red petrol

[npb]

Adrianm wrote
Diesel boats don't get relief, the tax isn't there in the first place, an important difference.

This whole argument is a bit like buying a house next to an airport and then complaining that it keeps the value of your house down.

--------------------
A closed mouth gathers no foot.



Nice proverb (A closed mouth gathers no foot.)
but I think you will find the term RED Diesel is used instead of 'Rebated gas oil' and again I think if you look you will see it does attract a duty of 6.44p against the duty on Sulphur-free petrol 48.32p , these figuars may be a little out of date now, but never the less a duty, now while I dont fully understand every thing about duties ( does anyone) I am only here to ask questions that intrest me, I am not asking for red diesel 'Rebated gas oil' to be incressed, but why why why if diesel boaters can have cheap diesel why then cant petrol boaters have ceap petrol, knowing what it costs when i bought my boat does not come into it, hey thoese of you with kids knew they cry before having them, so why tell them to stop it when they do

 

[Gludy]

[ QUOTE ]

why why why if diesel boaters can have cheap diesel why then cant petrol boaters have ceap petrol,


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that this had been explained.

There is simply not a chance of any government setting up a new class of petrol fuel with all the problems asspcoaited with that so that they can lower the price of petrol to UK boaters with petrol engines. That is why.

I am basing this on how all governments behave and on the scale of the issue.

I wish it were otherwise, I really do, but it isn't and there is zero chance of it ever happening. Taxation is not involved with what is just - its involved with what they can get away with.

 

[Tisme]

[ QUOTE ]
Taxation is not involved with what is just - its involved with what they can get away with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is ultimately why, like it or not, red diesel will go.

 

[Gludy]

Not really so - red diesel going would probably result in less tax being collected and cause unemployment etc so why should they remove it and take a drop in income whilst facing the political reaction?

 

[Tisme]

So you keep saying, but constant repetition of your back of a cigarette packet figures does not mean that they are borne out by the evidence.

If you care to look at the figures which have been submitted to the Government by trade bodies you will see that they concede that there will, most likely, be an increase in tax revenue.

I'm sorry to put it so crudely but you are in danger of starting to believe your own propaganda.

 

[npb]

why would unemployment go up ?
if red diesel went up

 

[npb]

and why do all you diesel users keep saying that there is no tax or duty paid on red diesel?

 

[Tisme]

Ignore it. There might be a small change in employment if some diesel boats are taken abroad or used less resulting in a little less money being spent in the "boating economy". However Gludy likes to make the case for the Doomsday scenario/end of civilisation as we know it etc etc.

 

[whisper]

Not sure that they do, do they? I think the vast majority will say that they do pay duty on diesel fuel but at a reduced rate. This is because the duty originally started out as being a contribution towards our road infrastructure.
As far as I'm aware very few boats, combine harvesters and site mixers are normally used on roads and so the reduced rate appears to be fair, when based on this historical background.
Had petrol engines been used regularly, on site or on the farm, there may have been a similar "red petrol" in existance now.
However, they weren't, there isn't and there is no chance of it being introduced. Unfair on petrol engined boaters, I know /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

I hope the above clarifies for you the question as to the "why" - it's a very simple concept really.

Should/will the situation continue is another matter altogether.

 

[npb]

OK, while I as the next man enjoys a good debate, I seams like everyone on here is all too happy to explain with reasons of why not in my lifetime will I ever see a like for like on the price structure of petrol and red diesel for marine use, just saying UNFAIR, yes it is unfair. I wonder If all diesel users will be happy to accept the goverment when they put the price of diesel up (and lets face it they prob will) at the end of the year, and in responce to your view they comment '' I know its unfair but thats how it is''.
It might be time to start a campaign towards the goverment, because if red diesel was to be kept, surely a case pressedent will have been set for the case of reduced duty on marine fuel usage, worth a try!!

 

[Gludy]

Where can I see the figures sunmitted by the trade?
I would be very interested.

Any figure submitted would have to estimate how many boats leave the UK, how many reduce usage and by how much etc ...... I cannot see how the government could make money as it only requires a tiny drop in boats to wipe out any possible tac gain.

Also if there were no drop in usage there would be no eco argument to support it.

Anyway please point me to the trade submissions - I am more than willing to change my viwes in the light of new evidence and hope you understand that i cannot rely on the back of a cig packet statement by you. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Gludy]

Unemployment would rise because usage of boats would reduce.

Some would not enter boating that otherwise would have - reduced sales

Some boats would move to the Med taking with them all their considerable spending - tcm reckons hos move to the med took £1m worth of spending with hima alone - it talkes a lot of red sales to make that up!

Many boats would ramatically reduce usage of the boats and spending on servicing etc.

The increase in tax has to suck money out of the system and so within boating that money would no longer find itself employing people.

 

[Gludy]

TISME
Why do you have to exaggerate etc.
Gludy is actually hopeful that we will keep derogation.

I am pointing out the sensitivity of the market and to the price hike and how it takes very few boats going to wipe out any tax gain – your tactic of responding with, to date unsupported claims and then making extreme claims like I am claiming doomsday etc do not do you justice – stick to the point. Respond with the facts and lets have a decent discussion.

 

[Gludy]

I wish it was worth a try but my view is that snowballs in hell stand a better chance. There are also all sorts of problems and costs in introducing the infrastructure of a new petrol dyed green or something.

In reality, there is simple no chance. I wish there were because yes it is unfair.

 

[Tisme]

Paul,

I am sorry to put it like this but, Thank you. You have confirmed what I have been getting at for sometime; namely that your "campaign" is poorly researched and has become little more than you continually banging out your assertions in the hope that some of them will stick.

As you haven't even taken the time to research what has been said by the trade your whole argument has lost credibility.

Frankly, I am agnostic on the red diesel issue, but I am astonished at the antagonism and ill thought-out arguments which are so frequently put forward by those who should be trying to win people over so that they can win the day.

The information is readily available. Use Google. After all this time I am not going to do your work for you.

 

[Gludy]

Tisme
You assume that when I ask such a question I have no other knowledge on the subject - wrong.

You accuse me of arguing from the back of a cig packet but when I ask you for chapter and verse to support your point - you refuse.

You seem to want peronsal antogonsm rather than debate the facts - that is you not me.

I wanted you to produce the evidence so there was no doubt where it cam from because it doews not suppoert what you are claiming about it.

Its a pity you cannot just debate the facts instead of moaning on an on with personal abuse. I am ready to discuss the facts - its seems you are not.

I did a lot of work on this subject last year. I am not enetering the discussion lightly loaded.

[ QUOTE ]
If you care to look at the figures which have been submitted to the Government by trade bodies you will see that they concede that there will, most likely, be an increase in tax revenue.


[/ QUOTE ]

Support that or quit the discussion.

 

[Gludy]

Having just re-read the submission to the UK government from the trade bodies they argue that there are a whole pile of adverse effects including employment "with little or no gain to the Exchequer"

Seeing as this was a joint document from the trade can you please quote me where it states otherwise? I have not claimed naything different - you have.

It seems you are accusing me of what you yourself are totally guilty of - not researching the issue. So please be good enough to withdraw your point as the evidence you quote does not support it.

 

[Gludy]

TISME
Sorry having re-read more the situation is worse for your claims.

The report goes onto claim a reduction in tax revenue to the government and cites a 25% VAT rate on boating (other sports 8%) in the 70's resulted in less rvenue not more and was dropped. It then cites the same experience in the USA and NZ where higher taxes on boats resulted in a lowering of revenue collected - so how come you are reading differently???????

 

[Tisme]

Paul,

You have finally got there! Good. I knew you could do it.

As you will see the figures are offering a reasoned argument and raises the possible results of derogation; they are not constantly insisting that there will be a loss to the Exchequer. It may happen, but it is by no means certain. Massive change could happen, but it is by no means certain (and, in my view, unlikely)

Frankly I think you would be best advised to adopt the report, stop the overstatement, stop asserting the "worst case scenario" and stop the patronising badgering of anyone who does not roll over and agree with every statement you make on this issue. It is not winning people over to your point of view and that, surely, is the most important thing?

Above all it is important that, if people are going to write to their MP's, that they ensure that their arguments are consistent with the submission made on their behalf by the trade. Contradictory arguments and, in particular, figures, only serve to undermine everyones efforts.

You may not like what I say, but I am trying to help you in your campaign. I do not believe that you have been handling it in the best way to achieve the results which you are after.

 

[adrianm]

Also don't forget that petrol boaters pay less for the boats in the first place.

So if petrol was reduced to the same duty level as red diesel would the petrol boaters pay all that money back?

Taking into account the difference in price between petrol and diesel boats it can often work out cheaper to run a petrol boat anyway. Even at the current price differential.