Gludy
Well-Known Member
That makes you super green - yes /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
red diesel reply from meps
- Thread starter zingaro
- Start date
benjenbav
Well-Known Member
I think we might have stumbled onto something here: you could probably carry 50? Moose No 1 could rate Toscana for say 35 passengers. etc
Nickb
Member
More importantly, As I read it there is only a request for the UK to meet the minimum taxation requirements set down by europe.
<span style="color:blue"> Non-commercial diesel fuel:
Minimum excise rates for non-commercial diesel will be aligned with those of unleaded petrol by 2006. Member States will, however, still be free to apply higher rates and differentiate between diesel and petrol.
The increase is reflected in the following table (in euros per 1000 litres):
Unleaded petrol Diesel fuel
current minimum level 287 245
from 1 January 2006 360 360
The proposal has two major aims:
to create equal conditions for competition among European road hauliers and coach operators, especially as the sector has been fully liberalised since 1998.
to help to protect the environment by
increasing the overall levels of diesel fuel taxation (in most Member States), which is expected to serve as an incentive for efficient fuel use;
levelling out differences between Member States, so drivers would no longer make detours to fill up in countries where excise duty is low;
abolishing the fiscal advantage of diesel over petrol fuel cars, leading to a reduction in particulate and NOx emissions, which are at least three times higher with diesel than with petrol engines.
</span>
From my calculations the UK government "need" to add only around 25 pence per litre to bring the fuel in line with european legislation. Far from the scaremongering they have helped induce. This "reduced tax fuel could still be "red" and therefore would be inline with europe.
???
<span style="color:blue"> Non-commercial diesel fuel:
Minimum excise rates for non-commercial diesel will be aligned with those of unleaded petrol by 2006. Member States will, however, still be free to apply higher rates and differentiate between diesel and petrol.
The increase is reflected in the following table (in euros per 1000 litres):
Unleaded petrol Diesel fuel
current minimum level 287 245
from 1 January 2006 360 360
The proposal has two major aims:
to create equal conditions for competition among European road hauliers and coach operators, especially as the sector has been fully liberalised since 1998.
to help to protect the environment by
increasing the overall levels of diesel fuel taxation (in most Member States), which is expected to serve as an incentive for efficient fuel use;
levelling out differences between Member States, so drivers would no longer make detours to fill up in countries where excise duty is low;
abolishing the fiscal advantage of diesel over petrol fuel cars, leading to a reduction in particulate and NOx emissions, which are at least three times higher with diesel than with petrol engines.
</span>
From my calculations the UK government "need" to add only around 25 pence per litre to bring the fuel in line with european legislation. Far from the scaremongering they have helped induce. This "reduced tax fuel could still be "red" and therefore would be inline with europe.
???
rickp
Well-Known Member
Rehashed argument no 17 /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Yes - there is no need for the Govt to increase the duty to road levels. However, its not just case of increasing the duty to minimum levels and leaving it as "red" because there are other uses of red diesel (heating oil for instance). I think it unlikely that we'll have the same fuel given different duty levels based on the use without some form of dyeing to prevent fraud. I also think it unlikely that we'll get a new dyed fuel for marine use.
My personal take on it is that we'll either get another derogation or end up using white diesel. It may be worth keeping an eye on the briefing documents that will appear after tomorrows pre-budget report.
Rick
My personal take on it is that we'll either get another derogation or end up using white diesel. It may be worth keeping an eye on the briefing documents that will appear after tomorrows pre-budget report.
Rick
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Pete, I might agree with your position if all the duty and VAT collected from motorists is spent on maintaining and improving the transport network but the fact is that the Treasury collects about £32bn pa from road users of which only £8bn is spent on the transport network and only £3bn of that is actually spent on the road network. Basically road users are subsidising other tax payers by a factor of ten or more, a situation which I find grossly unfair
Removing the red diesel derogation is much of the same, that is leisure boat users would then be subsidising the rest of the population and receiving bugger all in return
Removing the red diesel derogation is much of the same, that is leisure boat users would then be subsidising the rest of the population and receiving bugger all in return
fireball
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Basically road users are subsidising other tax payers by a factor of ten or more, a situation which I find grossly unfair
Removing the red diesel derogation is much of the same, that is leisure boat users would then be subsidising the rest of the population and receiving bugger all in return
[/ QUOTE ]
Ignoring the inefficiencies that waste money faster than the water companies loose water ... the money for the running of our country has to come from somewhere. The tax on road fuel has become a "Discouragement Tax" - ie the government don't want us to use our vehicles as much as it is reported to be a big source of pollution (well - may be not the biggest, and they don't really want us to stop cos that would actually remove a large chunk of their funding, but certainly the easiest to tax).
If the G decided that they'd only tax the areas that needed money spending on them - ie Road Fuel tax -> Roads, then other taxes would need to increase to cover the reduction in funding - so Income Tax could increase significantly resulting in less money to spend on the (cheaper) fuel for your car ...
Reduce road fuel tax on that basis and then Alcohol and Ciggy taxes would have to be reduced (unless you suffer from a related illness - then they'd need to be put back up ... to cover the cost of your free medical treatment /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif)
A similar tax on fuel for off road leisure pursuits could take a similar argument ie Discouragement Tax - you cannot argue against the fact that the less fuel you burn the cleaner the air .. although leisure boats do count for a very small %age of overall pollution.
With so little happening so late in the day you have to assume the government have a trick or plan up their sleeves - it would be impossible to eradicate red diesel from leisure tanks - it would take years for the residue to go. The fuel depots have not been given (to my knowledge) notice that they need to either a) Provide White Diesel for leisure boats or b) Differentiate the charge between commercial and non-commercial users. So I have to conclude that the plan must be (if Derogation is lost) to charge everyone the higher rate and let the commercial users claim tax back in a similar fashion to the VAT scheme.
I do not agree with the Discouragement Tax currently applied to many non-essential goods - it doesn't work does it - there are more cars on the road now than 10 years ago ... but what is a sensible alternative ...?
I've asked before - what would make YOU reduce your [buzzword]Carbon Footprint[/buzzword] ?
As for me -
1) I bought a bicycle this summer - I (intend) to cycle to work whenever possible ...
2) I have a saily boat - so try and use the sails more than the engine (not always possible/sensible)
3) I try and remember to physically turn off appliances at home - saving electricity (don't always remember though!)
Basically road users are subsidising other tax payers by a factor of ten or more, a situation which I find grossly unfair
Removing the red diesel derogation is much of the same, that is leisure boat users would then be subsidising the rest of the population and receiving bugger all in return
[/ QUOTE ]
Ignoring the inefficiencies that waste money faster than the water companies loose water ... the money for the running of our country has to come from somewhere. The tax on road fuel has become a "Discouragement Tax" - ie the government don't want us to use our vehicles as much as it is reported to be a big source of pollution (well - may be not the biggest, and they don't really want us to stop cos that would actually remove a large chunk of their funding, but certainly the easiest to tax).
If the G decided that they'd only tax the areas that needed money spending on them - ie Road Fuel tax -> Roads, then other taxes would need to increase to cover the reduction in funding - so Income Tax could increase significantly resulting in less money to spend on the (cheaper) fuel for your car ...
Reduce road fuel tax on that basis and then Alcohol and Ciggy taxes would have to be reduced (unless you suffer from a related illness - then they'd need to be put back up ... to cover the cost of your free medical treatment /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif)
A similar tax on fuel for off road leisure pursuits could take a similar argument ie Discouragement Tax - you cannot argue against the fact that the less fuel you burn the cleaner the air .. although leisure boats do count for a very small %age of overall pollution.
With so little happening so late in the day you have to assume the government have a trick or plan up their sleeves - it would be impossible to eradicate red diesel from leisure tanks - it would take years for the residue to go. The fuel depots have not been given (to my knowledge) notice that they need to either a) Provide White Diesel for leisure boats or b) Differentiate the charge between commercial and non-commercial users. So I have to conclude that the plan must be (if Derogation is lost) to charge everyone the higher rate and let the commercial users claim tax back in a similar fashion to the VAT scheme.
I do not agree with the Discouragement Tax currently applied to many non-essential goods - it doesn't work does it - there are more cars on the road now than 10 years ago ... but what is a sensible alternative ...?
I've asked before - what would make YOU reduce your [buzzword]Carbon Footprint[/buzzword] ?
As for me -
1) I bought a bicycle this summer - I (intend) to cycle to work whenever possible ...
2) I have a saily boat - so try and use the sails more than the engine (not always possible/sensible)
3) I try and remember to physically turn off appliances at home - saving electricity (don't always remember though!)
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
I don't have any problem with income tax or VAT having to rise to offset any reduction in fuel duty. Why should I subsidise with my road fuel duty a very rich person that happens to go everywhere on a bike or in a private aircraft? It's not right that people who are not obliged to own a car for commuting or business have their pension, health and education costs subsidised by my road duty. They are not paying their fair share
As for discouraging road use to save the planet, I do not think that any sane person can believe that politicians care one jot about the environment. The environment is a very convenient peg on to which to hang a whole raft of new taxes that they think the voters will swallow better than increasing income tax or VAT. If politicians really wanted to tackle emissions, they would set emissions targets and enforce them rigorously but, of course, that costs money rather than raising money
As for discouraging road use to save the planet, I do not think that any sane person can believe that politicians care one jot about the environment. The environment is a very convenient peg on to which to hang a whole raft of new taxes that they think the voters will swallow better than increasing income tax or VAT. If politicians really wanted to tackle emissions, they would set emissions targets and enforce them rigorously but, of course, that costs money rather than raising money
Gludy
Well-Known Member
If environmenta; taxes really worked they would raise very little revenue - in other words they would reduce demand and hence revenue.
Also - Politicians should declare that any new tax should be offset by a tax reduction elsewhere (Eg drop VAT on bicycles) so that no extra revenue was raised just a change in user habit.
I accept I live in a total dream world
Also - Politicians should declare that any new tax should be offset by a tax reduction elsewhere (Eg drop VAT on bicycles) so that no extra revenue was raised just a change in user habit.
I accept I live in a total dream world
fireball
Well-Known Member
In the words of the infamous Gludy ... please answer the question!!
What would you say if the government decided that they'd raise the funds required for running the country via income tax and council tax rather than via fuel ?
So - say Income tax went up to 40% for the mid band and 60% for the upper band ... (don't forget to add on NI!)
Now - if their goal (so they tell us) is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels consumed in this country - no bad thing whether you subscribe to their global warming theory or not - how do they reduce our usage?
so - once again....
What would make YOU reduce your carbon foot print?
Or do you simply not want to?
What would you say if the government decided that they'd raise the funds required for running the country via income tax and council tax rather than via fuel ?
So - say Income tax went up to 40% for the mid band and 60% for the upper band ... (don't forget to add on NI!)
Now - if their goal (so they tell us) is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels consumed in this country - no bad thing whether you subscribe to their global warming theory or not - how do they reduce our usage?
so - once again....
What would make YOU reduce your carbon foot print?
Or do you simply not want to?
longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
Where has this carbon footprint expression suddenly appeared from? Never heard of it until a few months back. Presume it's the latest political jargon/catch phrase.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
In practice the governemnt have realised that revenue from income tax does not always go up with higher tax bands - revenue increased when the top rate dropped down from it incredible 98p in the pound to 40p in the pound. So increasing direct taxes is not that easy an option.
I personally think that mankind has little influence on gobal warming but for the moment accepting that the objective would be to cut CO2 emmisions I would understand new environmental taxes providing that the the policy was not to raise total tax revenue just to change user habits.
However if you wanted to do that with diesel then you would need to change the tax on all commercial diesel the use of which dwarfs pleasure craft use - also you would do away with red of fisherman, farmers etc. It would seem ludicrous to target a tiny market whilst actually freezing the low tax situation on the massive market - that is my clear answer to your clear question.
I would accept a re-distribution of taxes but they have to be logical in serving the target change in behaviour required. Targetting a tiny tiny part of diesel consumption whilst leaving the massive part of it basically low taxed should not be done under the cover of environmental issues. to do so is deceipt.
I personally think that mankind has little influence on gobal warming but for the moment accepting that the objective would be to cut CO2 emmisions I would understand new environmental taxes providing that the the policy was not to raise total tax revenue just to change user habits.
However if you wanted to do that with diesel then you would need to change the tax on all commercial diesel the use of which dwarfs pleasure craft use - also you would do away with red of fisherman, farmers etc. It would seem ludicrous to target a tiny market whilst actually freezing the low tax situation on the massive market - that is my clear answer to your clear question.
I would accept a re-distribution of taxes but they have to be logical in serving the target change in behaviour required. Targetting a tiny tiny part of diesel consumption whilst leaving the massive part of it basically low taxed should not be done under the cover of environmental issues. to do so is deceipt.
jhr
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Presume it's the latest political jargon/catch phrase.
[/ QUOTE ] Kind of.
I'm led to believe that various interested parties have cottoned on to the fact that fuel consumption may represent quite a small part of the energy consumed (and carbon generated) through the entire life cycle of a car/boat/whatever, when you take into account the effect of manufacturing, distributing and ultimately disposing of it.
In the case of a grp boat, for example, the environmental cost of producing the resins for the hull, machinery etc. means that the engine emissions are a small proportion of the overall footprint.
Or, to thee and me, grp sailing boats are nearly as bad for the environment as mobos. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Presume it's the latest political jargon/catch phrase.
[/ QUOTE ] Kind of.
I'm led to believe that various interested parties have cottoned on to the fact that fuel consumption may represent quite a small part of the energy consumed (and carbon generated) through the entire life cycle of a car/boat/whatever, when you take into account the effect of manufacturing, distributing and ultimately disposing of it.
In the case of a grp boat, for example, the environmental cost of producing the resins for the hull, machinery etc. means that the engine emissions are a small proportion of the overall footprint.
Or, to thee and me, grp sailing boats are nearly as bad for the environment as mobos. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
SimonC
Well-Known Member
As Gludy seems to be left to fight this one on his own, I'll add my tuppence worth...
[ QUOTE ]
What would you say if the government decided that they'd raise the funds required for running the country via income tax and council tax rather than via fuel ?
So - say Income tax went up to 40% for the mid band and 60% for the upper band ... (don't forget to add on NI!)
Now - if their goal (so they tell us) is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels consumed in this country - no bad thing whether you subscribe to their global warming theory or not - how do they reduce our usage?
so - once again....
What would make YOU reduce your carbon foot print?
[/ QUOTE ]
As already shown, the net effect of taxing red diesel is more likely to cause a net loss than a gain. So the question is more like, how would YOU like to pay more tax in order to pay for the principle that boaters should be charged more for their hobby?
As for the enviromental argument... let's look at some figures (maths-phobics look away now /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif)
According to the National Energy Foundation one litre of diesel produces about 3kg of CO2.
According to Carbon Fund it costs $99 to offset 18 tons of CO2, which works out at about $5.50 per ton, or £2.78 in English money.
In other words, it takes (about) 338 litres of diesel to produce a (US) ton of CO2, and this costs £2.78 to offset. This is less than 1p a litre.
By all means raise the cost of red diesel by 1p a litre to make up for this, but there is no correlation between the price rises in the offing and the 'cost' of the damage to the environment.
And yes, I know that this doesn't take into account the carbon used in building the boat in the first place. But surely that should be dealt with in a policy that looks at *all* carbon emissions and what they are used for -- we shouldn't just pick a number out of a hat and add that much tax onto a litre of diesel for boatowners.
<awaits someone pointing out errors of arithmetic> /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
[ QUOTE ]
What would you say if the government decided that they'd raise the funds required for running the country via income tax and council tax rather than via fuel ?
So - say Income tax went up to 40% for the mid band and 60% for the upper band ... (don't forget to add on NI!)
Now - if their goal (so they tell us) is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels consumed in this country - no bad thing whether you subscribe to their global warming theory or not - how do they reduce our usage?
so - once again....
What would make YOU reduce your carbon foot print?
[/ QUOTE ]
As already shown, the net effect of taxing red diesel is more likely to cause a net loss than a gain. So the question is more like, how would YOU like to pay more tax in order to pay for the principle that boaters should be charged more for their hobby?
As for the enviromental argument... let's look at some figures (maths-phobics look away now /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif)
According to the National Energy Foundation one litre of diesel produces about 3kg of CO2.
According to Carbon Fund it costs $99 to offset 18 tons of CO2, which works out at about $5.50 per ton, or £2.78 in English money.
In other words, it takes (about) 338 litres of diesel to produce a (US) ton of CO2, and this costs £2.78 to offset. This is less than 1p a litre.
By all means raise the cost of red diesel by 1p a litre to make up for this, but there is no correlation between the price rises in the offing and the 'cost' of the damage to the environment.
And yes, I know that this doesn't take into account the carbon used in building the boat in the first place. But surely that should be dealt with in a policy that looks at *all* carbon emissions and what they are used for -- we shouldn't just pick a number out of a hat and add that much tax onto a litre of diesel for boatowners.
<awaits someone pointing out errors of arithmetic> /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Gludy
Well-Known Member
I feel as if the cavalry has just ridden in over the hill and come up with a fantastic way of putting all this ..... a really good post Simon!
Of course we have everyone and his dog getting on this global warming band wagon and they will use it to raise taxes rather than re-distribute the tax burden to achieve a goal.
If there is to be an environmental tax then the 98% plus of the fuel being used by the commercial sector has to be taxed at the same level - anything else is deceipt and more like an envy tax.
Of course we have everyone and his dog getting on this global warming band wagon and they will use it to raise taxes rather than re-distribute the tax burden to achieve a goal.
If there is to be an environmental tax then the 98% plus of the fuel being used by the commercial sector has to be taxed at the same level - anything else is deceipt and more like an envy tax.
fireball
Well-Known Member
Oi ... come on ... answer the ACTUAL question /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif You happily moan at others for not answering the question - so stop being a politician and tell me:
What would make YOU reduce your carbon foot print?
Or do you simply not want to?
NB: carbon footprint bis one of the latest in buzzwords - use of any buzzword in your post increases your post "score" by 2 ... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
What would make YOU reduce your carbon foot print?
Or do you simply not want to?
NB: carbon footprint bis one of the latest in buzzwords - use of any buzzword in your post increases your post "score" by 2 ... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
petem
Well-Known Member
But Simon but we live in a 'sound bite' and 'politically correct' world. Anything that is environmentally friendly is good. £1m diesel guzzling gin palaces are the spawn of the devil.
Lets Pretend that some polictician is actually lobbying for derogoration to continue and they are actually successful. The newspapers would have a field day "MP's win fight for cheap Gin Palaces fuel!". Can't belive Bliar would be that happy.
I'm afraid that you've got that "Red Diesel Mist" that seems to be obscuring the minds of other, normally logical thinking, red diesel defenders.
Pete
Lets Pretend that some polictician is actually lobbying for derogoration to continue and they are actually successful. The newspapers would have a field day "MP's win fight for cheap Gin Palaces fuel!". Can't belive Bliar would be that happy.
I'm afraid that you've got that "Red Diesel Mist" that seems to be obscuring the minds of other, normally logical thinking, red diesel defenders.
Pete
Gludy
Well-Known Member
Fireball
As I have already stated, I do not beleive that mankind is causing global warming. I do however think that for a number of reasons we should constantly strive to reduce pollution.
However given that I was being asked for a policy to reduce carbon emissions, I would:-
1. I would build nucleur power stations to supply the bulk of the power requirements for the national grid.
2. I would increase indirect taxes on carbon fuels using the tax raised to counter the CO2 emmissions. These would apply to all carbon fuels for all purposes and in partciular would have to target commercail use as there really is no difference between commercial and private use.
3. I would build an enormous Bristol Channel barrage to generate enough electricity long term for the entire country - not the tiddler they are thinking about now.
I could go on but that is an overall policy for the country.
Now as regards my own footprint - if I wanted to reduce it I would get rid of a planing boat and go to an SD hull at lower cuising speeds - I have just done this and saved a lot of carbon mainly because of the inabality of the boat to be used for boating /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I would not buy a bike and cycle to work because I work at home and hence would save the footprint of making the bike /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Have I answered your questions?
As I have already stated, I do not beleive that mankind is causing global warming. I do however think that for a number of reasons we should constantly strive to reduce pollution.
However given that I was being asked for a policy to reduce carbon emissions, I would:-
1. I would build nucleur power stations to supply the bulk of the power requirements for the national grid.
2. I would increase indirect taxes on carbon fuels using the tax raised to counter the CO2 emmissions. These would apply to all carbon fuels for all purposes and in partciular would have to target commercail use as there really is no difference between commercial and private use.
3. I would build an enormous Bristol Channel barrage to generate enough electricity long term for the entire country - not the tiddler they are thinking about now.
I could go on but that is an overall policy for the country.
Now as regards my own footprint - if I wanted to reduce it I would get rid of a planing boat and go to an SD hull at lower cuising speeds - I have just done this and saved a lot of carbon mainly because of the inabality of the boat to be used for boating /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I would not buy a bike and cycle to work because I work at home and hence would save the footprint of making the bike /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Have I answered your questions?
Robin
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
What would make YOU reduce your carbon foot print?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well buying a bike would ADD to it as it would need making and transporting to me. I would get so puffed using the thing my CO2 emissions would go through the roof. So that's a no no.
I have already proposed that we don't visit SWMBOs family in the USA every year but cut it down to once every 10 years. OK so that's another no then, even I was told if they DOUBLE the cost of the flights.
SWMBO suggested we stop eating cabbage.
I could give up buying anything at all, never go out, never heat the house, watch TV, listen to radio. use the telephone....
Bu99er this I think I will just leave this country to the loonies, we are all doomed...
What would make YOU reduce your carbon foot print?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well buying a bike would ADD to it as it would need making and transporting to me. I would get so puffed using the thing my CO2 emissions would go through the roof. So that's a no no.
I have already proposed that we don't visit SWMBOs family in the USA every year but cut it down to once every 10 years. OK so that's another no then, even I was told if they DOUBLE the cost of the flights.
SWMBO suggested we stop eating cabbage.
I could give up buying anything at all, never go out, never heat the house, watch TV, listen to radio. use the telephone....
Bu99er this I think I will just leave this country to the loonies, we are all doomed...
petem
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I have just done this and saved a lot of carbon mainly because of the inabality of the boat to be used for boating /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope those 2500 pages of correspondence are on recycled paper!
Pete
I have just done this and saved a lot of carbon mainly because of the inabality of the boat to be used for boating /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope those 2500 pages of correspondence are on recycled paper!
Pete
Gludy
Well-Known Member
The correspondence is actually emails BUT the legal paperwork is now 3000 pages and muc more to go - I blame Trader for that and for increasing the carbon footrpint of my goodselve - mind you I dare not ask them that question. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif