Red Diesel saga

Tranona said:
Just for balance, I am in favour of the government biting the bullet and coming into line, but appreciate that this is a selfish attitude.
Click to expand...

Why do you think we should pay tax on fuel for using the sea, do you also support the taxing of fuel for farmers who are exempt because they do not use the roads? Whatever they call it fuel was taxed to pay for and maintain the road networks in the country required for transport. Logically as boats and farmers do not use the roads they were exempted from any taxation. This is a logical position. There is no doubt in my mind that the effect of rising fuel prices contributed to the demise of Sealine.
 
JumbleDuck said:
Am I dreaming when I think there was once blue-dyed diesel fuel for canal boats, and possibly sea going ones as well? Perhaps I'm imagining it.
Click to expand...

You're half right. Blue diesel, taxed at a different rate to the others, was (may still be?) specifically for rail traction
 
Seven Spades said:
Why do you think we should pay tax on fuel for using the sea...
Click to expand...

Light houses, buoyage, coastguard, met office, Navtext, NTM's, MAIB, etc. all cost government money but benefit us. As the government is generally a bit short of dosh why do you think you shouldn't pay tax to use the sea and the otherwise free services for your safety that central government provides allowing you to partake in your leisure activity? I think we should look at it the other way. For sailing boats the tax we pay to use the sea as duty on our fuel in comparison to the government provided services we receive is tiny and we should be grateful that it is that way and that there is no equivalent of the road fund license for boats - just to use the sea.
 
Last edited:
Erbas said:
Avgas (kerosene?) and no idea!
Click to expand...

Avgas is 100LL (100 octane, low lead) petrol. Avtur is kerosene. Avtur duties are set by international treaty. Avgas sold for aviation is duty free (or low duty?) and you have to pay full road fuel duty if you want to use it in cars. It's jolly expensive stuff, even without the road fuel duty.
 
AngusMcDoon said:
Light houses, buoyage, coastguard, met office, Navtext, NTM's, MAIB, etc. all cost government money but benefit us. As the government is generally a bit short of dosh why do you think you shouldn't pay tax to use the sea and the otherwise free services for your safety that central government provides allowing you to partake in your leisure activity? I think we should look at it the other way. For sailing boats the tax we pay to use the sea as duty on our fuel in comparison to the government provided services we receive is tiny and we should be grateful that it is that way and that there is no equivalent of the road fund license for boats - just to use the sea.
Click to expand...
The seppos get free ENC charts coz they have already paid for them via taxs. We get to pay twice
 
Light aircraft going abroad, even to another EU state, can claim back the duty on all fuel in the tanks (fuel drawback); why is it that boats, and for that matter cars, can't?
 
PeterBoater said:
Light aircraft going abroad, even to another EU state, can claim back the duty on all fuel in the tanks (fuel drawback); why is it that boats, and for that matter cars, can't?
Click to expand...

No good reason, just one of the anomalies in laws and taxation that exist for historical reasons but are too insignificant to be worth bothering introducing new legislation to change. No votes in it, no big loss or gain to the treasury, therefore no incentive to fix.
 
JumbleDuck said:
Avgas is 100LL (100 octane, low lead) petrol. Avtur is kerosene. Avtur duties are set by international treaty. Avgas sold for aviation is duty free (or low duty?) and you have to pay full road fuel duty if you want to use it in cars. It's jolly expensive stuff, even without the road fuel duty.
Click to expand...

Not so. Avgas bears excise duty at 37.7p/litre, and VAT of course.
Avtur is duty free for commercial use; I think a tax is now applied to it for private flying use.
 
PeterBoater said:
Light aircraft going abroad, even to another EU state, can claim back the duty on all fuel in the tanks (fuel drawback); why is it that boats, and for that matter cars, can't?
Click to expand...

See https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...xcise-duty-drawback-ships-and-aircraft-stores

Boats can in theory depending on first destination.

Pleasure craft may not claim drawback on mineral oils shipped as stores unless they are departing on a voyage outside of Home Trade limits that is, south of Brest, or north of the north bank of the Elbe.
 
AngusMcDoon said:
Light houses, buoyage, coastguard, met office, Navtext, NTM's, MAIB, etc. all cost government money but benefit us. As the government is generally a bit short of dosh why do you think you shouldn't pay tax to use the sea and the otherwise free services for your safety that central government provides allowing you to partake in your leisure activity? I think we should look at it the other way. For sailing boats the tax we pay to use the sea as duty on our fuel in comparison to the government provided services we receive is tiny and we should be grateful that it is that way and that there is no equivalent of the road fund license for boats - just to use the sea.
Click to expand...

On the Medway all yachts who moor here are charged just over £60 for a river licence to help pay for buoyage, etc. It goes to Peel Ports, the controllers of the river and ports. No doubt many other boaters also have local "taxes" to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Tim Good
Help: HFL Generator 8v output?
2
Replies
23
Views
347
geem
geem
W
  • Locked
KAD32 Injector and sleeves
Replies
0
Views
112
Wobbo
W

Share this page

Top