Poll Results

[Gludy]

Thought with 30 votes in its worth giving a report on the poll - anyone can vote and see the result at

http://194.130.49.178/testpoll.cfm?SiteRef=4

I realise that this is not in anyway a statistically representative poll but the result are of some interest:-

30% of you said that you would simply spend more and it would make no difference to - so 70% would make a change.

13% would marginally reduce their boating hours by 25%

7% would reduce by 50%

7% would reduce by 75% so as to maintain same overall cost

13% would move boat abroad or obtain fuel from overseas.

23% would sell their boat

None - 0% would change for a smaller power boat

7% would change to sail.

The larger engine boats tended to be in move abroad/sell bracket but there were also some very small boats being sold.

TAX REVENUE
From a tax revenue point of view the 36% selling or moving plus the 7% changing to sail represent a 43% of you who would no longer be buying any fuel in the UK but seeing as the average size of these boats is bigger, a weighted average would increase this figure to be about 60% of fuel consumption. Add to this, those who reduced fuel consumption - the on weighted average 44% reduction for 27% of you - giving an overall further 12% reduction = 72% overall reduction in fuel consumption making the full size increase about tax neutral as regards fuel tax - no more revenue.

However there are now the losses from the spending of 36% no longer boating here or selling their boat - this would lose HMG revenue across the board and would move the situation into a tax loss position.

Even those these figures are just a straw poll they do show a fuel tax neutral position and a tax loss position overall. It would be very difficult to end up with an overall tax neutral position for HMG - a very much higher percentage would have to carry on as before simply spending 3 to 4 times more. And it seems that is not going to happen.

I know you can cliam that some sold boats will carry onto consume fuel and so on but you can then also allow for the fact that many using their boats less also drop spending in other areas - so the model is by no means complete.


<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Col]

Paul, what about the 23% that would sell their boats. Someone will buy and run them (albeit at maybe reduced consumption)??

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/colspics> Cols Picture Album</A>

 

[Gludy]

I mentioned this point:-
"I know you can claim that some sold boats will carry onto consume fuel and so on but you can then also allow for the fact that many using their boats less also drop spending in other areas"

In fact some boats will go abroad - some will stay and be used as floating cravans - some will stay and be used far less than the original owner used them.

I have not allowed for the reduced spending on other things inside the marine insdurty from those using their boats less either - only for fuel.

What the poll shows is that a full road rated fuel would hit very hard indeed and it is probable that overall HMG will not gather any more taxes - the probaility is a tax yield reduction - even if a significant minority carry on and just spend 300% to 400% more on fuel than they did before. In practice I doubt id they would do that.



<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Gludy]

Some people are using petrol boats and voting that they will carry on as before and spend more!!! These people should not be voting - I have corrected the poll!!

It takes all sorts to make a world

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[BrendanS]

So if the results don't suit you, you find a reason to change them to suit!

Why shouldn't petrol boaters vote - how do you know they are not planning on upgrading, and would be diesel users before 2006, and are voting with future diesel usage in mind??

Vote rigging is highly unethical! If you didn't provide enough thought and planning to the possible categories of users, and what options they would actually take, rather than the ones you imposed arbitrarily, it's hardly on to change the votes at a later date


<hr width=100% size=1>Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

 

[Gludy]

"So if the results don't suit you, you find a reason to change them to suit!"

I openly changed one vote because that person in the notes explained that they used 9gph of petrol and was not effected by any increase in diesel price!!!

It is obvois that the poll was to exisitinf users of diesel boats.

"Why shouldn't petrol boaters vote"
Because if say 20 od small petrol boaters vote it would totally destroy the poll and give misleading results - people would believe that many boaters were paying extra money and doing the same hours as before.

"how do you know they are not planning on upgrading, and would be diesel users before 2006, and are voting with future diesel usage in mind?"

Because of the note given with the vote!!!!

"Vote rigging is highly unethical!"

It is hardly vote rigging to exlude one vote who made it clear that they only use petrol boat and pointed out they would gain because it would brinng the price of diesel boats down.

"If you didn't provide enough thought and planning to the possible categories of users, and what options they would actually take, rather than the ones you imposed arbitrarily, it's hardly on to change the votes at a later date"

Categories were not changed - one voter was exluded because the voting OBVIOUISLY only applied to those with diesel boats - after the vote was excluded I informed everyone and made it clear in the into to the poll that its was for diesel boat owners only - further this subject was covered (exculding petrol boat owners further back in the thread on the main forum).

I rest my case for vote rigging!!!




<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Joe_Cole]

Paul,

It's beginnning to look to me that you are trying to convince yourself, rather than the mandarins of Whitehall. I'm sorry but this survey has about as much validity as those surveys in womens magazines along the lines of "How to make your man happy". They are OK for entertainment but that's as far as it goes.

My forecasting is far better. When you started your survey I was able to predict that it would "prove" that the Tax yield would be negative/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

The point has been made, now leave it. Go out and enjoy your boat whilst you have the opportunity.

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

I never pretended the poll was on any scientific basis - in fact I pointed out that it was not.

Not tring to convince myself at all - in fact just used a new little utility on a trail basis.

In any event - nice weather and I am off to the boat!

Cheers
Paul

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[kimhollamby]

MBM petition feedback

MBM has received a substantial number of replies to its petition at:

http://www.ybw.com/mbm/redalert/petition.html

There are already enough to meet the target set for submission to government but the magazine wants a lot more by 1 January 2005.

Meantime all of the comments registered will be considered by the MBM team and used within the features that will follow in the immediate issues to come.

<hr width=100% size=1>