jfm
Well-known member
you are right Joe
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
Scuttlebutt red diesel posts
- Thread starter mrplastic
- Start date
Aardee
Well-known member
Not Wealthy??
So, like me you work in IT, live in the Home Counties (is Kent a Home County??) and own a boat (in your case I'd guess worth 6 figures).
While I understand you have to make do without holidays in St Trop & wear M&S suits, the "not wealthy" argument coming from the owner of a 35' Italian Powerboat doesn't carry a lot of weight .
Remember, the AVERAGE UK salary is around 25k pa. At twice that, most of the UK population would consider you comfortably off, at 3-4 times that, you're getting on for most peoples idea of wealthy.
The perceived difference in lifestyle between 25k & 100k is far greater than the truth. Unfortunately, we have to work with perceptions.
<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me" - A A Milne.
So, like me you work in IT, live in the Home Counties (is Kent a Home County??) and own a boat (in your case I'd guess worth 6 figures).
While I understand you have to make do without holidays in St Trop & wear M&S suits, the "not wealthy" argument coming from the owner of a 35' Italian Powerboat doesn't carry a lot of weight .
Remember, the AVERAGE UK salary is around 25k pa. At twice that, most of the UK population would consider you comfortably off, at 3-4 times that, you're getting on for most peoples idea of wealthy.
The perceived difference in lifestyle between 25k & 100k is far greater than the truth. Unfortunately, we have to work with perceptions.
<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me" - A A Milne.
Planty
New member
Re: imho need to improve the economic analysis
Last paragraph; give us a few arguments that you feel would be worthy, or is it that you have just accepted a rise may take place and you can afford it. Put up an alternative strategy if the current ones are no good.
We'll all support you, I'm sure.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Last paragraph; give us a few arguments that you feel would be worthy, or is it that you have just accepted a rise may take place and you can afford it. Put up an alternative strategy if the current ones are no good.
We'll all support you, I'm sure.
<hr width=100% size=1>
jfm
Well-known member
Planty you have to stick to macro not micro econom
Planty, with full respect and not disputing what you say about your own position, this argument will cut no ice in whitehall. You say that if we got Frecnh fuel prices YOU would give up. Fine. But the French already have french prices* and they have not given up. Have you seen how many mobos there are in France? Have you seen the lines and lines of 20m boats in the South of France? And in France not only is fuel dearer, so are the moorings. You can't rent like the solent. To get the same security of tenure you have to buy a berth costing perhaps 20-40% of the value of your boat. That's right, £110k for a 40 footer, £170k for a 58 footer. Thats' a lot more painful than a bit of dear fuel, I can tell you. Yet people still do it, the marinas are full and new boats are bought every week. So the claims that everyone will stop boating are manifestly wrong and we do ourselves no good hoping to rely on them.
(*Before I get pulled up I should acknowledge that some of the bigger boats in France do of course buy tax-free diesel, 25p litre, but most buy taxed stuff at about 55p)
<hr width=100% size=1>
Planty, with full respect and not disputing what you say about your own position, this argument will cut no ice in whitehall. You say that if we got Frecnh fuel prices YOU would give up. Fine. But the French already have french prices* and they have not given up. Have you seen how many mobos there are in France? Have you seen the lines and lines of 20m boats in the South of France? And in France not only is fuel dearer, so are the moorings. You can't rent like the solent. To get the same security of tenure you have to buy a berth costing perhaps 20-40% of the value of your boat. That's right, £110k for a 40 footer, £170k for a 58 footer. Thats' a lot more painful than a bit of dear fuel, I can tell you. Yet people still do it, the marinas are full and new boats are bought every week. So the claims that everyone will stop boating are manifestly wrong and we do ourselves no good hoping to rely on them.
(*Before I get pulled up I should acknowledge that some of the bigger boats in France do of course buy tax-free diesel, 25p litre, but most buy taxed stuff at about 55p)
<hr width=100% size=1>
KevB
Active member
What I don't understand is your comment re Jo public. What have they to compare against? Diesel fuel for cars?? How many cars can take on board 600 litres or more, surely I'm entitled to a bulk discount???
Red diesel is not the same as white, white is more refined, red is almost heating oil. I guess by your comparison......"Why the hell should these guys get their fuel at a fraction of what I have to pay for it"
then heating oil should be taxed the same!!
I don't see jo public jumping up and down demanding that LPG is taxed at the same rate as other road fuels, do you?? So why should they worry about our Gas Oil.
Just point out to mr Jo that we use Gas Oil they use Derv.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Red diesel is not the same as white, white is more refined, red is almost heating oil. I guess by your comparison......"Why the hell should these guys get their fuel at a fraction of what I have to pay for it"
then heating oil should be taxed the same!!
I don't see jo public jumping up and down demanding that LPG is taxed at the same rate as other road fuels, do you?? So why should they worry about our Gas Oil.
Just point out to mr Jo that we use Gas Oil they use Derv.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Planty
New member
Re: Planty you have to stick to macro not micro econom
Have you also noticed how few 30 foot MOBO's ther are in places like Cherbourg and not in the Super Ports. Also how many of the Superyachts you mention are wearing the Red Ensign? All the Brits who can afford what you describe already are, take a walk around somewhere like Puerto Banus, Soto Grande, Cannes its like being in Southampton on the "Super" side, red dusters all over the place. Bit different further down where the Spanish, French mainly populate, all sub 40'. Try pulling a 51' foot Sealine in to the normal French ports, you'll get treated like royalty. Took a 22.5 foot Searay over to Spain, similar sized port to say Yarmouth IOW, biggest thing in there, certainly was dwarfed by most of the stuff in Yarmouth.<hr width=100% size=1>
Have you also noticed how few 30 foot MOBO's ther are in places like Cherbourg and not in the Super Ports. Also how many of the Superyachts you mention are wearing the Red Ensign? All the Brits who can afford what you describe already are, take a walk around somewhere like Puerto Banus, Soto Grande, Cannes its like being in Southampton on the "Super" side, red dusters all over the place. Bit different further down where the Spanish, French mainly populate, all sub 40'. Try pulling a 51' foot Sealine in to the normal French ports, you'll get treated like royalty. Took a 22.5 foot Searay over to Spain, similar sized port to say Yarmouth IOW, biggest thing in there, certainly was dwarfed by most of the stuff in Yarmouth.<hr width=100% size=1>
Aardee
Well-known member
"Maybe they should consider their super low cost plane fuel when they fly out to Spain for a holiday - or the amount of fuel used just to transport folks on holiday."
Problem is, we both know they won't...
I, like many others, am really struggling to find a better argument than "I'll be out of pocket". Whatever the cost, people will always find a way to stay on the water.
I also think predictions about the demise of the UK boating industry are a bit over the top. When 4 Star Leaded petrol was withdrawn, the UK Classic Car industry was supposed to disappear overnight. Has it happened - NO. It continues to go from strength to strength.
Try this. Find a friend (reasonably intelligent, not too wealthy, non-boaty) and explain the situation to them in a calm & rational manner, asking for their support. You will find that
A) They won't have realised we use "subsidised" fuel (Don't shoot me, that's how they'll view it...).
B) They (as an outsider) will really find it hard to construct a reasonable argument to justify keeping our "concession".
I've tried this a few times now, and it brings home the fact that we lack a real "killer" argument.
The fact we can't even agree amongst ourselves says a lot for the strength of our case.
<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me" - A A Milne.
Problem is, we both know they won't...
I, like many others, am really struggling to find a better argument than "I'll be out of pocket". Whatever the cost, people will always find a way to stay on the water.
I also think predictions about the demise of the UK boating industry are a bit over the top. When 4 Star Leaded petrol was withdrawn, the UK Classic Car industry was supposed to disappear overnight. Has it happened - NO. It continues to go from strength to strength.
Try this. Find a friend (reasonably intelligent, not too wealthy, non-boaty) and explain the situation to them in a calm & rational manner, asking for their support. You will find that
A) They won't have realised we use "subsidised" fuel (Don't shoot me, that's how they'll view it...).
B) They (as an outsider) will really find it hard to construct a reasonable argument to justify keeping our "concession".
I've tried this a few times now, and it brings home the fact that we lack a real "killer" argument.
The fact we can't even agree amongst ourselves says a lot for the strength of our case.
<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me" - A A Milne.
TwoStroke
New member
Re: Bottom falling out of market
Looking in the mags, price between diesel and petrol is around £30k. Markets don't often go up so those with a diesel boat are looking at around a £30k drop in value - immediate hit. Who wants that.
The manufacturers won't be able to justify such a price difference between petrol and diesel as running costs will be similar, and will have to lower prices in the UK - with the knock on effect again on used.
Considering I'm looking at going up to a diesel, running cost plays a big part. It's fine at the moment but should this happen - any thoughts about channel hoping or weekends away are out of the question. My money will go elsewhere.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Looking in the mags, price between diesel and petrol is around £30k. Markets don't often go up so those with a diesel boat are looking at around a £30k drop in value - immediate hit. Who wants that.
The manufacturers won't be able to justify such a price difference between petrol and diesel as running costs will be similar, and will have to lower prices in the UK - with the knock on effect again on used.
Considering I'm looking at going up to a diesel, running cost plays a big part. It's fine at the moment but should this happen - any thoughts about channel hoping or weekends away are out of the question. My money will go elsewhere.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Gludy
Active member
Re: imho need to improve the economic analysis
"You say no gain in the tax yield, but there has been no convincing case made to back that claim."
One chap has done a model on it and came up with a loss of £15m in tax revenue - I am sure we can all play about with the variables. I am basing my opinions on common snse and asking around on what boaters will do.
"Granted, the market price of the boats sold will fall, but that's all that will happen. Someone somewhere will buy them and run them. Ypou can't say no-one will buy them with fuel so expensive because in extremis if all twin diesel mobos were put up for sale for £1 each they would all get sold and the new owners would happily fill em with £4/gall diesel and sail to Ilfracombe or wherever. Th boat fixers would still be in work. The marinas and restaurants will too. "
It has been pointed out that there is a huge difference between capital tied up in a boat and the marginal decision to go to 'Ilfracoombe'. I really believe that most would not choose to go on the trip with those fuel costs.
" But those who give up will sell their boats, and someone else will buy them and run them."
Those who buy them will be using them as caravans on water ... so at a price, even £1 they will buy them but they will not run them. Nor will the marine industry around get their business at anything like the level they do today.
"The macro effects of white diesel will be a higher tax yield and lower overall fuel burn, both of which are what the government wants. We need different arguments from this flawed micro economic stuff. imho "
What makes you state a higher tax yield? You are assuming spending on boats will reamin the same - it will not. The price of boats will drop like a rocket and whilst that is a short term gain for the buyer - long term those boats have to be replaced with new boats at very much higher prices - and that will not happen - in effect the loss will be absorbed by boat owners in the price loss of their boats and that may subsidise the industry in the short term but not for long because nobody would be bringing the new boats into the market.
"250,000 (?) mobos in this country" - I am only really talking about sea going cruising power boats and there is nothing like that number.
I believe that the main argument has to be that it is simply impracticable to split into white and red diesel on the waterfront - its a lot of bother for very little, if any benefit. What therefore may happen is maintain the right to red but the price of red goes up - that could be lived with but it would raise red to everyone.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
"You say no gain in the tax yield, but there has been no convincing case made to back that claim."
One chap has done a model on it and came up with a loss of £15m in tax revenue - I am sure we can all play about with the variables. I am basing my opinions on common snse and asking around on what boaters will do.
"Granted, the market price of the boats sold will fall, but that's all that will happen. Someone somewhere will buy them and run them. Ypou can't say no-one will buy them with fuel so expensive because in extremis if all twin diesel mobos were put up for sale for £1 each they would all get sold and the new owners would happily fill em with £4/gall diesel and sail to Ilfracombe or wherever. Th boat fixers would still be in work. The marinas and restaurants will too. "
It has been pointed out that there is a huge difference between capital tied up in a boat and the marginal decision to go to 'Ilfracoombe'. I really believe that most would not choose to go on the trip with those fuel costs.
" But those who give up will sell their boats, and someone else will buy them and run them."
Those who buy them will be using them as caravans on water ... so at a price, even £1 they will buy them but they will not run them. Nor will the marine industry around get their business at anything like the level they do today.
"The macro effects of white diesel will be a higher tax yield and lower overall fuel burn, both of which are what the government wants. We need different arguments from this flawed micro economic stuff. imho "
What makes you state a higher tax yield? You are assuming spending on boats will reamin the same - it will not. The price of boats will drop like a rocket and whilst that is a short term gain for the buyer - long term those boats have to be replaced with new boats at very much higher prices - and that will not happen - in effect the loss will be absorbed by boat owners in the price loss of their boats and that may subsidise the industry in the short term but not for long because nobody would be bringing the new boats into the market.
"250,000 (?) mobos in this country" - I am only really talking about sea going cruising power boats and there is nothing like that number.
I believe that the main argument has to be that it is simply impracticable to split into white and red diesel on the waterfront - its a lot of bother for very little, if any benefit. What therefore may happen is maintain the right to red but the price of red goes up - that could be lived with but it would raise red to everyone.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Aardee
Well-known member
DERV
It's only called DERV (Diesel Engined Road Vehicle??) because that's what the government chose to call it.
If they choose tomorrow to re-Christen it "Full Duty Diesel" or "Fuel for Things That Move" the DERV argument flies out of the window.
You're right about Joe Pub not buying in bulk. That's because their cars can manage better than 50 gallons per hour. The "We should have it cheap because we burn more of it to travel less distance slower (for fun)..." argument is a non-starter IMHO.
<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me" - A A Milne.
It's only called DERV (Diesel Engined Road Vehicle??) because that's what the government chose to call it.
If they choose tomorrow to re-Christen it "Full Duty Diesel" or "Fuel for Things That Move" the DERV argument flies out of the window.
You're right about Joe Pub not buying in bulk. That's because their cars can manage better than 50 gallons per hour. The "We should have it cheap because we burn more of it to travel less distance slower (for fun)..." argument is a non-starter IMHO.
<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me" - A A Milne.
jfm
Well-known member
no case for red but would argue for pink
Planty, whether I can afford it is irrelevant - my boating is in France so I'm not affected. (I did own up to that fact at the beginning). But I'll be honest with you, I can't think of any knockout economic arguments to keep red diesel. I would much prefer red diesel to stay, but what we're facing is a political will to impose the tax and the cover story of EU derogation expiry and right now I can't think of an answer as to how best to defeat it. Please dont flame me for criticising the economic points that have neen made. This aint the school playground so not having a better idea to suggest isn't a reason not to make comment on the ideas that have been put forward (I hope!).
I do however see a strong case for a leisure boat diesel taxed at 22p insteadof the 55p DERV tax. Accepting this would mean the UK would fulfill its 22p/litre Euro tax obligation, but the boater world would avoid the 55p DERV tax. Let's call this new stuff pink diesel (to coin a phrase). It would have a 50p/litre pump price. The argument as I understand it against this idea is logistics. We would need to have 2 types of diesel at marinas, pink for leisure and red for commercial. But that seems to me a non argument. first, many marinas would sell pink only. And in France thay already have white and red at most marinas without difficulty and with no obvious extra costs for logistics, so why can't we do the same in UK?
I accept that pink diesel is a compromise and I would prefer red, but I think we're better backing a horse than can win rahter than a certain loser
<hr width=100% size=1>
Planty, whether I can afford it is irrelevant - my boating is in France so I'm not affected. (I did own up to that fact at the beginning). But I'll be honest with you, I can't think of any knockout economic arguments to keep red diesel. I would much prefer red diesel to stay, but what we're facing is a political will to impose the tax and the cover story of EU derogation expiry and right now I can't think of an answer as to how best to defeat it. Please dont flame me for criticising the economic points that have neen made. This aint the school playground so not having a better idea to suggest isn't a reason not to make comment on the ideas that have been put forward (I hope!).
I do however see a strong case for a leisure boat diesel taxed at 22p insteadof the 55p DERV tax. Accepting this would mean the UK would fulfill its 22p/litre Euro tax obligation, but the boater world would avoid the 55p DERV tax. Let's call this new stuff pink diesel (to coin a phrase). It would have a 50p/litre pump price. The argument as I understand it against this idea is logistics. We would need to have 2 types of diesel at marinas, pink for leisure and red for commercial. But that seems to me a non argument. first, many marinas would sell pink only. And in France thay already have white and red at most marinas without difficulty and with no obvious extra costs for logistics, so why can't we do the same in UK?
I accept that pink diesel is a compromise and I would prefer red, but I think we're better backing a horse than can win rahter than a certain loser
<hr width=100% size=1>
flaming
Well-known member
Re: Planty you have to stick to macro not micro econom
I humbly suggest that the reason that the french have relatively few large powerboats is less to do with the fuel and more to do with the Tax that the french levy on boats based on their engine size. (Sorry, giving Gordon ideas....)
50 gallons an hour is a lot of fuel. As I've said before tax is often used to encourage behaviour in citizens. If car drivers are being taxed with one stated aim of this tax being to encourage drivers to use their cars less, so polute less, then it's hard to reason an argument that leisure boaters should be any different. A side effect of this has been the development of more efficient engines and better aerodynamic packages for cars. Perhaps the same could be suggested for the motorboat industry?
Most planning motorboats are very wide, tall and not really very efficient at cutting through the water or air. A few years back there was a powerboat (cable and wireless I think it was called) that was a trimaran built with wave cutting hulls. This was much much more efficient than the average powerboat on offer today. I seem to remember it setting some sort of round the world record. HM customs also built a prototype of a monohull version capable of truly silly speeds (70+ knots if memory serves) I had the slightly dubious pleasure of practically pooing myself whilst doing my coastal skipper exam when this thing came hurtling down southampton water straight at me. This was also said to use much less fuel than any other boat capable of these speeds. it also had the advantage that because it cut through the waves it was much more comfortable when the water was a little "disturbed". And looking at the thing blast round the solent carving really tight turns even a comitted Raggie like me had to admit it looked really really good fun.
Mind you the solent might get seriously scary if it was suddenly full of boats capable of over 50 knots!
<hr width=100% size=1>
I humbly suggest that the reason that the french have relatively few large powerboats is less to do with the fuel and more to do with the Tax that the french levy on boats based on their engine size. (Sorry, giving Gordon ideas....)
50 gallons an hour is a lot of fuel. As I've said before tax is often used to encourage behaviour in citizens. If car drivers are being taxed with one stated aim of this tax being to encourage drivers to use their cars less, so polute less, then it's hard to reason an argument that leisure boaters should be any different. A side effect of this has been the development of more efficient engines and better aerodynamic packages for cars. Perhaps the same could be suggested for the motorboat industry?
Most planning motorboats are very wide, tall and not really very efficient at cutting through the water or air. A few years back there was a powerboat (cable and wireless I think it was called) that was a trimaran built with wave cutting hulls. This was much much more efficient than the average powerboat on offer today. I seem to remember it setting some sort of round the world record. HM customs also built a prototype of a monohull version capable of truly silly speeds (70+ knots if memory serves) I had the slightly dubious pleasure of practically pooing myself whilst doing my coastal skipper exam when this thing came hurtling down southampton water straight at me. This was also said to use much less fuel than any other boat capable of these speeds. it also had the advantage that because it cut through the waves it was much more comfortable when the water was a little "disturbed". And looking at the thing blast round the solent carving really tight turns even a comitted Raggie like me had to admit it looked really really good fun.
Mind you the solent might get seriously scary if it was suddenly full of boats capable of over 50 knots!
<hr width=100% size=1>
Gludy
Active member
Re: Planty you have to stick to macro not micro econom
"To get the same security of tenure you have to buy a berth costing perhaps 20-40% of the value of your boat. That's right, £110k for a 40 footer, £170k for a 58 footer. "
But that is capital spending with a value at the end of it - consumption spending is different - it why we buy houses in this country instead of renting
A £3000 per annum mooring charge equates to about £60k in capital - so £170k for a 58 fotter equates to about £8k per annum capital - cheaper than a south coats marina!?
By the way - if a French boat nips to the CI and gets cheap fuel - can it just pop back to its marina in France - no hassle? I am just thinking of parking some Pirate fuel barges outside the 12 mile limit - might as well as a radio station at the same time ;_0
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
"To get the same security of tenure you have to buy a berth costing perhaps 20-40% of the value of your boat. That's right, £110k for a 40 footer, £170k for a 58 footer. "
But that is capital spending with a value at the end of it - consumption spending is different - it why we buy houses in this country instead of renting
A £3000 per annum mooring charge equates to about £60k in capital - so £170k for a 58 fotter equates to about £8k per annum capital - cheaper than a south coats marina!?
By the way - if a French boat nips to the CI and gets cheap fuel - can it just pop back to its marina in France - no hassle? I am just thinking of parking some Pirate fuel barges outside the 12 mile limit - might as well as a radio station at the same time ;_0
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Joe_Cole
New member
Kevin,
If you use that arguement against JP then I don't think you'll get to the end of the first sentence before his eyes glaze over and he starts using Anglo Saxon Four letter words.
A discount for bulk? He'll tell you where to shove it!
I'm sorry, and this is not a Raggie thing (insert usual caveats at this point!) but JP would be horrified to hear that leisure boat owners are burning up these quantities of tax free oil. Honest....they will.
If you don't believe me write a letter to the "Sun" along the lines you have used and see what happens.
Joe
<hr width=100% size=1>
If you use that arguement against JP then I don't think you'll get to the end of the first sentence before his eyes glaze over and he starts using Anglo Saxon Four letter words.
A discount for bulk? He'll tell you where to shove it!
I'm sorry, and this is not a Raggie thing (insert usual caveats at this point!) but JP would be horrified to hear that leisure boat owners are burning up these quantities of tax free oil. Honest....they will.
If you don't believe me write a letter to the "Sun" along the lines you have used and see what happens.
Joe
<hr width=100% size=1>
jfm
Well-known member
Re: imho need to improve the economic analysis
Gludy I agree some of what you say but the point I'm making is that the whitehall mab can pull those arguments to shreds.
You say there is a huge difference between capital costs in boat and marginal fuel costs. Whitehall will say that's irrational, and they'd be right.
Then you say that even if a Sq59 cost £1 its owner would not go to ilfracombe at £4/gallon. Sorry Gludy that is total nonsense. Every boater today - you included- who can afford a £500k (or whatever) Sq59 and £1/gall trips to Ilfracombe could still afford it in the £1 boat + £4 fuel scenario , and because you like boating you would do it. Or at least, if you didn't, you would be behaving utterly irrationally and the whitehall lot wont let you overturn a tax they want if they can paint your argument as irrational
The higher tax yield i claim does indeed assume same spending on boat fuel. For tax yield to fall, the diesel spend would have to fall to about 25% of what it is today. There's no rational economic reason why boat fuel spend (including tax) will fall. Economic logic says it will rise, becuase some will just pay the tax and others will adjust the mix of their total boat spend between buying the boat and buying the fuel (as previously described).
Yea sorry I invented the 250000 number but the number was not relevant to any point I was making. I dunno the actual number. I have not seen the other poster's £15m tax model so cannot comment
<hr width=100% size=1>
Gludy I agree some of what you say but the point I'm making is that the whitehall mab can pull those arguments to shreds.
You say there is a huge difference between capital costs in boat and marginal fuel costs. Whitehall will say that's irrational, and they'd be right.
Then you say that even if a Sq59 cost £1 its owner would not go to ilfracombe at £4/gallon. Sorry Gludy that is total nonsense. Every boater today - you included- who can afford a £500k (or whatever) Sq59 and £1/gall trips to Ilfracombe could still afford it in the £1 boat + £4 fuel scenario , and because you like boating you would do it. Or at least, if you didn't, you would be behaving utterly irrationally and the whitehall lot wont let you overturn a tax they want if they can paint your argument as irrational
The higher tax yield i claim does indeed assume same spending on boat fuel. For tax yield to fall, the diesel spend would have to fall to about 25% of what it is today. There's no rational economic reason why boat fuel spend (including tax) will fall. Economic logic says it will rise, becuase some will just pay the tax and others will adjust the mix of their total boat spend between buying the boat and buying the fuel (as previously described).
Yea sorry I invented the 250000 number but the number was not relevant to any point I was making. I dunno the actual number. I have not seen the other poster's £15m tax model so cannot comment
<hr width=100% size=1>
Aardee
Well-known member
For now, ignore JP. We can't even convince OURSELVES.
That, IMHO, says it all...
<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me" - A A Milne.
That, IMHO, says it all...
<hr width=100% size=1>"I am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me" - A A Milne.
jfm
Well-known member
Re: Planty you have to stick to macro not micro econom
You may be right. French marina economics is tricky. There is a service charge on top of the capital spend, about £2k pa for the £170k berth. Biut you are right, there could be a saleable asset at the end, though maybe not, all you are buying is what's left of a 25 yr lease (I think we bought about 19 years) after that you have literally nowt but an eviction notice!
I dont know the detailed law but you may be right about fuel barges outside the 12 mile limit. We haven't discussed that much hereabouts. Unquestionably the point of sale is outside EU and therefore no tax. I dont know if technically the private boat owner needs to pay the tax when he imports it into EU. If he doesn't, or if he strictly should but (as seems self evident) the enforcement would be virtually impossible, you have quite a decent argument to the government to not apply DERV tax. Thing is, there are no fuel barges 12 miles off the coast of France selling tax free fuel..... which suggests some flaw in this argument. Would be worth a bit more research
When we took our boat to France we prefilled it with UK red, and despite some top ups the red dye is still in there, you can see bright red in the separators. As a practical matter, I dont know if we were meant to diy-pay some import tax but obviously no-one has asked us to, how could they, there are zillions of boats down there!
<hr width=100% size=1>
You may be right. French marina economics is tricky. There is a service charge on top of the capital spend, about £2k pa for the £170k berth. Biut you are right, there could be a saleable asset at the end, though maybe not, all you are buying is what's left of a 25 yr lease (I think we bought about 19 years) after that you have literally nowt but an eviction notice!
I dont know the detailed law but you may be right about fuel barges outside the 12 mile limit. We haven't discussed that much hereabouts. Unquestionably the point of sale is outside EU and therefore no tax. I dont know if technically the private boat owner needs to pay the tax when he imports it into EU. If he doesn't, or if he strictly should but (as seems self evident) the enforcement would be virtually impossible, you have quite a decent argument to the government to not apply DERV tax. Thing is, there are no fuel barges 12 miles off the coast of France selling tax free fuel..... which suggests some flaw in this argument. Would be worth a bit more research
When we took our boat to France we prefilled it with UK red, and despite some top ups the red dye is still in there, you can see bright red in the separators. As a practical matter, I dont know if we were meant to diy-pay some import tax but obviously no-one has asked us to, how could they, there are zillions of boats down there!
<hr width=100% size=1>
jfm
Well-known member
Re: Bottom falling out of market
You are probably right about the 30k but it's not all fuel cost related - the fuel cost difference cannot rationally explain a figure that big.
you say "who wants that". Not me and not anyone here. But someone in whitehall doesn't give a damn about it. The only point I was tring to make was that even if the 2nd hand value of a diesel boat fell 30k overnight, plainly an unpleasant thing for its owner, that doesn't mean the bottom falls out of the market with loss of tax and jobs as people were asserting. The person who buys it for the 30k less will carry on running it and the boat industry will continue
<hr width=100% size=1>
You are probably right about the 30k but it's not all fuel cost related - the fuel cost difference cannot rationally explain a figure that big.
you say "who wants that". Not me and not anyone here. But someone in whitehall doesn't give a damn about it. The only point I was tring to make was that even if the 2nd hand value of a diesel boat fell 30k overnight, plainly an unpleasant thing for its owner, that doesn't mean the bottom falls out of the market with loss of tax and jobs as people were asserting. The person who buys it for the 30k less will carry on running it and the boat industry will continue
<hr width=100% size=1>
Gludy
Active member
Re: imho need to improve the economic analysis
"Then you say that even if a Sq59 cost £1 its owner would not go to ilfracombe at £4/gallon. Sorry Gludy that is total nonsense. Every boater today - you included- who can afford a £500k (or whatever) Sq59 and £1/gall trips to Ilfracombe could still afford it in the £1 boat £4 fuel scenario , and because you like boating you would do it. Or at least, if you didn't, you would be behaving utterly irrationally and the whitehall lot wont let you overturn a tax they want if they can paint your argument as irrational"
Fuel cost up from £10k to £40k means my boat goes overseas and that is totally rational.
If I sold my boat for £1 the subsidy would last for a while but one day someone would have to pay the full price to replace it - so running anything on a short term, once off subsidy heading into a high cost future is not a rational basis to proceed.
"The higher tax yield i claim does indeed assume same spending on boat fuel. For tax yield to fall, the diesel spend would have to fall to about 25% of what it is today. There's no rational economic reason why boat fuel spend (including tax) will fall. Economic logic says it will rise, becuase some will just pay the tax and others will adjust the mix of their total boat spend between buying the boat and buying the fuel (as previously described)."
In my case they would not get any tax out of it - it would be overseas. In almost every boat owner I know a full price hike would see them leaving boating.
I view the capital in my boat as a bad investment but I do not write it off - fuel costs are written off.
I simply could not justify the normal crusing I do on a marginal cost basis. Nor could many that I know.
Whist in my case its an extra £30k plus per annum that I would not find - in other scaled down cases its an extra £15k, 10k or 5k - all cannot be afforeded by many boaters with the smaller boats.
I choose to keep my boat in the UK on a balance of factors - no red diesel would see it move abroad. In fact I would be interested in purchasing a berth overseas because that would provide security and with low interest rates, capital is fairly cheap. I bet I could purchase a fair berth for the £30k p.a. extra in fuel tax!
I agree with much of what you say about Whitehall - but they do not have to be right - they have might. We need to make the practical imposition of such a hike a non-starter.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
"Then you say that even if a Sq59 cost £1 its owner would not go to ilfracombe at £4/gallon. Sorry Gludy that is total nonsense. Every boater today - you included- who can afford a £500k (or whatever) Sq59 and £1/gall trips to Ilfracombe could still afford it in the £1 boat £4 fuel scenario , and because you like boating you would do it. Or at least, if you didn't, you would be behaving utterly irrationally and the whitehall lot wont let you overturn a tax they want if they can paint your argument as irrational"
Fuel cost up from £10k to £40k means my boat goes overseas and that is totally rational.
If I sold my boat for £1 the subsidy would last for a while but one day someone would have to pay the full price to replace it - so running anything on a short term, once off subsidy heading into a high cost future is not a rational basis to proceed.
"The higher tax yield i claim does indeed assume same spending on boat fuel. For tax yield to fall, the diesel spend would have to fall to about 25% of what it is today. There's no rational economic reason why boat fuel spend (including tax) will fall. Economic logic says it will rise, becuase some will just pay the tax and others will adjust the mix of their total boat spend between buying the boat and buying the fuel (as previously described)."
In my case they would not get any tax out of it - it would be overseas. In almost every boat owner I know a full price hike would see them leaving boating.
I view the capital in my boat as a bad investment but I do not write it off - fuel costs are written off.
I simply could not justify the normal crusing I do on a marginal cost basis. Nor could many that I know.
Whist in my case its an extra £30k plus per annum that I would not find - in other scaled down cases its an extra £15k, 10k or 5k - all cannot be afforeded by many boaters with the smaller boats.
I choose to keep my boat in the UK on a balance of factors - no red diesel would see it move abroad. In fact I would be interested in purchasing a berth overseas because that would provide security and with low interest rates, capital is fairly cheap. I bet I could purchase a fair berth for the £30k p.a. extra in fuel tax!
I agree with much of what you say about Whitehall - but they do not have to be right - they have might. We need to make the practical imposition of such a hike a non-starter.
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
Gludy
Active member
Re: Bottom falling out of market
"The person who buys it for the 30k less will carry on running it and the boat industry will continue "
Only a short term solution until the £30 subsidy is spent then back to the same problem - all it means is that todays owners will have subsidised the purchaser for a while. To provide a logical capital reduction based on a 100 hour per annum use for say a 60 foot £500k boat, assuming 5% cost of capital, would mean a discount of 20 time £30k = £600k, so you would have to give the boat away and hand him £100k for taking the problem away - then the interest on the capital would cover the extra fuel costs - that at least is a logical discount to reflect the changed market conditions. This is why no matter what the cost or size of boat the bottom will fall out of the market.
Anyone want my boat and £100k?
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul
"The person who buys it for the 30k less will carry on running it and the boat industry will continue "
Only a short term solution until the £30 subsidy is spent then back to the same problem - all it means is that todays owners will have subsidised the purchaser for a while. To provide a logical capital reduction based on a 100 hour per annum use for say a 60 foot £500k boat, assuming 5% cost of capital, would mean a discount of 20 time £30k = £600k, so you would have to give the boat away and hand him £100k for taking the problem away - then the interest on the capital would cover the extra fuel costs - that at least is a logical discount to reflect the changed market conditions. This is why no matter what the cost or size of boat the bottom will fall out of the market.
Anyone want my boat and £100k?
<hr width=100% size=1>Paul