR Elected Politicians. For example, alternative fuels - clearly available and non-polluting would go well in my Chelsea Tractor -- lobby for those.

Oh Boy, Jeremy C would love me!
 
[ QUOTE ]
....I'll gladly support any petition/protest that brings Politicians/Quangos to heel...

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately they tend to be a bit like hunger strikes, have little effect on the powers that be.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The Hosts of this Forum are against the tax hike on red diesel, I say support them as it is their forum

[/ QUOTE ]Surely the point of a forum is for free expression of opinions. One might, on occasion, wish that the opinions were better informed and soundly based - more facts and less invective - but it should be a forum and not a sycophants convention. If the owners of the forum ask me to withdraw because I think equality of tax burden is a reasonable aim then I will. I suspect they won't because they request opinion rather than obediance.

Incidentally who is the Gentleman of France? Is only one of us a gentleman?
 
I think most of the readers of this forum are in favour of removing the tax exemption, unlike the mobo forum where I'm happy to accept the majority is probably against. Even there, though, a recent poll seemed to show that very few will actually be financially affected as a large proportion seemed to spend less than £100 a year on diesel (weird!).

Obviously the vocal people are in favour of keeping their favourable treatment - most of the rest of are wisely (unlike me) staying quiet as things are moving on slowly in our favoured direction.
 
However, if the "justification" for a tax hike is "green" then how is taxation of biofuel justified? It is there that the logic begins to break down and the accusation of socailists soaking the perceived rich starts to hold water.
 
I can't see any particular reason for giving special tax concessions to boats as against any other business or leisure activity. But the complication here is that fuel tax has become inextricably linked to taxation to pay for roads, and has been deliberately increased way above the necessary level simply because motorists are an easy target.
That is no reason for applying the same harsh tax to boating, or heating, or any other non-road use of fuel.
 
I agree with you on biofuel - Brown has never been particularly green, otherwise he wouldn't have allowed the request for derogation, and he'd have been a lot bolder on the fuel protests and recently on aviation costs. For biofuel to work it needs a substantial tax-break otherwise it'll remain on the margins.

Give me Ken anytime, or the LibDems in Richmond.
 
[ QUOTE ]
That is no reason for applying the same harsh tax to boating, or heating, or any other non-road use of fuel.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reasons I'd support are as a carbon tax, an anti-pollution tax, an "encourage better insulation, fuel economy" tax. The reasons for each government to impose it may be a bit more cynical.
 
[ QUOTE ]
However, if the "justification" for a tax hike is "green" then how is taxation of biofuel justified? I

[/ QUOTE ]I would be more than happy to support a reduction in tax for biofuel. The French government gave me a tax benefit for installing heating based on renewable energy - even though I don't earn enough to pay income tax they are giving me a refund! Your government is certainly inconsistent in their management. Look at what has happened to the health service - they pour in more money - and spend it on useless layers of administrators and managers.
 
Steady on there - both Andrew and I are part of the substrata of "useless layers of administrators" in the health service.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Steady on there - both Andrew and I are part of the substrata of "useless layers of administrators" in the health service.

[/ QUOTE ]And so, for three or four years, was I. My position (accepting that taxes are required to pay for services) was and is consistent with my trousering the tax payers’ money. You seem to be the same. We want, I think, a fair spread of tax in order to pay for the machinery of government. Bias the tax system to support environmental issues by all means - but not to support a privileged group like us. To take the Queen’s shilling and then whinge about the taxes required to fund that shilling seems a little inconsistent.
 
>>>
To take the Queen’s shilling and then whinge about the taxes required to fund that shilling seems a little inconsistent.
>>>

Not at all, in fact it is consistent with wanting best value for money. My salary is paid for out of taxes. My salary is taxed and a proportion of that money is then returned to me (less tax) each month. Someone, from that same pool of taxation revenue, is paid to ensure that the tax is removed from my salary and then divided, partially to pay part of my salary, partially to pay part of the salary of the person ensuring that the division and payment is made etc etc. It is part of the fiscal process called churning, whereby much or all of the value of a revenue stream is lost in the cost of collection. The very basis of HMRC's submission on red diesel in fact. When you think of it as cash flow with costs of collection it gets easier, and more worrying.

RupertW and I agree on little but are unanimous in the inadequte financial and leave provisions made by the NHS to those staff who can scrape some brief bliss afloat:-)
 
[ QUOTE ]
Not at all, in fact it is consistent with wanting best value for money. My salary is paid for out of taxes. My salary is taxed and a proportion of that money is then returned to me (less tax) each month. Someone, from that same pool of taxation revenue, is paid to ensure that the tax is removed from my salary and then divided, partially to pay part of my salary, partially to pay part of the salary of the person ensuring that the division and payment is made etc etc. It is part of the fiscal process called churning, whereby much or all of the value of a revenue stream is lost in the cost of collection. The very basis of HMRC's submission on red diesel in fact. When you think of it as cash flow with costs of collection it gets easier, and more worrying.

[/ QUOTE ]I think I must admit defeat here. The words look like English but in combination, as presented, have little meaning. I can’t unpack the tortured syntax – who is in this pool from which someone appears and why are you less tax? The partial part payments being divided is a tautological extravaganza worthy of Sir Humphrey at his best. I just started reading Nigel Hawthorne’s autobiography last night and this helps me to remember what a wonderful actor he was. However, more to the point, and divided partial parts aside, you are paid put of the taxes to which you object. That seems inconsistent to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top