masaccio
Well-Known Member
As usual, Gludy, I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but I'm sure it's a good one.
red diesel reply from meps
- Thread starter zingaro
- Start date
Gludy
Well-Known Member
Ok - I will try and be clearer.
One point being made is that it would be fair for MoBos to pay the same fuel tax as other pleasure users have to pay e.g. PWC who use petrol.
I am simply pointing out that such other pleasure users on the water are not forced by law to pay these taxes. They could use diesel. They choose to use petrol by purchasing petrol powered craft but there is no law stating that they have to.!
Road users are forced by law to pay the full tax on fuel, water users of all types are not. So the argument that we should be the same as these other pleasure users does not apply because we are already the same and operate under the same tax laws.
If I choose to race cars that use red diesel on my own race track I can - its only when I go onto a road that I am breaking the law and also using a common resource that had to be paid for to be created - the road.
One point being made is that it would be fair for MoBos to pay the same fuel tax as other pleasure users have to pay e.g. PWC who use petrol.
I am simply pointing out that such other pleasure users on the water are not forced by law to pay these taxes. They could use diesel. They choose to use petrol by purchasing petrol powered craft but there is no law stating that they have to.!
Road users are forced by law to pay the full tax on fuel, water users of all types are not. So the argument that we should be the same as these other pleasure users does not apply because we are already the same and operate under the same tax laws.
If I choose to race cars that use red diesel on my own race track I can - its only when I go onto a road that I am breaking the law and also using a common resource that had to be paid for to be created - the road.
boatbuilder
Well-Known Member
Have you heard from your old pal Henry Mayhew recently. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Gludy
Well-Known Member
Not really ever want to hear from him again!
That was a classic thread /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
That was a classic thread /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Gludy
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
One might well query why fuel for leisure craft should be taxed much lower than fuel for other leisure pursuits
[/ QUOTE ]
What fuel do truck racing drivers have to use in their trucks in off road use? Red diesel.
What other leisure pursuits are forced by law to not use red diesel?
What is the difference between a leisure pursuit and a package holiday plane?
What is the difference between a cargo ship carrying DVD players for pleasure and a MoBo?
When you think about it, practically all commerce is for pleasure and that includes 90$ plus of the food industry.
I am really fed up with glib questions and statements from politicians who have never had an original thought in their life!
I am also fed up with the logic that askes whey something should not be taxed instead of why it should be taxed.
One might well query why fuel for leisure craft should be taxed much lower than fuel for other leisure pursuits
[/ QUOTE ]
What fuel do truck racing drivers have to use in their trucks in off road use? Red diesel.
What other leisure pursuits are forced by law to not use red diesel?
What is the difference between a leisure pursuit and a package holiday plane?
What is the difference between a cargo ship carrying DVD players for pleasure and a MoBo?
When you think about it, practically all commerce is for pleasure and that includes 90$ plus of the food industry.
I am really fed up with glib questions and statements from politicians who have never had an original thought in their life!
I am also fed up with the logic that askes whey something should not be taxed instead of why it should be taxed.
petem
Well-Known Member
Sorry, Paul but that's a bit convoluted. Governments have to raise taxes to pay for education, health and defence. They attempt to raise these taxes in as fair (and environmentally friendly) way as possible. Anybody who doesn't believe that taxing red diesel for leisure use is fair is deluded. I wish this was not the case.
Pete
P.S. I'm aware that this tax will not raise any additional revenue and will have an impact on safety but this is also completely irrelevant to those who make the decisions.
Pete
P.S. I'm aware that this tax will not raise any additional revenue and will have an impact on safety but this is also completely irrelevant to those who make the decisions.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
You raise a different point to the one I have been discussing.
Taxes are very complicated indeed and there is litle point in applying one unless it , at least, raises reveneue. This tax would not and hence should not be applied. That is not a deluded point of view.
On the the other hand it is deluded, on points I have already explained, to think that it should be applied because it is for pleasure and that other pleasure users pay a higher tax. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
What it is not deluded to say is that regadless of any common sense a government may apply the tax anyway - that is true. However it is not rational /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Taxes are very complicated indeed and there is litle point in applying one unless it , at least, raises reveneue. This tax would not and hence should not be applied. That is not a deluded point of view.
On the the other hand it is deluded, on points I have already explained, to think that it should be applied because it is for pleasure and that other pleasure users pay a higher tax. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
What it is not deluded to say is that regadless of any common sense a government may apply the tax anyway - that is true. However it is not rational /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Nickcf
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Anybody who doesn't believe that taxing red diesel for leisure use is fair is deluded. I wish this was not the case
[/ QUOTE ]
What bizarre logic...! You have to go back to the rationale for putting a fuel tax on petrol and diesel in the first place. It was to pay for the roads and the surrounding road infrastructure. If those costs don't apply to the marine leisure industry (which by definition they don't) then why the hell should we pay a tax that is nothing to do with us?
I'd agree there is probably a case for having VAT at normal rate instead of 5% for red diesel but there is absolutely no valid case for adding fuel tax.
By your logic you might as well say inheritence tax should be applied as an additional tax to everyone who takes a holiday...because....well they are enjoying themselves and therefore why not tax them more.
Anybody who doesn't believe that taxing red diesel for leisure use is fair is deluded. I wish this was not the case
[/ QUOTE ]
What bizarre logic...! You have to go back to the rationale for putting a fuel tax on petrol and diesel in the first place. It was to pay for the roads and the surrounding road infrastructure. If those costs don't apply to the marine leisure industry (which by definition they don't) then why the hell should we pay a tax that is nothing to do with us?
I'd agree there is probably a case for having VAT at normal rate instead of 5% for red diesel but there is absolutely no valid case for adding fuel tax.
By your logic you might as well say inheritence tax should be applied as an additional tax to everyone who takes a holiday...because....well they are enjoying themselves and therefore why not tax them more.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
I totally agree with that Nick.
To apply a tax you should have some logical reasoning. It is not logical reasoning to apply one just because other taxes exist.
Even if red went for pleasure boats it would still be available to all manner of off road events so one could then argue why not tax those to make it fair on the boaters? I would not support such a stupid argument ..... I am just trying to show how ludicrous it could get if you start using that logic.
I repeat - off road use of any pleasure transportation may currently use red diesel if it wishes. There is noi law saying that I cannot use it for a Discovery condined to my land. Hence you cannot use the argument that others have to pay so why should not we because they currently do not have to pay. Its only when you go on the road that the high tax kciks in.
Of course taxes are used for all purposes - but they should be efficient to collect and actually collect revenue. In this case doing away with derogation meets neither criteria.
To apply a tax you should have some logical reasoning. It is not logical reasoning to apply one just because other taxes exist.
Even if red went for pleasure boats it would still be available to all manner of off road events so one could then argue why not tax those to make it fair on the boaters? I would not support such a stupid argument ..... I am just trying to show how ludicrous it could get if you start using that logic.
I repeat - off road use of any pleasure transportation may currently use red diesel if it wishes. There is noi law saying that I cannot use it for a Discovery condined to my land. Hence you cannot use the argument that others have to pay so why should not we because they currently do not have to pay. Its only when you go on the road that the high tax kciks in.
Of course taxes are used for all purposes - but they should be efficient to collect and actually collect revenue. In this case doing away with derogation meets neither criteria.
longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
At least you got a reply! Graham Watson my local MEP hasn't answered my email, not even an acknowledgement. He's probably forgotten that we used to know each other, maybe he needs reminding!!
petem
Well-Known Member
Paul, there would be nothing to stop you from using red in a boat on your (private) lake! Incidentally I live on a private estate, however, as the public has access to it the RTA applies and I would therefore not be allowed to use Red. So the sea is the same in away, the public has access to it so you should not be allowed to use Red!
Back in the real world, if you went out on the street and conducted a survey, I am convinced that the majority of people would agree that tax on marine diesel is fair. Particularly when you explain that £1,000,000 / 1000hp Gin Palaces can only manage around 1mpg.
Pete
Back in the real world, if you went out on the street and conducted a survey, I am convinced that the majority of people would agree that tax on marine diesel is fair. Particularly when you explain that £1,000,000 / 1000hp Gin Palaces can only manage around 1mpg.
Pete
Gludy
Well-Known Member
"So the sea is the same in away, the public has access to it so you should not be allowed to use Red!"
I disagree. The tax is not based on access to a public area but by it being public access to a road hence the tax.
Also what happens outside the 12 mile limit? Can you use any fuel there?
As regards how the public would vote - we totally agree - almost 100% would voter to tax it - agreed but that is a tax of envy and ignorance. The same public may vote to half the tax on beer or increase top rate income tax to 98% as it used to be - in fact at one time with a three percent wealth tax it was actually 101% - that raised no revenue at all and had to be dropped!!!!
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I disagree. The tax is not based on access to a public area but by it being public access to a road hence the tax.
Also what happens outside the 12 mile limit? Can you use any fuel there?
As regards how the public would vote - we totally agree - almost 100% would voter to tax it - agreed but that is a tax of envy and ignorance. The same public may vote to half the tax on beer or increase top rate income tax to 98% as it used to be - in fact at one time with a three percent wealth tax it was actually 101% - that raised no revenue at all and had to be dropped!!!!
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
petem
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
.....ignorance.....
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that most people have the intelligence to work out that a pleasure boat is possibly the most extravagent and environmentally unfriendly product that money can buy (excepting private jets).
I'm actually amazed that the nut munchers / tree huggers / liberals aren't lobbying hard for the deregoration to end.
Pete
.....ignorance.....
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that most people have the intelligence to work out that a pleasure boat is possibly the most extravagent and environmentally unfriendly product that money can buy (excepting private jets).
I'm actually amazed that the nut munchers / tree huggers / liberals aren't lobbying hard for the deregoration to end.
Pete
Gludy
Well-Known Member
But in practice they would be wrong - hence the 'ignorance'
How much fuel do you think that a family would consume in a trip to Florada and back plus say a trip to Greece each year? A lot more than the same typical family doing their hols in a Mobo.
I too am surprised that the tree huggers have not started yet - we share that surprise.
How many hours did you do in your moBo last year and how much fuel did you consume? I bet its a lot less than that family of say 4 consumed in their two holidays! /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
I have travelled on nearly empty Jumbo jets a number of times - hate to think of the fuel per person!
Quote from tree hugger site:-
"But kerosene puts out a lot of carbon; a 5,000 mile flight -- roughly a round trip from LA to New York -- puts out a ton and a half of CO2 for every person on the plane."
So a family of 4 say 6 tons of CO2. say with the two trips each family of 4 emits 9 tons of fuel = that is a hell of a lot of fuel and it dwarfs the use of the same family in a power boat.... agreed?
A large part of how the public reacts is based on envy. People say the rich should pay more for this and more for that but if everyone pays say a 20% tax then the bigger earners do pay more yet I watch this simple mistake repeated in conversation after conversation on TV.
I think we agree on public perceptions but as soon as facts are examined, its not so easy and in practice MobO consume very little fuel per passenger in a year compared to the use in other forms of transport.
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
How much fuel do you think that a family would consume in a trip to Florada and back plus say a trip to Greece each year? A lot more than the same typical family doing their hols in a Mobo.
I too am surprised that the tree huggers have not started yet - we share that surprise.
How many hours did you do in your moBo last year and how much fuel did you consume? I bet its a lot less than that family of say 4 consumed in their two holidays! /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
I have travelled on nearly empty Jumbo jets a number of times - hate to think of the fuel per person!
Quote from tree hugger site:-
"But kerosene puts out a lot of carbon; a 5,000 mile flight -- roughly a round trip from LA to New York -- puts out a ton and a half of CO2 for every person on the plane."
So a family of 4 say 6 tons of CO2. say with the two trips each family of 4 emits 9 tons of fuel = that is a hell of a lot of fuel and it dwarfs the use of the same family in a power boat.... agreed?
A large part of how the public reacts is based on envy. People say the rich should pay more for this and more for that but if everyone pays say a 20% tax then the bigger earners do pay more yet I watch this simple mistake repeated in conversation after conversation on TV.
I think we agree on public perceptions but as soon as facts are examined, its not so easy and in practice MobO consume very little fuel per passenger in a year compared to the use in other forms of transport.
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
petem
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
How much fuel do you think that a family would consume in a trip to Florada and back plus say a trip to Greece each year? A lot more than the same typical family doing their hols in a Mobo.
[/ QUOTE ]
But Paul, the average MoBo'er has a holiday in the Carrib/Maldives/Mauritus in addition to all the MoBo fuel burnt! You also have to bear in mind the polution that has been expended in making the thing in the first place (not to mention all the teak from endangered rainforests).
Found this on the web....
[ QUOTE ]
A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).
This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour (900 km/h)!
[/ QUOTE ]
If my maths are correct a 747 will burn around 50,000 gallons for a return trip to Florida. If there are 500 passengers then thats around 100 gallons per person. A family of 4 would therefore 'use' 400 gallons for their trip to Florida. Wouldn't get you very far on a MoBo would it.
Anyway, we all know that flying doesn't really count /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
[ QUOTE ]
How many hours did you do in your moBo last year and how much fuel did you consume? I bet its a lot less than that family of say 4 consumed in their two holidays!
[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly, I am still in between boats. This is mainly due to extortionate taxation and school fees. Still there's a slim chance we might be back in the water next year if PeteM jnr manages to pass his 11+. Alternatively I hear the contract markets picked up again so I might give that another whirl.
Pete
How much fuel do you think that a family would consume in a trip to Florada and back plus say a trip to Greece each year? A lot more than the same typical family doing their hols in a Mobo.
[/ QUOTE ]
But Paul, the average MoBo'er has a holiday in the Carrib/Maldives/Mauritus in addition to all the MoBo fuel burnt! You also have to bear in mind the polution that has been expended in making the thing in the first place (not to mention all the teak from endangered rainforests).
Found this on the web....
[ QUOTE ]
A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).
This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour (900 km/h)!
[/ QUOTE ]
If my maths are correct a 747 will burn around 50,000 gallons for a return trip to Florida. If there are 500 passengers then thats around 100 gallons per person. A family of 4 would therefore 'use' 400 gallons for their trip to Florida. Wouldn't get you very far on a MoBo would it.
Anyway, we all know that flying doesn't really count /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
[ QUOTE ]
How many hours did you do in your moBo last year and how much fuel did you consume? I bet its a lot less than that family of say 4 consumed in their two holidays!
[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly, I am still in between boats. This is mainly due to extortionate taxation and school fees. Still there's a slim chance we might be back in the water next year if PeteM jnr manages to pass his 11+. Alternatively I hear the contract markets picked up again so I might give that another whirl.
Pete
Gludy
Well-Known Member
That is 800 gallons round trip and for many power boaters that is almsot a season';s fuel.
You can of course argue that the big 200 foot private yacht is a big user and should not be allowed to use such an amount o fuel despite the fact that someone has paid for it all.
The enegry consumed in making the boat is no different to the nergy consumed in making a TV, DVD, wasjing machine, hoover, car etc. Boats are no more a pleasure than a washing machine. You buy a washing machine to release more time and do the job with less effort - 99% of what we do in the western world is by coice and is a luxury. So 99% of all nergy consumed is a luxury - most industry is to produce luxury goods - there is very little that is not a luxury, very little that is essential.
They will continue to allow farmers to use red diesel - why? What they produce is mainly a luxury. Their production is not to meet the basic food for survival - 90% of it is totally optional. They will continue to use cheap fuel for container ships yet all they are transporting is mainly luxury goods for our pleasure.
At the bottom of this is a feeling that pleasure should be taxed, that somehow to have pleasure is wrong or not needed.
The people like you who buy these boats have already paid a lot of tax and contributed a lot to society - its up to you how you sepnd your disposable income.
You can of course argue that the big 200 foot private yacht is a big user and should not be allowed to use such an amount o fuel despite the fact that someone has paid for it all.
The enegry consumed in making the boat is no different to the nergy consumed in making a TV, DVD, wasjing machine, hoover, car etc. Boats are no more a pleasure than a washing machine. You buy a washing machine to release more time and do the job with less effort - 99% of what we do in the western world is by coice and is a luxury. So 99% of all nergy consumed is a luxury - most industry is to produce luxury goods - there is very little that is not a luxury, very little that is essential.
They will continue to allow farmers to use red diesel - why? What they produce is mainly a luxury. Their production is not to meet the basic food for survival - 90% of it is totally optional. They will continue to use cheap fuel for container ships yet all they are transporting is mainly luxury goods for our pleasure.
At the bottom of this is a feeling that pleasure should be taxed, that somehow to have pleasure is wrong or not needed.
The people like you who buy these boats have already paid a lot of tax and contributed a lot to society - its up to you how you sepnd your disposable income.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
Sorry for so many typos in the above post!! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
No1_Moose
Well-Known Member
a 747 to Florida will burn about 110 tons, there are only a handful that carry anywhere near 568 people, most are configured to carry just over 400, some are even less
Gludy
Well-Known Member
So say with 400 on board - 220 tons return trip - you are looking at a family of four consuming 2.2 tons of fuel.
The real point here is that that by any standards is heavy use and it is fuel distributed directly into the atmosphere.
Air travel emissions dwarf emission by pleasure boats and so it would be wrong to look at pleasure boats and ignore massive widespread use by most of the western world population.
In any event, whilst I am convicned of global warming and have always been taight we are simply in an inrterglacial period, I am not convinced that manking is causing it. Funnily enough almost everyone I meet who is scientifically trained expresses the same opinion without even being aware of my opinion on the subject.
The real point here is that that by any standards is heavy use and it is fuel distributed directly into the atmosphere.
Air travel emissions dwarf emission by pleasure boats and so it would be wrong to look at pleasure boats and ignore massive widespread use by most of the western world population.
In any event, whilst I am convicned of global warming and have always been taight we are simply in an inrterglacial period, I am not convinced that manking is causing it. Funnily enough almost everyone I meet who is scientifically trained expresses the same opinion without even being aware of my opinion on the subject.
benjenbav
Well-Known Member
Well I reckon my boat is configured to carry about 20 if they have the same amount of space as you get on a 747. I burn about 2 litres/mile so that makes me positively green, no?