What's the RYA's response to British boats being BANNED from Belgium?

[Twister_Ken]

How can somebody who pays tax at a rate acceptable to HMRC be said to be subsidising anyone? Fuel, especially for road vehicles, has been an easy target for the taxman for years, with no discernible impact on oil consumption or the environment, but a very real impact on food costs in particular and inflation in general.

Mind you, The chairman of HMRC seems to be happy to let outfits like Vodafone off their tax bill for as little as a few agreeable lunches or dinners........

Not true. Vehicle engines have become much more economic. Two figures, just coz I've used them in a piece I wrote recently, about MB: "The E series 280 petrol saloon from 1996 achieved 24 miles per gallon, 5.3 miles for every litre. Its 2011 counterpart, the E250, takes you 9.3 miles on a litre of petrol and is more powerful."

Also UK motor fuel sales are down because of price and because of better fuel economy.

 

[Tidewaiter2]

Caveat Doctor!

How can somebody who pays tax at a rate acceptable to HMRC be said to be subsidising anyone? Fuel, especially for road vehicles, has been an easy target for the taxman for years, with no discernible impact on oil consumption or the environment, but a very real impact on food costs in particular and inflation in general.

Mind you, The chairman of HMRC seems to be happy to let outfits like Vodafone off their tax bill for as little as a few agreeable lunches or dinners........

I think he and all the yes persons, took his cue from the Politicos, who jumped on the freebie band wagon, whether in opposition or not.

Outdated old fa@ts were lucky, they got offered early retirement as not in tune with 'todays HMRC'
Just like todays 'Kent and Snuff it' now at Pembury in single rooms( falls and damage all alone and not checked for hours), with all the decent 'centurions' winnnowed out and a bunch of ' yes men/ women and ars@ coverers' in place at most command levels.
Such that with the support of at least 3 mis/ incompetant assessments of bursting appenditicus/ serious infection, people from our village now drive in pain to Brighton or Redhill to avoid the new Kent n Snuff it at Pembury

Craphat overpaid Managers betray the honest front line people and encourage the Sh@t.
Everyone xfering from the old Kent n Snuff it, should have been made to reapply for their jobs thru a professional review team staffed from outside the area, from real hospitals, not 19C pre Crimea jobs.

 

[sailorman]

I think he and all the yes persons, took his cue from the Politicos, who jumped on the freebie band wagon, whether in opposition or not.

Outdated old fa@ts were lucky, they got offered early retirement as not in tune with 'todays HMRC'
Just like todays 'Kent and Snuff it' now at Pembury in single rooms( falls and damage all alone and not checked for hours), with all the decent 'centurions' winnnowed out and a bunch of ' yes men/ women and ars@ coverers' in place at most command levels.
Such that with the support of at least 3 mis/ incompetant assessments of bursting appenditicus/ serious infection, people from our village now drive in pain to Brighton or Redhill to avoid the new Kent n Snuff it at Pembury

Craphat overpaid Managers betray the honest front line people and encourage the Sh@t.
Everyone xfering from the old Kent n Snuff it, should have been made to reapply for their jobs thru a professional review team staffed from outside the area, from real hospitals, not 19C pre Crimea jobs.

Thats sorted that out the

 

[Tidewaiter2]

Thats sorted that out the

Absolutely, Trust me

 

[maby]

How can somebody who pays tax at a rate acceptable to HMRC be said to be subsidising anyone? Fuel, especially for road vehicles, has been an easy target for the taxman for years, with no discernible impact on oil consumption or the environment, but a very real impact on food costs in particular and inflation in general.

Mind you, The chairman of HMRC seems to be happy to let outfits like Vodafone off their tax bill for as little as a few agreeable lunches or dinners........

Personally speaking, I regard all tax as theft, but the savings that the 60/40 split give us are just too small for the pain it is causing. If you can afford the £1000 or so that it costs to fill up a 1000 litre tank at the 60/40 price, you can afford the extra £240 of so that it would cost without the split. Very few of the MoBos I know see their owners between October and March, so I do not believe that anywhere near 40% of that fuel is going in heating.

 

[PaulGooch]

Personally speaking, I regard all tax as theft, but the savings that the 60/40 split give us are just too small for the pain it is causing. If you can afford the £1000 or so that it costs to fill up a 1000 litre tank at the 60/40 price, you can afford the extra £240 of so that it would cost without the split. Very few of the MoBos I know see their owners between October and March, so I do not believe that anywhere near 40% of that fuel is going in heating.

You are still, along with 99.9% of posters in this thread missing (or choosing to ignore) the real issue.

Belgium is not complaining about the 60/40 split or duty in any way, shape or form. They are claiming that the use of marked fuel is against the EU directive. If we used white diesel with the 60/40 split they wouldn't have an argument.

 

[sailorman]

You are still, along with 99.9% of posters in this thread missing (or choosing to ignore) the real issue.

Belgium is not complaining about the 60/40 split or duty in any way, shape or form. They are claiming that the use of marked fuel is against the EU directive. If we used white diesel with the 60/40 split they wouldn't have an argument.

Paul have you ever tried pushing chain up hill
it would be much easier

 

[maby]

You are still, along with 99.9% of posters in this thread missing (or choosing to ignore) the real issue.

Belgium is not complaining about the 60/40 split or duty in any way, shape or form. They are claiming that the use of marked fuel is against the EU directive. If we used white diesel with the 60/40 split they wouldn't have an argument.

Others may be missing the point, I'm not. It is certainly true that they would have to stop the current arguement if we switched to white diesel, irrespective of the tax arrangements - though I suspect that if the 60/40 split continued, they would find fault with that instead. The current problem is certainly our use of marked fuel and the solution is to switch to unmarked fuel - which we could do legally tomorrow provided we pay full tax on it. I'm reasonably sure that the majority of leisure boat owners have reached the point where they would be very happy to do exactly that - the impact on sailing boat owners would be small.

We were living aboard during the cold weeks at the end of January and beginning of February - with the Webasto running close to flat out all the time. We burned around 100l of fuel in the process and saved around £25 in tax - certainly nice, but I would not lose any sleep over it if I could not claim it. I really cannot see how anyone that is not abusing the concession by claiming 60/40 on fuel that is going to be used 100% engine could find the extra tax unmanagable.

The problem is that we have a vocal minority that are trying to defend the 60/40 split and, at the same time, wanting to go to Belgium. Our government is, understandably, unhappy about the prospect of offering unmarked diesel at tax exempt, or partially exempt, prices, on the assumption that quite a lot of it is going to find its way into cars. So, the rest of us are stuck between a rock and a hard place...

 

[timbartlett]

Had the 60/40 rate not been in place, the tax would have been £690.
So, there has been a £240 'subsidy' - for want of a better word.

So if a mugger takes your wallet but lets you keep the small change in your pocket he is "subsidising" you?

Because that is essentially what is going on here. the UK government has given itself permission to collect 69p per litre, but contents itself with collecting 45p per litre.

Look at it another way: someone who invests a quarter of a million in a holiday home in Spain, instead of in a boat in the UK will pay no fuel tax on it at all. Does that mean that he is taking less "subsidy" than the bloke who hands over £450 in tax every time he refuels the boat on which he has already paid £50k in VAT?

 

[maby]

So if a mugger takes your wallet but lets you keep the small change in your pocket he is "subsidising" you?

Because that is essentially what is going on here. the UK government has given itself permission to collect 69p per litre, but contents itself with collecting 45p per litre.

Look at it another way: someone who invests a quarter of a million in a holiday home in Spain, instead of in a boat in the UK will pay no fuel tax on it at all. Does that mean that he is taking less "subsidy" than the bloke who hands over £450 in tax every time he refuels the boat on which he has already paid £50k in VAT?

Quite right, in theory, at least - tax is theft and we should try to avoid it if at all possible. But there are taxes that we cannot avoid and ultimately we come down to a cost-benefit analysis. The 60/40 split is causing us a whole lot of problems when we try to go abroad - which is a fundamental part of the attraction of sailing for many of us. Is it saving us enough money to justify trying to defend it? I don't think so. Sailing is an expensive passtime and the saving from the 60/40 concession is a few tens of pounds a year for many of us. If you own an enormous mobo and drive it hard, you may save hundreds per year, but on a fuel bill that will run into thousands - I suspect that most could afford it...

 

[Twister_Ken]

The 60/40 split is causing us a whole lot of problems when we try to go abroad

No it's not. It's the red dye that's causing the problems. That's all the Belgies are worried about.

 

[Koeketiene]

No it's not. It's the red dye that's causing the problems. That's all the Belgies are worried about.

UK diesel is red because there's the 60/40 split.
It has to be red to set it apart from fully taxed road diesel.
Had there been no 60/40 split, yottie diesel could have been white.

The 60/40 split could potentially save me around £100 p/a.
In the grand scheme of boat ownership, this is peanuts.
Yet, these peanuts are causing significant agro for East Coast based boats.

 

[Tranona]

Others may be missing the point, I'm not.

Yes you are - or rather you are choosing to make the duty split the isssue, when it is only a small part of the overall problem. Historically most European countries (not all) did not offer red diesel to leisure boaters, so fuelling facilities at marinas always had white diesel. Not only that tax on white diesel was often substantially less than petrol.

So, as has been said ad nauseum here a major issue in meeting the directive was the cost of duplicating waterside supplies - along with the impact of the sudden increase in fuel prices on a major part of our marine industry, and the government, prompted by the representative bodies sought a compromise solution, which does not affect fuel supplies in any other country.

You are right in saying that for most low volume users, particularly now if they want to go to Belgium, it is not a satisfactory solution. However looking at the whole problem (not just this relatively minor part) it is still a satisfactory solution and it is right that the government, having made that decision, should seek to defend it.

 

[Twister_Ken]

UK diesel is red because there's the 60/40 split.
It has to be red to set it apart from fully taxed road diesel.
Had there been no 60/40 split, yottie diesel could have been white.

The 60/40 split could potentially save me around £100 p/a.
In the grand scheme of boat ownership, this is peanuts.
Yet, these peanuts are causing significant agro for East Coast based boats.

UK diesel is red because that's the way commercial users like it.

 

[sailorman]

UK diesel is red because that's the way commercial users like it.

do you not mean the hm revenue

 

[Talbot]

............Quite frankly if the RYA doesn't get this sorted out, there's little point in sailing as a hobby and there's little point of the RYA.

Whilst understanding your angst - surely you should be throwing brickbats at the government, rater than an organisation that at least has been trying to resolve the problem.

 

[jordanbasset]

Yes you are - or rather you are choosing to make the duty split the isssue, when it is only a small part of the overall problem. Historically most European countries (not all) did not offer red diesel to leisure boaters, so fuelling facilities at marinas always had white diesel. Not only that tax on white diesel was often substantially less than petrol.

So, as has been said ad nauseum here a major issue in meeting the directive was the cost of duplicating waterside supplies - along with the impact of the sudden increase in fuel prices on a major part of our marine industry, and the government, prompted by the representative bodies sought a compromise solution, which does not affect fuel supplies in any other country.

You are right in saying that for most low volume users, particularly now if they want to go to Belgium, it is not a satisfactory solution. However looking at the whole problem (not just this relatively minor part) it is still a satisfactory solution and it is right that the government, having made that decision, should seek to defend it.

Spot on

 

[Koeketiene]

UK diesel is red because that's the way commercial users like it.

Red denotes tax concession - which the 60/40 split is.
The issue at hand here is not red for commercial users (in Belgium commercial users have red diesel too), but red for yotties.

Going to white for yachts would NOT require marinas to duplicate their supply. See my point post 213.

 

[maby]

Yes you are - or rather you are choosing to make the duty split the isssue, when it is only a small part of the overall problem. Historically most European countries (not all) did not offer red diesel to leisure boaters, so fuelling facilities at marinas always had white diesel. Not only that tax on white diesel was often substantially less than petrol.

So, as has been said ad nauseum here a major issue in meeting the directive was the cost of duplicating waterside supplies - along with the impact of the sudden increase in fuel prices on a major part of our marine industry, and the government, prompted by the representative bodies sought a compromise solution, which does not affect fuel supplies in any other country.

You are right in saying that for most low volume users, particularly now if they want to go to Belgium, it is not a satisfactory solution. However looking at the whole problem (not just this relatively minor part) it is still a satisfactory solution and it is right that the government, having made that decision, should seek to defend it.

We can argue around legal technicalities and ambiguities till we are blue in the face - and lawyers will be very happy if we do - it's their business. The fact remains that the intention of the EU directive is that leisure sailors will pay full tax on 100% of the fuel they purchase and whatever the outcome of the arguements around the use of marked fuel, they will ensure that we do eventually lose the 60/40 concession. The existence of the 60/40 concession makes it more difficult to argue the case for continuing to allow us to buy marked fuel.

I've just spent a very tedious half hour scanning the text of all the relevant directives and it does seem that they have not actually banned the sale of marked fuel at full tax rate. I guess that they could not see any reason why anyone should pay full tax on marked fuel. If we did away with the 60/40 split, we would be in a far better position to go back to them and ask that they should be a bit more reasonable in their application of the directives.

Incidentally, I think I came up with the answer to another question that has bounced around on this forum from time to time - how difficult is it to clean out the tanks and comply if you are willing (and able) to purchase unmarked fuel. It looks like the maximum level of marker permissible in (supposedly) unmarked fuel is 0.12mg per litre. The rules also say that the maximum level of marker added to fuel at the pump should be 9mg per litre. Hence, if you have a 100 litre fuel tank containing marked fuel, you would have to run it down to just over a litre, then fill it up with white diesel to the top in order to come below the legal limit. OK - it's not safely possible to run the tank so low, but you can do the sums - two or three full refills with white diesel should get you down below the detection level set out in the annex to the directive.

 

[timbartlett]

...the intention of the EU directive is that leisure sailors will pay full tax on 100% of the fuel they purchase and whatever the outcome of the arguements around the use of marked fuel, they will ensure that we do eventually lose the 60/40 concession. The existence of the 60/40 concession makes it more difficult to argue the case for continuing to allow us to buy marked fuel....

I'm sorry but the original intention of the EU Directive was to set a minimum rate of duty for fuel used for non-commercial and non-heating purposes.

At the time the UK's rate of duty was so exorbitant that the 60:40 split still achieved an overall rate of taxation that was higher than the EU minimum.

Things may have changed since