RYA & Fuel

R

rhinorhino

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 Sep 2002
Messages
727
Visit site
Reading the latest edition of the RYA mag, I see that they are campaining to retain the lower rate of duty on Marine Diesel. Did they ask me? Did they ask anyone?
I feel that we should not retain the exemption. Why? First, why should the tax payer ie eveyone, subsidise my hobby? Second, the effect of duty rise on the average sailor would be minimal, I estimate around £100 year. Ah, but what about the stinkies you ask. Well there would be a lot less of them rushing around at silly speeds causing wash and more room in the marinas if higher prices drove them from the water, so that's a third good reason.
Seriously though is the RYA right to campain on an issue without consultation? Is the exemption defensible anyway?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Not quite true that there's no consultation; there is a questionnaire on their website that you can fill in at the moment and which they are no doubt planning to use to support their lobbying. I'm afraid I can't remember the link, but why not fill it in yourself, if only to reflect a view that, I suspect, may be at variance with most others? There is a field for up to 10,000 litres per year fuel usage, so you should be OK /forums/images/icons/wink.gif.

I don't have an axe to grind about this as, although I'm a stinky, I run on petrol, so already pay lots of duty (I have even been known to sail a bit, but that's a dark and shameful secret...), but I'm not sure that taxing diesel would have quite the calming effect you anticipate. It might put off a few dilettantes but most boaters, power or sail, are prepared to make quite significant sacrifices in pursuit of their obsession and, much though it will make their teeth grind, I suspect lobbing even more spondulicks in the direction of Honest Gordie Brown is not going to put them off when they already cough up for Swindlery "bargains" and tolerate the Great British Summer.

<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
 
I think your being a bit unfair to our powerboat cousins here! I hate to see them broad-brushed as though they all behave like this (even if I do like to wind them up occasionally).

However, I do think it's difficult to justify the lower rate of duty for leisure use and may actual get the backs up amongst the non-boating majority. So I would reluctantly agree to pay the higher rate if it prevents a resentful backlash in the form of additional restrictions. If I owned a MoBo I might feel very different..

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I'm inclined to agree. I'm sure if it was more widely known that we don't pay the "full whack" for diesel there'd be an outcry. Classic car enthusiasts etc don't get any kind of special treatment, so why should we.

The main danger is that people will make the switch from diesel power to petrol power, which if not properly maintained can be more volatile!

How do insurance companies view petrol compared with diesel. Do they consider petrol a greater risk??

<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me..."
 
Confession Time

I have an old (1958) Massey-Ferguson tractor which I mainly use for going to the pub or supermarket. It is very practical and can easily carry one carrier bag.

I can run it on duty free diesel, it requires no MOT, and it is classed as a Historic Vehicle which means that the road tax is zero. It costs me a whopping £49 (or about £1/mile) a year to insure.

This probably makes me public enemy number 1!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I tend to agree, there is very little justification for not taxing leisure boat fuel, but that may be because I use so little of the stuff. Although I must say that I always thought that the tax charged on diesel was considered to be road fuel duty. Of course the increased cost may push engine manufacturers to improve efficiency and bring about a reduction of cruising boat speeds, with a consequential improvement of the environment in both a scientific and aesthetic sense.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Speaking as a MoBo owner, I suspect the result of abolishing red diesel would not have the effect you desire.

In the case of the largest MoBo's that create those big wakes, such an increase will have no effect. Nada. Nix. Nil. They have already spent £400k+ on the boat, and a yearly increase of a few thousand on their diesel bill will simply reinforce the impression of exclusivity that surrounds their hobby. Financial obstacles are not meaningful in any way to the rich.

Mid-size boats (28-50ft) will be hit, in that to actually cruise anywhere will now cost a few hundred of pounds each time, so trips will probably be shorter. I predict the number of "go nowhere" marina cottage boats will increase.

As usual, increasing prices will have most effect at the bottom end of the market, on those that can just about afford to go boating (e.g. me). You can expect the current fleet of diesel engined cruisers that trundle around at 18-20knots to pretty much disappear over the next decade or so, to be replaced by smaller, lighter, higher performance craft powered by petrol engines. Speeds of 40-50 knots will be common, as will 5.0 litre inboard petrol engines or high performance outboards.

Trips will be shorter and for thrills, rather than for all-day exploration and passage making. Also expect more fires, explosions, collisions and sinkings ... Just like they currently have in the USA.

The choice is ours.

dave.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Not sure that I agree with your 'everyone subsidising my hobby' logic. My view is that MY money belongs to me first and foremost (it's mine: not a subsidy from anyone) and that tax is something Mr Brown has decreed I must hand over. Having said that, I'm almost indifferent as to whether he taxes boat diesel. For fairness, and especially for the sake of the environment, I hope he gets round to jet fuel at the same time (some hope...).

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Hey, hang on! Haven't you got this back to front? Since when did the tax payer subsidise our hobby?

The duty on road fuel was originally put there to help to pay for the maintenance of the roads, as was the vehicle licence, as shown by its original name "Road Fund Licence". We don't use the roads, so why should we contribute to their maintenance? (Yes, I know it all goes into one pot now, but it's instructive to look back at the origins.)

Red diesel isn't untaxed; the duty it carries goes towards reducing the burden of tax on the general tax payer. And we pay VAT (admittedly at a reduced rate), and VAT on the duty. (I would be interested to know what 'added value' the duty gives to fuel.) What you are saying is that the yacht owner should bear a greater tax burden, presumably to further help reduce the load on the general tax payer. And at the same time, of course, we should pay up for our light dues, the nearest equivalent we have to road maintenance. One or the other, but not both!


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I agree on one hand and PeterB's comment is relevant in one sense BUT there are certain industries that get the benefit of red diesel, those including farmers and fishermen and I can't see the justification for including leisure boat users, irrespective of what type they are, among them. Isn't there an EU directive behind this as the UK applied to the EU to get an exemtion ?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The tax payers are not paying for our hobby. We are paying for the diesel. Work out how much tax you are paying from your income. 20% odd income tax straight away, 17.5% VAT on pretty much everything you buy, except road fuel which is about 80% tax. Taxed on your savings etc.
I'm willing to bet that if you really sat down and worked it out properly that most of your income eventually goes in tax. SO STUFF EM, keep at least one thing tax free (or low rate anyhow).

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
"Ah, but what about the stinkies you ask. Well there would be a lot less of them rushing around at silly speeds causing wash and more room in the marinas if higher prices drove them from the water, so that's a third good reason."

You don't have a clue really!


<hr width=100% size=1>
moosewalk.gif
 
Mileage restriction !

With non-taxed agricultural vehicles you are restricted in the amount of mileage allowed .... i think it is 15ml per week or something - based on a farmer going from field to field across public roads ....... BUT the vehicle must be in roadworthy condition and if found to be suspect after an accident - owner can be prosecuted for un-roadworthy vehicle.

Now that is what it USED to be - I don't know if its changed ????


<hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ...
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.qqbaltic.com/index.html>http://www.qqbaltic.com/index.html</A> For all those disbelievers ! /forums/images/icons/cool.gif
 
...probably about £600-£800 over the year.

If red diesel disappeared, this would increase my fuel bill to £2000+ if I did the same number of hours as previous seasons (about 150hrs).

It would be the last straw, what with marina Fees now £2800, despite the fact that a 28 footer compared to my 24 footer is twice the price, twice the weight, substantially greater beam, but only pays 28/24 times as much.

Arrrgggh.

dave.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
What?!?!? I don't consider a low rate of tax on red diesel a problem. There is no logical argument to increase it to cover other Taxes. As someone has said, the high rate of fuel tax is designed to pay for road maintenance on a rough mileage used basis. We don't use roads; so why should we pay.

Perhaps if the extra tax was ploughed into paying for the much talked about light dues?? maybe there's an argument...

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I agree completely. If the argument is 'polluter pays' fine - as long as that principle is also extended to the airlines.

Still - would mean we could move the boat abroad (and contribute *far* less to the UK economy) and yet benefit from cheap flights to get to it. Probably be taxed to hell to get to the airport though - I believe they are considering a 'congestion charge' to drive to whichever airport they're going to slap a new runway on....

Rick

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
And the next word was ....

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by rhinorhino on 04/03/2004 19:29 (server time).</FONT></P>
 
Not many posters have answered your question as to the validity of the RYA action, most appear to be defending/attacking the current red diesel scenario, however, most RYA actions are based upon the feedback from the various geographic regional committees, eg, South/ South east / North West etc, There used to be 6, but it may have changed...as all Sailing interests tend to be represented, including personal members, on such area committees it is probable that a regional cttee has requested support for this action, after the due democratic process..... If you feel that the RYA are not representing your interests, the go get involved! I'm sure that you would be welcomed. Tony W

<hr width=100% size=1>Tony W.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top