RYA & Fuel

Re: Mileage restriction !

You've made me wonder whether to fit a rear-view mirror just in case I'm being followed by a man from the ministry with a pacing stick. My historic vehicle has no speedo (or mileometer) so staying within a mileage limit would certainly be possible.

Being the 'DeLux' model it does have a charge indicator and an oil pressure gauge plus the luxury of a padded seat, and it's new brakes are awesome (a relative expression - it was much more fearsome before, especially going downhill towards a junction).


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: I have searched

through all these posts to find one that speaks the obvious. Congratulations, you are it. There is no way that "Boat Fuel" should be due for "Road Fuel Duty". When was the last time you saw a boat using the road. The fact that so many argue for "Leisure Boat Owners" to pay "Road Fuel Prices" shows that the politicians con has worked. The RYA need no remit from me to argue the case for an unfair taxation on boating because thats what it is. Nobody is expecting the rest of the populace to subsidise our passtime. The tax on "Road Fuel" is simply that & we do not use the roads with our boats!

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: No criticism

implied. I just wanted to amplify the point. People can be remarkable dense & ignore the obvious argument.

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
There´s some rubbish here

So you think all diesel fuel, for any use should carry the extra Road Vehicle taxes - even if that fuel is not for a Road vehicle.

Do you have oil fired central heating ?
Do you think heating oil (very similar - almost identical to diesel) should also be taxed at the Road Vehicle Rate ?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: There´s some rubbish here

We yotties are only getting caught in the crossfire here. Gordons after any engine that uses RED which is mainly farmers and all those nice diesel guzzling motors working in factories/docks etc.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Whats that got to do

with anyone being charged Road Fuel Duty on fuel that is not used on the roads. Crossfire or not were still going to get taxed again. Unless we argue our corner!

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Whats that got to do

Exactly, what the hell has the name "road fuel duty" got to do with the fact that they want to hit someone else with another tax bill. It's all to swell their coffers and nothing to do with "roads, boats" or anything else. It doesn't matter what they call it, if they wanna hit you with it they will. If you argue that we don't have to pay it cos we don't use our boats on the road they will just call it something else............."water fuel duty" sounds a good one. At the end of the day it's just another form of tax for this over taxed nation of ours.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Who elected these committees? I do not recall being sent a voting form. What due democratic process was involved or are you talking about the actions of a self-selecting non-elected group?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The current position is that the lesuire boating sector gets the benefit of an exemption from the EU's rules on duty. So like it or not, the question is not should we pay this duty but rather should we have the benefit of an exemption from duty that the rest of the population (with very limited exceptions) does not have. Road fuel duty has nothing to do with it. The idea of a tax was "ring-fenced" in that way died a long time ago.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The point is

that there is an assumption that the level of duty to be expected should be the same as "Road Fuel" & that anything less than this is, somehow, being subsidised by the rest of society. The fact is that the Duty & VAT that we already pay is a contribution towards the exchequer & we are being subsidies by no one. If we are to stand any chance, of holding our corner, we had better understand that & argue on that basis!

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Misconception

Where does it say anywhere in legislation that the tax/duty charged on road-going fuel is for the construction and maintenance of the roads? I don't beleive it does. The roads, once upon a time, were supposed to be paid for by the jam-jar label we all have to stick behind our windscreens, but nowadays all tax goes into a general pot and all expenditure comes out of that pot, with no ring-fencing of particular funds for particular purposes.

The tax/duty on fuel is just another general tax, from which certain users are exempt - railways, airlines, farmers, fishermen and leisure boaters using diesel, but not those using petrol. If you try and justify the exemptions as essential to certain industries, then why are road hauliers, taxis and bus companies not exempt? In my view, all those exemptions should be done away with.

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

There is an unpleasant streak of "beggar thy neighbour" in this thread. I'm a raggie but I most certainly dont want other boaters to be landed with yet more legalised theft from government. And just to please the EC, too.

The red diesel exemption for pleasure boaters was given in part because of the difficulty of ensuring both red and clear diesel would be available at every harbour round the UK. Its Ok for marina based south coast yotties, but for the rest of us this could be a real problem. Will the harbour duplicate its pumps, or will it simply sell the red diesel to fishermen who, after all, use more than the large majority of yotties?

And to think that the RYA should consult all its members on every issue is just ridiculous and impractical. I am happy for them to use their judgment as to what is important and which way to act. Powerboaters are members as much as Raggies - and who amongst the Stinkies would not prefer to keep the present exemption? Do the RYA have to ask their members to find that out?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Misconception

It doesn't, to my knowledge, say that Road Fuel Duty only goes on the roads but it does say that fuel used by vehicles on the roads is subject to Road Fuel Duty. In fact I remeber the Government setting up proceedures to allow businesses to use Heating Oil in Road Vehicles a couple of years ago, proveided they paid Road Fuel duty on the Fuel used.

How can you charge a boat "Road Fuel Duty" when there is no road to be used?

Why is it an exemption from "Road Fuel Duty" when it is not intended for use in a Road Vehicle?

Why should we need to justify it in that way?

You seem to be saying that it is fine for the Government to "have their cake & eat it" when it suits them. I think not!

Martin



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Well if I'm forced to pay it I shall have to think twice before deciding to tow yet another broken down/becalmed raggie. Just cos I drive a semi displacement blue hulled boat I seem to attract these poor souls! ;-))

Why can't you support us just as we would support you if something precious to you was under threat?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
To clarify

What I'm saying is that there is no such thing in real life as 'road fuel duty'. Just fuel duty, or tax to be more honest. And that there should be a unified rate of tax on fuel, pro-rated to its energy content or its polluting value if you really want to complicate things. And that all users should pay that tax, no matter what they are using the fuel for, with no exemptions. Simple really.

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

And sad that our sailing fraternity are not prepared to lend their support to fellow users of the sea!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Misconception

It doesn't, but if you look at

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.hmce.gov.uk/business/othertaxes/roadfuels.htm>http://www.hmce.gov.uk/business/othertaxes/roadfuels.htm</A>

it does quite clearly differentiate Red Diesel as
"Marked gas oil and ULSD oil not for <font color=red>road fuel</font color=red> use"

i.e. the level of taxation is matched to the intended use of the fuel, as well as being "decided by the Chancellor on a Budget-by-Budget basis, taking into account all the relevant economic, social and environmental factors.", even if all the taxation raised does go into the same pot.

As to "Road Fund License" not paying directly for the roads anymore: again, true in part, but a recent consultation document rejustified it using the following:

####
a. Even without VED, it would still be necessary to maintain a vehicle record and pay for a system for enforcing the requirement to register vehicles. It is doubtful whether any alternative system would be as effective;
b. VED is also an invaluable aid in ensuring compliance with MOT and insurance certification;
c. It ensures all motorists contribute to the fixed costs incurred in maintaining and policing the road network;
d VED plays a part in reducing congestion and parking problems by discouraging people from owning second cars;
e. There are also some costs of road use that are not captured adequately by road fuel duty. For example, the damage done by heavy goods vehicles depends on the weight they carry and how that weight is distributed. Lorry VED is designed to reflect this, at least in part.
f. To load the full burden of motoring taxes onto fuel duties would hit groups such as hauliers and bus operators. It would also disadvantage disabled drivers, who do not pay VED
####


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

Share this page

Top