red petrol

[Gludy]

TISME
You have to be kidding .... its you that have made the totally untruthful claim about what the report states.

I wrote that there would be increased unemployment and reduced government revenue - I was 100% supported in that by the trade submission.

You wrote:-

"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."

The report supports its claim on lowered revenue with evidence.

You wrote:-
"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."

That is totally untrue the report states the exact opposite - it claims the most likely result is a drop in revenue ..... you have to be reading the Dandy!


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

How arrogant can you get? You knew I could o it? Do what support my arguments and show your claims to be untruthful?

"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) "

The figures are supporting what I have been claiming, no more, no less. You are acting like a politician trying to escape from having been caught out with false claims!!!

"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 everyone’s efforts."

True - that is what I have done but you on this thread have done the opposite and claimed that the figures concede an increase in revenue when they actually show the opposite.

"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. "

You cheeky blighter - do not try and be the balancing view, all calm and right - you have made a claim about the trade submission that is totally wrong and then have the nerve to lecture me who had it right!!!!!! Wow - are you joining a political party soon - you would make a good MP.

You should have the decency to admit that you had not researched the subject and on this thread you made a totally false claim .... they are the facts!

 

[Tisme]

Paul,

Your usual hectoring style; point by point by point by point by point..zzzzzzz. It cuts no ice with me.
You really should stop taking things personally and concentrate on the campaign of which you seem to have made yourself the self appointed chairman.

I have offered constructive criticism. You don't want it. You are too close to this and too angry to be effective. I'll leave you to screw things up on your own.

 

[Gludy]

Not at all TISME.

I have simply answered your questions - not hectored. My simple one sentence claim about the governemnt probably raising less tax produced a totally false claim by you telling me the trade differed with me. That was not true. They agreed with me and you totally quoted it wrong.

Having people like you quoting a totally opposte view from the trade submission and claiming that trhey actually claim something they did not danages boating.

You have simply resorted to personal remarks rather than answer the questions and admii you were wrong.

Here is the link for anyone who wants to read the report, which is a very well balanced and constructed one.
I suggest you re-read it TISME and then withdraw your fasle claims about it.

Red Report

 

[adrianm]

Tisme, I agree with Paul on this one. Re-read what he posted and then re-read what you posted in your "I knew you could do it" post.

What you say makes no sense whatsoever if you read the posts properly rather than skimming the high points which is what you must have done.

 

[Tisme]

Adrian,

I have lost count of the number of times that Paul has made his doom and gloom postings on this issue. The report is wide reaching and gives a number of possibilities. Whilst a tax loss is possible it is not the only outcome that may happen. Don't forget also that the politicians will recognise the report as being biased in favour of boaters. Others may well be lobbying on other issues.

Frankly I am astonished that Gludy had not come across this report before as he has frequently told us about how much work he has put into his campaign. Nevertheless, I have done my bit and drawn it to your attention.

As I said before, I am agnostic on the red diesel issue and I leave it you to use it as you see fit. All I would do is urge people to handle this issue carefully; the danger is that they will end up shooting themselves in the foot. The case is far from won and the pro diesel people need to be winning friends not alienating them.

 

[adrianm]

The point is though I think Paul is 95% right. I know of several people (including myself) who will leave this country if red diesel is abolished.

Ther revenue lost by me alone leaving would require over 200 average use boaters to recover through the duty.

I very much doubt that I'm alone.

 

[Tisme]

Adrian,

A few people will go abroad but I can confidently predict that it will be far fewer than those who are threatening to do so.

To draw an example from another field. Before the ban on hunting with dogs the Countryside Alliance was coming up with all sorts of figures about the economic devastation we would see in the countryside. packs of hounds would be killed off, unemployment on a large scale etc etc. It didn't happen, and many of the hunts are now saying how little they have been affected.

I am sure that the same will be the case with this issue.

On the question of you spending what 200 average boaters spend it certainly sounds a lot. I spend just less than £5k per year on my boat and I suspect that that is below average (swinging mooring, small engine etc). If you are spending 200 times that I encourage you to convert to sail. It's far more civilised! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif. If you have an estimate of what you actually spend on diesel I would, out of curiosity, be interested though.

 

[adrianm]

[ QUOTE ]
On the question of you spending what 200 average boaters spend it certainly sounds a lot. I spend just less than £5k per year on my boat and I suspect that that is below average (swinging mooring, small engine etc). If you are spending 200 times that I encourage you to convert to sail. It's far more civilised! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif. If you have an estimate of what you actually spend on diesel I would, out of curiosity, be interested though.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of the hunts are carrying on with no change to their activities. The police have much better things to do than enforce that law. It's not costing them anymore so it is completely different to this scenario.

You misunderstood my point. I don't spend 200 times more than the average boater on my boat. I probably spend a great deal less.

If I leave the country (because I see this issue as the final straw in the god awful way this country is run) then the chancellor will lose the income tax, capital gains tax, VAT etc etc that I currently pay.

I calculate this amount as approx 200 times the TOTAL duty an average boater would pay. If you base it on the difference then it would take a lot more boaters to even it out.

It only takes a few people like me and the chancellor is in negative figures.

I couldn't go to sail. All that heeling over and tacking would drive me nuts. I like to go places.

 

[Tisme]

You are offsetting your total personal tax bill against just the fuel duty generated by 200 boaters? Surely that ignores the other taxes paid by the 200 boaters? An interesting analysis but I really don't think the Chancellor will be worried about creating red-diesel-tax-exiles.

People come and go all the time; just look at the emigration figures. If you go someone else will fill your place and the Marina will be full once more.

 

[adrianm]

It is a valid argument that the RYA amongst other have used.

Don't forget that the sort of people who will be hacked off and leave in this instance are likely to be in the top 1% of earners so the figures could be huge.

I'm not ignoring the tax paid by the other boaters but they won't be paying more tax (other than the duty) so how would the deficit caused by me leaving be made up?

If the person who takes my place in the marina is on the average salary then how does that cover the deficit?

 

[Gludy]

TISME
Please do us the justice and stop squirming.

This is what i wrote that you disputed and took exception to:
"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? "

You disputed that and you are totally in the wrong - read the whole report and it conclusions it states just what I stated and does not state what you stated.

Of course I had read it all before - a long time ago at no point had I stated I had not. When you raised the point so clear I assumed it had been changed or that there was something I did not know. I told you that if there was info I did not know I would be happy to admit it etc( unlike you it seems) I asked you to quote what you based your stated claim on and you refused. I checked up and it was still the same as always. So please understand that when I ask you to support the info that you base your claims on it does not mean that I have not read what I based my calims on!

"red diesel going would probably result in less tax being collected and cause unemployment etc "

That is hardly an extreme statement is it? It hardly heralds doom and gloom and I am even on this forum stating that my guess is that we will keep derogation - so I am optimistic but if the fact that I state do not fit into the picture you have you simply ignore them ...... you have made a totally untruthful calim - anyone reading the report would have to agree that my modest claim was in line with the report and your was not.

Try finding the guts to state you are wrong.

 

[Gludy]

TISME
The examples quoted in the report in this country , the USA and NZ where boating has been selected for a high tax have all produced a drop in tax revenue. Or do you go against what the report states?

 

[Tisme]

The implication that your tax bill is worth that of 200 other boaters would put you amongst the mega-rich. It just doesn't stack up as a realistic analysis of the effect of derogation of red diesel.

 

[adrianm]

Lol, don't I just wish I was mega rich.

It is people like me who are well off (through a lot of hard work) who will leave. The mega rich couldn't care less how much diesel costs.

You still don't seem to get the point though. I'm not saying my tax bill is 200 times the average boater. I'm saying the total amount I pay the treasury (income, capital gains, VAT etc etc) is approximately 200 times the amount of duty that the average (50 hours per year) boater will spend on diesel. When you take into account the revenue raised on money that I spend that is re-spent then figures go higher still.

Not taking into account the whole spending is yet another example of the narrow minded thinking that plagues this country. People who get paid a lot, spend a lot which filters down the economy. Hack these people off and they leave which is what is happening in this country.

Yes I know Blair says people coming in balance the people going out, but I bet the ones coming in don't contribute anything like the ones who left.

 

[Gludy]

Please let me have a go at explaining the principle to you.

Say the red ends.

Even if everyone bought the same quantity of fuel - the revenue raise only an extra £9.1m .... that’s tiny BUT there is no way users would purchase the same amount of fuel so this figure itself is way too high. Its more likely to be either zero or a few million but now take off the impact on other revenue drops, employment, vat etc and you have a situation where even a few large boats going do more than wipe off tiny possible total gain from the tax.

TCM in another thread this last week calculated a revenue loss to the UK from his boat along of £1m.

I personally know of reactions of some boaters who would depart from UK power boating and the result would wipe of any reasonable government gain.

The UK loses, VAT, NI contributions etc So for a chance to maybe gain a few million pounds the government would have to take a big risk.

But look at history and there is another attempt in the UK a 25% VAT rate on boating in the 70's tried and failed - revenue dropped.

When Thatcher dropped the top rate of income tax from 83% to 40% tax revenue increased - it did not decrease.

If you read the report you will find the sound reasoning within it. Just do not try and misquote it again. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[adrianm]

This is a direct quote from the RYA website.

"On the estimation that 15 million litres of marine diesel is sold to leisure craft (RYA Research, 1998), if participation levels and fuel purchase remain unchanged, there would be a maximum of £9.1 million additional revenue to the treasury.
However, taking into account the loss of diesel sales amongst those who claim they would definitely stop purchasing diesel if the price of diesel increased ie give up boating, use boats less or buy diesel abroad, the potential income to the Government would only be £2.47 million. If all those who claim they would definitely or may stop purchasing diesel actually follow through with their intention, there would be a potential loss of revenue of £0.39 million (RYA Survey 2003/04).
Furthermore, boater spend is estimated at £700 million per year which is estimated to fall to £550 million if there is a decrease in participation and boat usage. This will obviously have a detrimental impact on the viability of marine companies and implications for job losses for the marine industry and related beneficiaries, resulting in loss of less tax revenue to the treasury.
When this is offset against the cost of enforcement, it can be seen that ending the derogation might raise negligible sums for the Treasury or more likely reduce revenue to the Exchequer and damage the industry."

 

[Gludy]

So where does the TISME 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. "

Come from?

 

[Tisme]

[ QUOTE ]
. Hack these people off and they leave which is what is happening in this country.

Yes I know Blair says people coming in balance the people going out, but I bet the ones coming in don't contribute anything like the ones who left.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can agree that we are talking about the "top end" of the immigrants/emigrants. My point is that there are a lot of "top end" people coming into this country all the time. It is some years since I have seen figures but, the last time I saw anything, we were clearly a net "importer" of high earners. The headlines of the tabloids do not show the whole story by any means.
That is why I say that if one leaves another will come in to take his place; He may not buy a boat but that is not relevant.

I really don't think that Gordon Brown cares a hoot if a few people leave the country because of duty on red diesel.

 

[Gludy]

You miss the point.

As far the the tax on deisel is concerend the export of people would be a loss. There is no connection between the export of boats and boaters and the import of other high unrelated earners. Any import of high earners be it there or not will happen anyway - so the net situation will still be a loss ...... can you not see the simplicity of that?

You are grasping at straws and your point crumble ... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

"Will a rise in diesel fuel tax result in a drop in revenue?"

seems to equate quite well with

"Will introducing a 10mph speed limit on Lake Windermere have an adverse effect on the local ecomony?"

Both questions had/have very partisan supporters for each possible response. We have all seen what happened in the Lake District, despite the efforts made by LNDPA's PR flacks to blame other factors.

Maybe HMG should do more to promote LPG as a petrol replacement by allowing grants for conversion and helping its availability inland. Oh, and long term commitments over its tax status.