Red diesel meeting at Sharpness 29/10 - Long!
Steve Davis
took place as planned in Sharpness on 29 October. The key speakers were
David Drew (MP for Stroud and with a keen interest in canals particularly
the Cotswold restoration) and David Lund (British Marine Federation rep for
the South West). There were around 125 attendees, some from as far away as
Stoke. Richard Fairhurst the new editor of Waterways World attended and will
be publishing details of the meeting; this may be accompanied by some form
of campaign.
The key points to emerge from the meeting were:
1. Time is short. Discussions regarding the derogation of red diesel for
pleasure boats is already underway between the UK Govt and the EU.
2. Although red diesel will remain legal for non-propulsion uses (e.g.
heating and electricity generation) it is thought that most canal side
vendors of diesel will opt to supply 'white' only as the low volume of 'red'
sales would not justify the installation of a second tank.
3. Low sulphur white diesel as used in road vehicles may not be suitable for
some marine engines as 'red' has a higher lubricating oil content. One
attendee said he had a letter from Perkins confirming that white diesel
would damage the injector pump on his engine by wrecking the rubber seals.
The strong advice was to check your engine for compatibility with 'white'.
4. The intent of the derogation of red is to 'level the playing field'
across Europe. If applied in the UK, pleasure boats will go from having some
of the cheapest diesel in Europe to the most expensive. Hardly a level
playing field.
5. David Drew MP referred to a recent Parliamentary Question on the subject
which highlighted the potential difficulties of defining 'pleasure' and
'commercial' boats in the UK. Is a hire boat pleasure or commercial?
6. About 15 million litres of red diesel are sold for each year in the UK
for 'pleasure' boating purposes. In Govt terms, the extra revenue raised if
red diesel goes is not great.
7. David Drew suggested that the Govt may see the derogation as 'unnecessary
and difficult'. The revenue involved is peanuts, many people could get upset
and it could be complex to administer. He suggested that all boaters contact
their MP expressing their views.
He pointed out that the letters must contain hard facts and not just emotive
opinion.
It is important to marshal the arguments (i.e. a big whinge is unlikely to
work!), The letters should also provide individuals' stories (e.g. pensioner
on fixed income may be forced from boat, vintage engine will be wrecked, why
should I pay white diesel prices to heat my boat? etc). He also suggested
that letters to the national press could help; nationally the issue has been
invisible to date.
8. Additional information is available on the RYA and IWA web sites.
So, go for it! Time is running out! Get the facts and commit your feelings
clearly to your MP.
Steve Davis
Brian
"Steve Davis" <steve...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:3ta0f9F...@individual.net...
> The 'red diesel' meeting organised by John Chard 'Stokie No1 - Fuel
> Afloat' took place as planned in Sharpness on 29 October. The key speakers
> were
Thanks for the report Steve
--
Brian Ancient Order of Sewer Ants>
David Long
<steve...@noreply.com> writes
>The 'red diesel' meeting organised by John Chard 'Stokie No1 - Fuel Afloat'
>took place as planned in Sharpness on 29 October.
>
>some marine engines as 'red' has a higher lubricating oil content. One
>attendee said he had a letter from Perkins confirming that white diesel
>would damage the injector pump on his engine by wrecking the rubber seals.
>The strong advice was to check your engine for compatibility with 'white'.
>
white diesel for years.
>4. The intent of the derogation of red is to 'level the playing field'
>across Europe. If applied in the UK, pleasure boats will go from having some
>of the cheapest diesel in Europe to the most expensive. Hardly a level
>playing field.
>
Well, where were you when the Scots were protesting about the tax in the
UK on their whisky?
>5. David Drew MP referred to a recent Parliamentary Question on the subject
>which highlighted the potential difficulties of defining 'pleasure' and
>'commercial' boats in the UK. Is a hire boat pleasure or commercial?
>
If you get a leak in a Black Prince boat it might depend which side
you're on...
>6. About 15 million litres of red diesel are sold for each year in the UK
>for 'pleasure' boating purposes. In Govt terms, the extra revenue raised if
>red diesel goes is not great.
>
The issue isn't cheap boating, but revenue loss through illegal use of
red diesel in road vehicles.
--
David Long
Sankey Canal Restoration Society http://www.scars.org.uk/
St. Mary's http://www.geocities.com/andrew_fishburn/stmary1.html
http://www.scars.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/webcam/
Nick Temple-Fry
>The issue isn't cheap boating, but revenue loss through illegal use of
>red diesel in road vehicles.
Nope, the issue is standardisation across europe for standardisations
sake.
This won't affect the illegal use of red diesel for road vehicles, as
no one seriously believes that leakage from leisure marine was that
large.
Most illegal use involves the 'washing' of diesel to make it white
(which also leaves an acidic residue in the diesel I believe) and then
its sale to independant dealerships and truckers. There was an
excellent documentary on this on Radio 4 a couple of years ago, which
showed links to both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict + UK
organised crime.
Sorry - I wandered in from UK REC SAILING, but I've always liked
canals. But how do you put up with all those locks, pretty yes, and
marvellous engineering, but all that work!
Nick
Will Chapman
> nationally the issue has been invisible to date.
>
Which begs the question.....What on are RYA and IWA
doing in terms of press/pr...or maybe a decision has been made
to avoid the press because it would raise negative issues (like
why should diesel for boats be cheaper than diesel for hauling
caravans around?).
--
Cheers.......
Will Chapman
nb Quidditch
Gibbo
Will Chapman wrote:
[snip]
>....... raise negative issues (like
> why should diesel for boats be cheaper than diesel for hauling
> caravans around?).
>
Because caravans are on the road, which are supposed to be partly paid
for by DERV.
If DERV wasn't subsidising the cost of the roads then the road tax
would be higher, like boat licences. So if we have to use DERV in boats
then the licence should be cheaper.
Gibbo
Peter Stockdale
"Nick Temple-Fry" <ni...@temple-fry.COmpletely.UnKnown> wrote in message
news:8mvvm1dvv5vlhgdik...@4ax.com...
SIC
(boring bit)
> Sorry - I wandered in from UK REC SAILING, but I've always liked
> canals. But how do you put up with all those locks, pretty yes, and
> marvellous engineering, but all that work!
>
> Nick
I rekon sailors have a worse workload. All the uping and downing of umpteen
sails, fighting along rocking decks and as for leaning overboard as a human
counterweight - well nough said.
Give me a gentle and calm inland waterway anyday !
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Brian J Goggin
<peter....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>I rekon sailors have a worse workload. All the uping and downing of umpteen
>sails, fighting along rocking decks and as for leaning overboard as a human
>counterweight - well nough said.
And they have to drink pink gin instead of beer.
bjg
Andy Langridge
I thought it was Rum Sodomy and the lash - or is that just the navy????
(ducks and runs away)
Andy
Will Chapman
Good response! An argument that could be used to support
why any vat/duty that is collected by way of the waterways should
be used to 'subsidize' canal/waterways.
But I'm still interested to now why RYA/IWA haven't managed to
get any significant press coverage on the red diesel issue.
Brian J Goggin
<And...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> As well as G&Ts, rum and beer.
>I thought it was Rum Sodomy and the lash - or is that just the navy????
>
>(ducks and runs away)
That's the RN. The Merchant Navy is rum, bum and baccy.
bjg
Paul Burke
> The RN stopped issuing tots of rum getting on for 30 years ago.
So they've only one tradition left?
Gibbo
I'm naturally a cynic. I just assume there's some sinister reason for
it.
Gibbo
Allan Jones
SNIP
> 3. Low sulphur white diesel as used in road vehicles may not be suitable
> for some marine engines as 'red' has a higher lubricating oil content. One
> attendee said he had a letter from Perkins confirming that white diesel
> would damage the injector pump on his engine by wrecking the rubber seals.
> The strong advice was to check your engine for compatibility with 'white'.
> Steve Davis
>
Thanks for a comprehensive report Steve.
Do you know which variety of Perkins engine this person is using? How does
one check for compatibility? Mine's an MC42 (otherwise known as the 104/19)
--
Allan Jones - N/B 'Keeping Up'
http://www.keeping-up.co.uk
Steve Davis
"Allan Jones" <sot17...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >
> SNIP
>
>> 3. Low sulphur white diesel as used in road vehicles may not be suitable
>> for some marine engines as 'red' has a higher lubricating oil content.
>> One attendee said he had a letter from Perkins confirming that white
>> diesel would damage the injector pump on his engine by wrecking the
>> rubber seals. The strong advice was to check your engine for
>> compatibility with 'white'.
>
> Thanks for a comprehensive report Steve.
>
> Do you know which variety of Perkins engine this person is using? How does
> one check for compatibility? Mine's an MC42 (otherwise known as the
> 104/19)
>
> --
> Allan Jones - N/B 'Keeping Up'
Allan,
I don't think the variety of Perkins engine was mentioned. The person who
raised the issue said he had written to Perkins and got the 'no-go' reply.
The issue seems to be solely down to the fuel injector pump and another
suggestion is to check with the pump manufacturer, most engines will
probably use either Bosch and Lucas. Note this comes with a health
warning.... I am not a diesel expert!
I have a 43hp Beta; Beta have confirmed that it will run OK on white.
Rgds,
Steve Davis
Martin Ludgate
oups.com>, Gibbo <gi...@smartgauge.co.uk> writes
>
>Will Chapman wrote:
>>
snip
>> But I'm still interested to now why RYA/IWA haven't managed to
>> get any significant press coverage on the red diesel issue.
>>
I don't think it's particularly for want of trying. They've certainly put
out press releases on the subject, and we've covered it in 'Canal
Boat' - as have other canal and boating mags.
It's not unknown for the national media to pick up stories either
from press releases by waterways organisations or from
specialist magazines. But they don't appear to have done so in
this case.
>
>I'm naturally a cynic. I just assume there's some sinister reason for
>it.
>
I can't think of a sinister reason for the national media to ignore
this story - but then I never was much of a conspiracy theorist!
Alternatively, maybe it's just that "Rich boaters squeal because
they're going to have to pay the same as the rest of us for their
fuel" (*) isn't much of a news story?
(*) Not that I'm agreeing with that view - but the notion that all
boaters are rich is one that's widely held outside boating circles,
and appears very difficult to dispel. And most non-boating people I
mention the subject to are surprised to hear that boats are
currently permitted to use red diesel (if they've heard of red diesel
at all), and can't immediately see why we have this apparent 'tax
break'.
--
Martin Ludgate
royc
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:vim1n1d0qtoj2srh2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:25:39 +0000, Paul Burke
<pa...@scazon.com>
> --
> Martin
even better :))
roy
Allan Jones
I have now followed this up with Diperk (the UK Perkins distributor). The
technical team at their Customer Support Centre (0800 0730424 Option 3) were
very helpful, and having run a check based on the actual build number of my
engine, have assured me that the MC42 (aka 104/19) will have no problems at
all in running on white diesel.
I'm very relieved. Hopefully the info will help others too.
--
Allan Jones - N/B 'Keeping Up'
Paul Scott
>
> The RN stopped issuing tots of rum getting on for 30 years ago.
> Martin
1971
Paul
Brian J Goggin
<mal...@mgnixon.org.uk> wrote:
>But the fact still remains that the fuel tax on DERV is there because
>it's used on the roads,
No it doesn't.
There is no hypothecation: tax and duty on fuel for road vehicles are
"used on the roads" any more than tax on Jelly Babies is.
>and that I believe red should still be allowed
>in boats as it is for agriculture, construction and rail use.
But it will be --- on commercial boats, just as it is on commercial
tractors, commercial cranes and commercial trains. All that's
happening is that the weary taxpayer is being relieved of the burden
of supporting the private pleasures of recreational boat-users --- and
recreational flyers too, if I'm not mistaken.
bjg
Nick Temple-Fry
<myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote:
>
>But it will be --- on commercial boats, just as it is on commercial
>tractors, commercial cranes and commercial trains. All that's
>happening is that the weary taxpayer is being relieved of the burden
>of supporting the private pleasures of recreational boat-users --- and
>recreational flyers too, if I'm not mistaken.
>
>bjg
The "weary taxpayer" is not being relieved of anything. The cost of
red diesel is not subsidised, the companies that supply it make a
profit in a perfectly ordinary way.The fact that the Government will
be doubling the cost on the 0.05% of Derv used by boats will not
reduce the taxation paid by anyone else.
All that is happenning is that those taxpayers who also own boats that
use diesel are being made just a little bit wearier.
In other words it is yet another increase in indirect taxation, and
that is true whether you believe the use of Red Diesel by recreational
boats is justified or not.
Nick
Brian J Goggin
<ni...@temple-fry.COmpletely.UnKnown> wrote:
>The "weary taxpayer" is not being relieved of anything. The cost of
>red diesel is not subsidised, the companies that supply it make a
>profit in a perfectly ordinary way.The fact that the Government will
>be doubling the cost on the 0.05% of Derv used by boats will not
>reduce the taxation paid by anyone else.
Any person who pays tax at a lower rate than others is being
subsidised.
The government's extra revenue will enable it to increase spending on
public goods, to cut its deficit (if it has one) or to reduce
taxation.
>All that is happenning is that those taxpayers who also own boats that
>use diesel are being made just a little bit wearier.
They have a choice: they can pay up and look cheerful, or reduce their
spending on other things, or give up boating. It's a free society.
>In other words it is yet another increase in indirect taxation, and
>that is true whether you believe the use of Red Diesel by recreational
>boats is justified or not.
It is indeed an increase in indirect taxation --- of a group who have
been receiving an unfair and unjustifiable subsidy. We expect protest,
but there is no reason for the rest of the community to pay any heed
to it.
bjg
Michael Clarke
news:vh74n19nupa27ci81...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:59:11 +0000, Nick Temple-Fry
>
> been receiving an unfair and unjustifiable subsidy. We expect protest,
> but there is no reason for the rest of the community to pay any heed
> to it.
If it is an unfair and unjustifiable subsidy then why should this unfair and
unjustifiable subsidy still be allowed for tractors, buses and commercial
boats etc. ??????
--
Regards
Michael Clarke
Email: michael...@skynet.be
Web: http://users.skynet.be/sky34301/
John Gwalter
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:13:43 +0000, Brian J Goggin
> <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote:
>
>
> >It is indeed an increase in indirect taxation --- of a group who have
> >been receiving an unfair and unjustifiable subsidy. We expect protest,
> >but there is no reason for the rest of the community to pay any heed
> >to it.
>
> in favour of retaining red diesel for pleasure boats. Nobody except
> boaters using a lot of red diesel gives a toss.
> --
> Martin
And compared with river and coastal "gin palaces" canal boaters do not use
a lot - even those using it for heating.
--
JOhn
NB Ernest (that one, not the other one)
My indecision is final.
Nick Temple-Fry
<myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote:
>Any person who pays tax at a lower rate than others is being
>subsidised.
>
That remains an unusual use of the word subsidy and one for which I
have difficulty in finding a dictionary authority.
Boat users are not paying tax at a subsidised rate, they are paying
tax at the rate set by the government for the use of that fuel for
that purpose.
It is the governments choice to tax gas oil at a different rate
whether it is used to power road vehicles, industrial machinery,
domestic heating or boats.
You might be interested in reviewing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_diesel
and particularly the statement under section 4 Uses
"Diesel is identical to heating oil, used in central heating. In both
Europe and the United States taxes on diesel fuel are higher than on
heating oil, and in those areas, heating oil is marked with dye and
trace chemicals to prevent and detect tax fraud"
Because if your argument is that paying less for a product than its
highest price (regardless of end use) is a wrongful subsidy (your
definition) then you should be arguing that all uses of gas oil/diesel
should be taxed at the same rate as that applicable to Diesel used as
fuel for road traffic.
There are good arguments for taxing all uses of petroleum/oil based
products heavily, for example to reflect the true environmental cost
of the product and to enforce some 'rationing' of what is a scarce and
valuable product.
Similarly there are good social and economic arguments to keep taxes
for certain utilisations low (freezing pensioners, cost of
manufacturing/ distribution).
There are few good arguments that hinge on the emotive use of words
like subsidy (your meaning) and weary.
My concern, and it is more an issue for URS where I normally post, is
that there are substantial areas of the coastline where recreational
boat use is very light and will not warrant the commercial investment
in a supply of white diesel. This will represent a safety hazard for
those boats that find themselves in need of fuel (and for a yacht we
are often talking of very small quantities indeed, eg 10-20 litres).
Nick
Adrian Stott
>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:31:48 +0000, Martin Ludgate
><edi...@navvies.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>(*) Not that I'm agreeing with that view - but the notion that all
>>boaters are rich is one that's widely held outside boating circles,
>>and appears very difficult to dispel. And most non-boating people I
>>mention the subject to are surprised to hear that boats are
>>currently permitted to use red diesel (if they've heard of red diesel
>>at all), and can't immediately see why we have this apparent 'tax
>>break'.
Apparent, but not actual. The taxs on white is set with respect to
the cost to society of the use of road vehicles.
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:40:17 +0000, Brian J Goggin
<myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:41:07 +0000, Malcolm N.....
><mal...@mgnixon.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>But the fact still remains that the fuel tax on DERV is there because
>>it's used on the roads,
>
>No it doesn't.
>
>There is no hypothecation: tax and duty on fuel for road vehicles are
>"used on the roads" any more than tax on Jelly Babies is.
It is true there is no hypothecation. However, the justification for
the tax, frequently voiced by the charming Brown, is to discourage
driving because of the pollution and congestion it causes. Clearly
this justification does not apply to the use of boats.
>
>>and that I believe red should still be allowed
>>in boats as it is for agriculture, construction and rail use.
>But it will be --- on commercial boats, just as it is on commercial
>tractors, commercial cranes and commercial trains. All that's
>happening is that the weary taxpayer is being relieved of the burden
>of supporting the private pleasures of recreational boat-users --- and
>recreational flyers too, if I'm not mistaken.
But logically it should be usable for all non-road uses, as the higher
tax on white is claimed by the wonderful Brown to be there solely
because white is used on roads.
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:13:43 +0000, Brian J Goggin
<myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:59:11 +0000, Nick Temple-Fry
><ni...@temple-fry.COmpletely.UnKnown> wrote:
>
>>The "weary taxpayer" is not being relieved of anything. The cost of
>>red diesel is not subsidised, the companies that supply it make a
>>profit in a perfectly ordinary way.The fact that the Government will
>>be doubling the cost on the 0.05% of Derv used by boats will not
>>reduce the taxation paid by anyone else.
>
>Any person who pays tax at a lower rate than others is being
>subsidised.
That implies a very non-standard definition of "subsidy".
In fact, red diesel is not a "tax break", "subsidy", "giveaway to
boaters", or any such similar. It is a lower tax for use on fuel
related to the lower social costs of its non-road use. I think this
should be an important part of the message RYA should be putting
across. Is RYA saying this?
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adr...@spam.co.uk
07956-299966
Nick Temple-Fry
wrote:
> Is RYA saying this?
>
Adrian
The RYA position (and that of the IWA and Uncle Tom C) can be found at
http://www.rya.org.uk/legal/default.asp?contentID=3021481
Nick
Adrian Stott
>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 18:42:49 +0100, "Michael Clarke"
><michael...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>>"Brian J Goggin" <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote in message
>>news:vh74n19nupa27ci81...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:59:11 +0000, Nick Temple-Fry
>>>
>>> It is indeed an increase in indirect taxation --- of a group who have
>>> been receiving an unfair and unjustifiable subsidy. We expect protest,
>>> but there is no reason for the rest of the community to pay any heed
>>> to it.
>>
>>
>>If it is an unfair and unjustifiable subsidy then why should this unfair and
>>unjustifiable subsidy still be allowed for tractors, buses and commercial
>>boats etc. ??????
>
>because they do something useful with the fuel?
Providing pleasure fits my description of "doing something useful".
Adrian Stott
Tax on fuel used for heating (or for electricity generation) is not
affected by the EU Directive. Red will still be legal for these
purposes.
Adrian Stott
A simple "no" would have been sufficient, then.
Mike Fisher
wrote:
>
>Tax on fuel used for heating (or for electricity generation) is not
>affected by the EU Directive. Red will still be legal for these
>purposes.
>
>Adrian
>
>
>
>
>Adrian Stott
>adr...@spam.co.uk
>07956-299966
So my expectation would be that the mobile "working boat" deliveries
would continue to supply red diesel along the ranks of continuous
moorers, whilst the boatyards would switch to white, since the static
boats are typically using diesel for heating. Its the economics of
the white that interest me more since, because of low volumes from
small boatyards, it will inevitably attract a premium ( 10p, 20p per
litre?) over roadside garage supplies. Hence I will have two large
20litre jerricans and fill up at the local garage.
Mike
Brian J Goggin
<michael...@skynet.be> wrote:
>If it is an unfair and unjustifiable subsidy then why should this unfair and
>unjustifiable subsidy still be allowed for tractors, buses and commercial
>boats etc. ??????
I don't approve of those subsidies either; nor do I approve of the low
or non-existent tax on aircraft fuel. We'll get around to them too. In
the meantime, let us be thankful that at least one bastion of
privilege is being stormed by the People's Commissars.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
<ni...@temple-fry.COmpletely.UnKnown> wrote:
>It is the governments choice to tax gas oil at a different rate
>whether it is used to power road vehicles, industrial machinery,
>domestic heating or boats.
So you'll be entirely happy when the government changes its mind and
won't have any complaints?
>There are good arguments for taxing all uses of petroleum/oil based
>products heavily, for example to reflect the true environmental cost
>of the product and to enforce some 'rationing' of what is a scarce and
>valuable product.
I'll go along with that.
>My concern, and it is more an issue for URS where I normally post, is
>that there are substantial areas of the coastline where recreational
>boat use is very light and will not warrant the commercial investment
>in a supply of white diesel. This will represent a safety hazard for
>those boats that find themselves in need of fuel (and for a yacht we
>are often talking of very small quantities indeed, eg 10-20 litres).
I'm sure that if these boats pay an even higher price, they will find
someone to supply them. Alternatively, they could fit larger tanks, or
fill containers at petrol stations (taking appropriate environmental
precautioins when filling their boat tanks) or fit wind-powered
generators to charge batteries to drive electric motors or give up
boating. I don't see why other taxpayers should subsidise the leisure
activities of boaters.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
<mal...@mgnixon.org.uk> wrote:
>Diesel Engine Road Fuel = DERV
Means nothing. The tax on that fuel does not go to fund roads. What
you choose to call the fuel is irrelevant.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>Providing pleasure fits my description of "doing something useful".
I MUST NOT BE TEMPTED TO REPLY TO THAT ....
bjg
Adrian Stott
It doesn't matter whether the tax "goes to fund roads". Tax receipts
are fungible. *Some* government money, from some budget somewhere,
goes to pay for the roads.
The tax on road fuel is imposed because roads cost money, and because
driving imposes costs imposed on the environment (pollution) and
society (congestion). Its level may not be very precisely calculated
to match those costs, but it is driven (haha) by them. This take is
felt by government to be "fair", which is what is seen to count. What
the government actually does with the money is quite a different
issue.
None of those costs are imposed by boaters or boating. Well, that's
not quite try, as the government is paying a large chunk of the cost
of providing waterways. However, boaters are charged for what is felt
(by somebody) to be their fair share of this; the rest is ascribed to
benefits being received by other groups for which direct user-charging
is felt to be infeasible.
As a result, fuel for boats is currently taxed less than that for
cars. And so it should be. If I impose less cost to
government/society than you, I should pay less tax than you, surely.
Nothing to do with hypothecation. Or subsidy, even by your
definition.
Tim Leech
wrote:
>If I impose less cost to
>government/society than you, I should pay less tax than you, surely.
>
I don't think life is quite like that, Adrian, much though you might
like it to be!
Tim
Dutton Dry-Dock
Traditional & Modern canal craft repairs
Vintage diesel engine service
Mike Stevens
> It doesn't matter whether the tax "goes to fund roads". Tax receipts
> are fungible.
You can grow mushrooms on them?
> *Some* government money, from some budget somewhere,
> goes to pay for the roads.
And *not enough* government money goes to help pay for the waterways.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II - Felis Catus III real soon now!
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man.
Paul Scott
"Mike Fisher" <mffi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:mtt6n190rem5rq0l0...@4ax.com...
> So my expectation would be that the mobile "working boat" deliveries
> would continue to supply red diesel along the ranks of continuous
> moorers, whilst the boatyards would switch to white, since the static
> boats are typically using diesel for heating.
I don't think it is as straightforward as that. Many/most? static boats run
their engines has inefficient 12V dc generators. If there is a gearbox and
prop connected they will be using white.
Its the economics of
> the white that interest me more since, because of low volumes from
> small boatyards, it will inevitably attract a premium ( 10p, 20p per
> litre?) over roadside garage supplies.
> Mike
>
My local boatyard, Aynho Dock Services on the Oxford, doesn't seem to be
able to make the economics of Red diesel work, as he hasn't bothered
ordering any for about 2 months.
Paul
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>The tax on road fuel is imposed because roads cost money
The tax on road fuel is imposed because governments need money, and
they get it by (inter alia) taxing goods that have a low price
elasticity of demand. Fuel is such a good, with the further advantage
that it has few substitutes.
>and because driving imposes costs imposed on the environment
>(pollution) and society (congestion).
I don't supose you have you any evidence that those factors had any
influence on the decision to impose tax on fuel, as opposed to being
post-hoc justifications.
>Its level may not be very precisely calculated to match those costs,
>but it is driven (haha) by them. This take is felt by government to be
>"fair", which is what is seen to count.
"is felt" and "is seen"? By whom? What evidence?
You're simply trying to assert, on absolutely no evidence whatsoever,
that the government justifies its existing taxation policies on a
basis that you feel you could turn to your advantage. Although I
admire your inventiveness, your castle is built on unconvincing clouds
and, even if you were to convince me, you would have absolutely no
effect whatsoever on the Great British Public, on HM Government or on
the European Commission, Parliament and Council.
That, of course, will please me, but I do so hate to see people
putting forward rotten arguments, even when they're on the other side.
bjg
PS
>Or subsidy, even by your definition.
Would you like some references to economics articles?
Adrian Stott
<michael...@which.net> wrote:
>Adrian Stott wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter whether the tax "goes to fund roads". Tax receipts
>> are fungible.
>
>You can grow mushrooms on them?
I'm afraid Mr Brown spends them so fast the mushrooms wouldn't have
time to fruit.
Adrian Stott
<myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:45:28 +0000, Adrian Stott <adr...@spam.com>
>wrote:
>>and because driving imposes costs imposed on the environment
>>(pollution) and society (congestion).
>
>I don't supose you have you any evidence that those factors had any
>influence on the decision to impose tax on fuel, as opposed to being
>post-hoc justifications.
When the fuel excise "escalator" was still running, the lovely Brown
said on several occasions that he was in favour of raising this tax
because of the above costs. It might be possible to track down the
quotes, but I can't be bothered.
The escalator was eventually turned off, but we all remained on the
top floor.