Red Diesel

[AlexL]

Re: Red Diesel - Road transport not guilty

you'll notice i said cars - not road transport - most of that 22% is actually commercial vehicles and public transport, not private cars

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Joe_Cole]

Alex,

Sunseeker claim, on their website, to export 99% of their products. How will any change in UK fuel tax have any significant effect on their business?

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Joe_Cole]

Re: Red Diesel - Road transport not guilty

Alex,

You are just highlighting the weakness of your case. I really don't know whether your facts are correct (and I'm not sure that you do either) but highly selective playing around with statistics (private cars, but not HGV's and PSV's) isn't really adding to the credibility of your arguement. It's beginning to look as if you're merely putting a spin on things.

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AlexL]

Re: Red Diesel - Road transport not guilty

I was highlighting that the argument that increasing tax to create an environmental benefit is an eronious one, as the tax is aimed squarely at the private motorist and is advertised as such.
The private motorist accounts for approx 20-30% of total road transport co2 which is about 20% of all cO2. i.e 20% of 20% is about 4% of the CO2 produced (and these figures conveniently ignore most of the aviation emissions as they are way out over the atlantic) and yet the road fuel tax is targeted at this. We have been told that the private motorist uses so much fuel that they need to be taxed, so it is only reasonable to look at these figures. However even the government have realised that people are begining to subtly question the reality of this, and hence the argument for fuel taxation on the roads has oh so subtly moved to on of congestion, rather than emission.
We, the general public have so long accepted that this tax is a good thing, because it helps the environment, that nobody questions the fundamentals anymore. There are many economic arguments about taxation, but I just wish people would realise that most have nothing to do with the environment and it is just an emotive subject to justify taxes. For the last decade taxes have been hiked on the back of spurious environmental arguments as it was an issue at the forefront of peoples minds. Who wants to bet that the next decade of tax hikes are all pinned onto the "National Security" excuse?

If you really want the co2 emission figures I'll dig them out when i'm back at work on monday.

However as many people have alluded to, we should stand together as marine users, as this is the thin end of a large wedge - when do we finally stand up and complain - fuel tax? light dues (which will start of at 'only' £100 but i'm sure will escalate fairly quickly? Council tax on our bouts as 'second homes'? (this has not yest been suggested but i guess it will be soon as some beach huts now attract council tax)? anyway bugger this I'm going sailing.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Joe_Cole]

Re: Red Diesel - Road transport not guilty

John,

I'm sorry but I simply havn't seen any prejudice in the postings on this thread, and nobody has said, in words or by implication, "good riddance to another motorboater". There's a bit a winding up from time to time and you know as well as I do that Mobo's will troll the Raggies for a bit of sport and vice versa. However this is no more than banter. I simply do not believe that the majority of Raggies really have it in for Mobo's, or want to see them driven off the water. I know I don't.

However, this thread started off with the comment that it was hard to not support the case for increased tax on Red diesel, and very little has been said to counter this. From what I have seen so far the Mobo's are putting forward a very weak case. If you can't convince fellow boaters what chance will you have against the general public, the bureaucrats and the politicians? Don't forget that the vast majority of the public will be astonished to hear that leisure boaters get their fuel at a fraction of the price that they pay to fill their car.

If there is any prejudice it is that boating (Sail and motor) is seen as a rich mans sport. That is what you need to fight, not the Raggies!

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

On the Thames

Presumably, though, at Thames-legal speeds, consumption is modest. It's not as if you need 2 x 150 hp engines to do 6kts.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[webcraft]

Re: Red Diesel - Road transport not guilty

Sorry you feel like that, LongJohn.

It is NOT anti-MoBo predjudice - it is nothing to do with that. Up here all the MoBoers I have met have been friendly, courteous and in general have displayed good seamanship. Why would I have anything against them?

However . . . I don't see why ANYONE should benefit from a subsidy that enables them to burn enormous amounts of fossil fuel in an essentially frivolous manner. . . if they want to do it they should pay a fair price both economically and environmentally.

I can assure you that if I owned a big MoBo I wold feel no differently. I would of course take advantage of the existing cheap diesel regime, and would not actively campaign for any change - I'm not a saint - but when the change came I would accept it as both inevitable and justified and decide what to do next - bite the bullet and spend more, run at half throttle, get a more economical craft, use it less, change my hobby - whatever. I would not winge on endlessly about how unfairly I was being treated and expect Joe Soap - who probably hasn't seen a boat since Howard's Way finished - to understand.

When I flew microlights no-one suggested that we should get cheap fuel because the airlines did. Fuel costs of operating a microlight now make up a very substantial percentage of the costs with fuel burn at a rate of between eight and sixteen litres per hour. Every microlighter accepts that - the sport's representative body has never suggested that there should be a concession because they know the politicians and general public would find the suggestion ludicrous.

The inability of you and others who would be affected by a tax increase to see beyond what looks to outsiders like a very narrow self-interest and your apparent unwillingness to look at the wider issue is illustrated by your inability to see it in anything other than a simplistic and irelevant 'raggies hate stinkies' perspective. No-one has yet put forward any valid argument - social or economic - for maintaining the red diesel concession, and I for one am convinced that they never will.

I will remain friendly towards any and all MoBoers I meet - but if any of them bring up this topic looking for my sympathy I will quietly make an excuse and leave.

Now excuse me . . . (leaves discussion)

- Nick




<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[Forbsie]

I agree with the first of your principal functions, that tax raises revenue for the government (as opposed to the country, I hasten to add!). I, however, take exception to the second point about altering behaviour. IMHO it is used in exactly the opposite manner, to ensure that no, or little, behaviour is altered. It is for this reason that I don't believe that the government will apply the full 'road tax' in one go, but instead will announce a phasing in over a few years. There is absolutely no difference between this current discussion point and Smoking or Alcohol. The last thing that the government wants is for us to stop buying fuel, tobacco and booze because this is what is paying for their final-salary pensions, 37.5% pay increases and future chairmanships with their chums.

Having just lost my red deisel virginity over the easter weekend, personally, this is not a huge issue for me as an isolated subject. I filled up my tank and 2x5lt cans for 10 quid. That will keep me going until half way through the summer. What is much more important to me is that this is just one of many, very separate, tax rises that affect us all. I drink (no sniggering in the ranks!!), I smoke 40-a-day, I have a car although I use public transport 95% of the time, I have worthless pensions and I am sick to the teeth of an ever increasing consumer tax burden on all these items with no, none, zilch reduction in my income tax. I would be over-the-moon if the government came out and said that "Smoking is now illegal" because that would be a sign that we were coming into period of honest government. I would have pangs for the first few days but wouldn't even think about it after the first week because I wouldn't see anyone else smoking. The economy would have a few problems however, but at least we could divvy the deficit up amoung all of us and I would still be quids-in.

Back on this topic of red deisel, it is imperative that the large leisure users continue to buy their fuel in the UK. If they increase it in one tranche, they may find that these large MoBo owners move their boats to other parts of Europe. Then they'll buy a house close to their boat. Then they'll change their domicile. Then they'll move their company!! This scenario does not need a large tax rise to kick into effect. It could happen, and in some cases already has, as the country's small businessmen get sick and tired of tax rises being classed environmentally or socially friendly.

So who is going to start the Reclaim Your Wallets Riot?



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike21]

Re: Red Diesel - Road transport not guilty

Why do you say red diesel is subsidised. Perhaps because it only has 5% vat instead of 17.5% then you are probably correct.
If it's because there is no road duty element, as it isn,t a road fuel then imho it's not subsidised.
As for co2 pollution, I remember a survey in Germany about 15 years ago which stated that if all road transport was banned co2 production would drop by less than 10%
As for not affecting mobo-ers, I would think that those who could afford the increase will either find a way of not paying it or will move their boats elsewhere.
This should ensure substantial unemployment in the marine service sector, and should ensure substantial price hikes as it will be assumed that those left can obviously afford to pay more. This should also ensure that a lot of raggies can no longer afford to keep their boats either.
A lot of posts do seem to have an anti-mobo predjudice.

PS Didn't G Brown put a bigger increase on the cost of red diesel at the last budget than on road fuel?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

Re: Red Diesel - Road transport not guilty

Can't find the Euro bumph for the moment. Somewhere in the tangle of Euro reports setting/justifying standards on emissions for 2 stroke motors (Bodensee regs?) is the suggestions that leisure boaters in Europe produce<1% of the region's CO2 emissions, with 2 stroke motrs being sub 0.25%. I'll try and find it again if time permits, I plan to be on the boat tomorrow.

<hr width=100% size=1>Two beers please, my friend is paying.

 

[broadcaster]

Re: Red Diesel - Road transport not guilty

Hi,

As far as I know there is not such thing as a road duty element in fuel duty, it is simply a fuel duty.

I am guessing that probably less than 1 in 10 leisure boats are actually large motor boats running big diesels. If you expect 50% (I really doubt it will be this high) of them to give up their boats then we have lost a maximum of 5% of the total number of boats. And that assumes they don't down size or swap to sail boats. This really isn't going to cause mass unemployment in the marine sector as far as I can see. As for equipment sales, they only have one VHF, 1 cooker etc etc, so just because they are big doesn't mean they buy lot's more equipment than a smaller boat.

Also the marine leisure industry is expanding, so within a short period of time these losses will be replaced. Perhaps the growth may slow for a time, but existing jobs will not disappear overnight.

It is nothing to do with raggies vs sailing boats, but this seems to be your only defence to the comments made rather than actually valid arguments. Somebody made a stupid comment about the CO2 produced during the making of sail material. A sail is used a lot more than the one off use of burning diesel in an engine.

Sorry but if you believe people are going to sell up and leave when higher duty is introduced, surely anybody with an ounce of financial sense should be selling their boat now before it happens and values drop like a stone. It's another indication that people will simply modify their behaviour.

Please don't feel this is just aimed at you, it just happens I read your post last.

Andy



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[halcyon]

Re: Red Diesel Not seen this before

Just had our owner's association quarterly, in it was a bit on red diesel, which has information I've not seen.
If red diesel is scraped we us Ultra Low Sulpher Diesel (ULSD), older marine diesels are not designed to run on it, and it causes havoc with fuel pumps. The truck industry went through it a couple of years ago. Modern engines with fuel pumps designed for ULSD are ok, but the fuel system must be spotless.
Another problem is the collection of water, refining uses high pressure steam to remove the sulpher, and ULSD acts like a magnet to moisture. With road vehicles it is constantly being changed due to usage, but what is going to happen on a boat were it is sitting in tanks for long periods.
When things change from red to ULSD for non commercial operators, are people going to stock both ? what will be the cost of two storage syatems ? who is going to pay?
When the diesel goes up to match EU duyty rates, road fuel must come down to match EU rate, so motor baoters that do a high milage in there cars may break even, and are likely to have modern engines that will run ULSD. Equally it may be yachties who do not use there car's and have a old engine that could end up coasting a furtune.
Plus the loss in road fuel duty is going to be greater than the gain in red diesel.

May be a load of rubbish, may be true, but it is something I've not read in the 1,000's of words writtren on the forum.

Any one with comments.?

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[alec]

I feel genuinely sorry for non planing diesel powerboaters. They are the ones who are most likely to come into the lower income and/or pension brackets. Engines tend to be on the smaller side or the thump thump of an inland diesel. If I enjoy could health, I intend to join the club in the future.

It has been estimated that a large diesel powerboat doing 25 knots on the plane is burning 60% of it’s diesel just to overcome windage. The ones with those high flybridges will burn even more. I have no idea on the power requirement mathematics of very heavy diesel engined (weight plus fuel) to get up on the plane.

To some, and I have to admit myself, this long distance format is bordering on the obscene when it comes to wasting the world’s resources. Just because someone has the means to pay for it why should the rest suffer ? This has nothing to do with power v sail argument which some are trying to do.

I think it is for this reason that little support is coming your way. I would like to emphasize most strongly that I have nothing against people who own boats like these and we ARE all sailors together. I feel the same for large engined car owners.

Surely the faster you go the less time you are going to enjoy being on the water. To overcome this you have to go farther to get the sea time. I cannot understand this logic.

This is just one person’s attempt to put forward a realistic argument why the cause is a lost one.





<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike21]

Re: Red Diesel - Road transport not guilty

You're correct it is fuel duty, but at present only applies to diesel fuel used in road vehicles.
Can't find the report on the web commissioned by the RYA/BMF but I presume the report projected sufficient impact on the leisure boating industry to persuade this government to apply to the EU to permit the continued use of red diesel.
I very much doubt people would sell up at moment as I think most people don't change the way they do things until any increases in taxation affect them sufficiently to force them to reconsider.
I think what got up my back and probably a lot of other peoples was that a campaign should be started to ensure red diesel was abolished on the basis that owners of mobo's can afford it.
As this was started by a raggie and supported by other raggies, whether it was mean't as a windup or not, does tend to re-ignite the raggies v mobo's arguments which imho is not really very helpful.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

<< I think they are in denial!! >>

Do they find it cheaper in Egypt?

John


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[mirabriani]

It seems to me that a large proportion of yotties think the increase is inevitable.
It would be my suggestion therefore that in any letter of objection a paragraph be included along the lines of "If red diesel tax HAS to be increased, said increase should be phrased in over several years in order to minimise the impact on both the industry and the users"
Briani

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[numenius]

"As for big powerboat owners having to give up boating - nonsense. If the cost of diesel trebles and they can no longer afford it then they will just have to either get a boat that uses one third of the fuel their old one did or cut their mileage according to their financial cloth." - This is true, if you own a big gas guzzler then your probably in a financial position so that it won't stop you boating anyway.
If your like me however, on a moderate income with even a small motorboat (50hp) then full taxation really would make the difference between us being able to have a boat or not.
As usual, these taxes hit the guy in the middle - not the rich, and not the ones who sit on their backsides, but as usual, the workers having the audacity to save to enjoy something! (personaly I took a second job to raise the money to buy my boat) - As has been said elsewhere on this forum, whoever would have imagined a day when the worker would seem to be the target of opportuinity by a Labour government?

RED diesel? Mmm

<hr width=100% size=1>http://members.lycos.co.uk/boaty1965/index.htm

 

[TwoStroke]

You're looking at the wrong price range. Two similar boats 1990 33ft, one boat twin diesel £70k, other twin petrol £35K. As you move up the scale £89k and £59k. Just have to look in the magazines for such a price difference. It's already out there. The main reason for the price - running costs!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: Red Diesel - a purile argument

I *knew* that name was a bad idea

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[broadcaster]

Hi,

Totally agree that any increase of this amount should be phased in over say 5 years, it is only fair when talking about this amount.

Andy

<hr width=100% size=1>