Stop EU banning red diesel use for Narrowboats. sign UGov petition here

[GUMPY]

Its not called Road Fuel Duty!

HMRC refer to it as Fuel Duty

[carlt]

What would you call 'a fair amount of tax'?

 

The same as other vehicles.

 

Isn't that what this whole discussion is about?

[Chris Pink]

 

What are you on about? What loophole?

I don't want to call it anything.

I just don't think we should be paying 'road fuel duty' in our boats. There is no logical reason for it other than, it seems, to penalise leisure boating. The amount raised is paltry so what other reason could they want to tax it?

Bob

 

Nobody's asking you to pay "road fuel duty" on your boat diesel. As you seem to be hard of understanding I'll explain again: you pay "road fuel duty" on fuel that goes into a 'road' vehicle (following so far?)

 

If you were to pay full duty on your boat fuel instead of trying to 'get away with it', it wouldn't be 'road fuel duty" it would be duty on boat fuel.

 

Being obtuse to save yourself, illegally, a few pounds of tax is plain silly.

Is that aimed at me?

Bob

 

Amongst other yes. For avoidance of doubt; You, lyraboat, are a hypocrite.

 

 

If boatyards did convert to selling road fuel, the price is likely to rise to £1.60 at current market prices - would you pay that? No; you'd buy it in cans from a filling station, limited to 20l at a time.

 

 

What go to all that effort and mess to avoid £2 (tops) a can? No I wouldn't.

 

What I would probably do is buy 500litres of white diesel from a fuel merchant.

I'm in a minority of a minority and do not have a pleasure/leisure craft. As a liveaboard, I can not agree with the insistence that I should accept that my engine has the single purpose of propulsion. I could run the Mikuni on red diesel, but not without the batteries being charged, from the engine; gear box disengaged, not that I really care to make it a rule.

if you want to use reduced duty fuel to run your heating and power generation then fit a 2nd tank. For you to whinge about paying duty on fuel put in your propulsion tank is, in my opinion, a rather shallow and ineffectual way of trying to avoid paying the tax you should by paying.

 

Boats in Europe seem to grasp the principle, it's not complicated.

 

As for the rest of your argument. I refer you to camper vans. directly analogous. If they want to use red diesel for heating and power they need a 2nd tank, end of story.

Its not called Road Fuel Duty!

HMRC refer to it as Fuel Duty

 

unfortunately, the government, who set the rates, refer to it as 'road fuel duty' - that's just laziness because all other fuel duty changes in line with it. But I an understand why the Mailheads are confused.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Chris Pink

[magpie patrick]

 

If boatyards did convert to selling road fuel, the price is likely to rise to £1.60 at current market prices - would you pay that? No; you'd buy it in cans from a filling station, limited to 20l at a time.

 

 

Juno is petrol powered, thus I have no option but to get my fuel in Jerry Cans. Believe me, I use the nearest filling station, regardless of price!

[Higgs]

 

.if you want to use reduced duty fuel to run your heating and power generation then fit a 2nd tank. For you to whinge about paying duty on fuel put in your propulsion tank is, in my opinion, a rather shallow and ineffectual way of trying to avoid paying the tax you should by paying.

 

 

Think I've dealt with your supercilious crap in - post 193.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Higgs

[George Kennedy]

If you look at this document http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/drafts/pp-craft-tiin.pdf everything is explained. HMRC are prepared to allow marked diesel to be used in pleasure craft as long as full duty is paid on the propulsion part, that is the split that the purchaser declares and as we all know they have left that in the hands of the purchaser to declare. They have also, after consultation, come to the conclusion that a 60:40 split is acceptable to them. The EU don't have a problem with the split, they have a problem with the use of marked diesel which normally means rebated fuel.

The correct solution is for waterside retailers to sell only 'white' diesel and this satisfies EU rules. The issue then is that HMRC have to decide on whether to allow boaters to declare a split as at present and run the risk that the 'white' diesel finds its way into motor vehicles or more likely to allow purchasers to pay full duty and then claim a rebate for the fuel used for domestic purposes, creating an administrative burden for themselves along the way.

My own preference is that HMRC take full duty for white diesel, calculate their preferred 60:40 split and give the difference to CaRT and yes I know that is opening up a whole new can of worms but why not? The EU would be satisfied, it would be easier for the retailers, HMRC would be happy and CaRT get extra revenue and in some cases from people who don't normally contribute.

[carlt]

 

My own preference is that HMRC take full duty for white diesel, calculate their preferred 60:40 split and give the difference to CaRT and yes I know that is opening up a whole new can of worms but why not?

Excellent idea.

 

Then again if vehicle fuel duty was ring fenced for the maintenance of our state owned transport networks there would be no need for car tax or a boat licence.

[Higgs]

 

My own preference is that HMRC take full duty for white diesel, calculate their preferred 60:40 split and give the difference to CaRT and yes I know that is opening up a whole new can of worms but why not? The EU would be satisfied,

 

 

Don't take offence, but, I'd like the difference back.

[Chris Pink]

 

Think I've dealt with your supercilious crap in - post 193.

 

Crap = you don't agree. How articulate you are. but wrong (again) you don't explain how you see yourself as more deserving that a camper van owner.

 

I do realise this is going to take you some time to form the words. No hurry.

[Higgs]

 

 

 

I do realise this is going to take you some time to form the words. No hurry.

 

 

Ha......., ha. I've formed some words.

[Chris Pink]

If you look at this document http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/drafts/pp-craft-tiin.pdf everything is explained. HMRC are prepared to allow marked diesel to be used in pleasure craft as long as full duty is paid on the propulsion part, that is the split that the purchaser declares and as we all know they have left that in the hands of the purchaser to declare. They have also, after consultation, come to the conclusion that a 60:40 split is acceptable to them. The EU don't have a problem with the split, they have a problem with the use of marked diesel which normally means rebated fuel.

The correct solution is for waterside retailers to sell only 'white' diesel and this satisfies EU rules. The issue then is that HMRC have to decide on whether to allow boaters to declare a split as at present and run the risk that the 'white' diesel finds its way into motor vehicles or more likely to allow purchasers to pay full duty and then claim a rebate for the fuel used for domestic purposes, creating an administrative burden for themselves along the way.

My own preference is that HMRC take full duty for white diesel, calculate their preferred 60:40 split and give the difference to CaRT and yes I know that is opening up a whole new can of worms but why not? The EU would be satisfied, it would be easier for the retailers, HMRC would be happy and CaRT get extra revenue and in some cases from people who don't normally contribute.

 

 

I think two tanks is the way to go.

 

No ambiguity. no nonsense. red in engine tank = tax evasion = fine.

 

Anything else is faffing around. And if HMRC faff around people will take the piss.

 

Don't get me wrong though. I've nothing against tax evasion. It's hypocrisy that I'm objecting too.

[Doorman]

To all the people who think there should only be one rate of tax on fuel.

 

 

I take it that you will extend your fairness and equality regime to income tax, and that we shall in future all pay at one standard rate.

Does the 'we' include Starbucks, McDonalds etc., etc.,

 

If any energy should be expended in seeking fair play on tax/duty that's the direction to head for. That and his royal shyness Charlie boy

with his exemption on both corporation and capital gains tax.

 

Another example of 'all men are equal, but some are more equal than others!'

[carlt]

Does the 'we' include Starbucks, McDonalds etc., etc.,

 

I've never really bought into the "Two wrongs make a right" argument.

 

Rather than saying "They do it so why shouldn't we?" wouldn't it be better to say "We don't do it so why should they?"

[Doorman]

Excellent idea.

 

Then again if vehicle fuel duty was ring fenced for the maintenance of our state owned transport networks there would be no need for car tax or a boat licence.

 

Carl,

 

As an ex-civil servant in charge of your local highways, can you advise me of what percentage of road tax was directed towards the actual the upkeep of roads?

 

I've never really bought into the "Two wrongs make a right" argument.

 

Rather than saying "They do it so why shouldn't we?" wouldn't it be better to say "We don't do it so why should they?"

It's not so much about 'Two wrongs make a right' but more about priorities. The amount of revenue gained from this trivial fuel duty fiasco compared to the millions lost through tax concessions to the mega-rich corporations is beyond belief!

Edited July 21, 2013 by Doorman

[carlt]

Carl,

 

As an ex-civil servant in charge of your local highways, can you advise me of what percentage of road tax was directed towards the actual the upkeep of roads?

 

I'm not up to date with the figures but, in my time (late 90s) it was around 20%.

 

 

 

The amount of revenue gained from this trivial fuel duty fiasco compared to the millions lost through tax concessions to the mega-rich corporations is beyond belief!

You could say that about anything that is a small proportion of the public purse though.

 

All those little bits, if lumped together, eventually add up to a big bit.

[Doorman]

I'm not up to date with the figures but, in my time (late 90s) it was around 20%.

 

.

Thanks,

 

I've heard quotes of 35% in the past so if this is true where does the other 65% go, into the treasury for general use?

 

You could say that about anything that is a small proportion of the public purse though.

 

All those little bits, if lumped together, eventually add up to a big bit.

Yes, but if as suggested, the cost of collection negates the actual financial gain, then surely it's a pointless operation?

[Hawkmoth]

 

 

 

Amongst other yes. For avoidance of doubt; You, lyraboat, are a hypocrite.

 

That's pretty specific. Explain!

Bob

[carlt]

Yes, but if as suggested, the cost of collection negates the actual financial gain, then surely it's a pointless operation?

I think the cost of collection is so high because of the split.

 

Simplify it and it will be no longer pointless.

I've heard quotes of 35% in the past so if this is true where does the other 65% go?

 

Trident?

[Jerra]

 

unfortunately, the government, who set the rates, refer to it as 'road fuel duty'

Where do they refer to it as "road fuel duty" www.gov.uk doesn't seem to have a single reference to "Road Fuel Duty" but do have a page called www.gov.uk/fuel-duty

[mayalld]

It's very very simple.

 

Either fit two tanks if you want to legally use lower duty fuel for domestic

 

or pay the duty and use the one tank.

 

That's (essentially) the law which will be enforced sooner or later.

 

Very probably, but leaving aside the various posts suggesting ways to get around the law (of which I firmly do NOT approve), it is an entirely legitimate aim for boaters to seek to retain the status quo on the taxation of diesel. Indeed it is always a legitimate aim for anybody to lobby and campaign against a change to taxation that will be to their detriment.

 

In the case of our use of red diesel, the facility to use red for propulsion was lost, and whilst people argued against it (because they didn't want to pay more), it was not an argument that could be sustained. The old "road duty" argumnent was specious, and financially painful as it is, there isn't a valid argument against it.

 

The present situation with splits, however, is a pragmatic approach to retaining fairness.

 

It is the undisputed situation that rebated fuel can presently be used for domestic purposes, and whilst that situation remains the case, boaters should be enabled to use rebated fuel for domestic purposes.

 

Due to the previous regime, and due to the present split arrangements, very few boats are fitted with dual tanks and to do so would be an expensive modification that would likely outweigh many years of rebate for most boaters. Indeed with the way that taxes change there is every prospect that at some future date the availability of rebated domestic fuel may cease, so it is not ecomomically viable for most boaters to fit dual tanks.

 

There is also the legitimate aim in allowing the current system that moving to a two tank setup will inevitably cause more boaters to refil from cans rather than from canalside outlets or fuel boats, with a resultant increase in spillages into the canals with an associated environmental impact.

[Guest]

There is also the legitimate aim in allowing the current system that moving to a two tank setup will inevitably cause more boaters to refil from cans rather than from canalside outlets or fuel boats, with a resultant increase in spillages into the canals with an associated environmental impact.

 

Going OT a sec. but this issue often comes up in this debate - but it is perfectly possible to fill your tank from a jerry can without spillage, we often put (white) diesel in using this method. It just needs care or the use of an extractor that syphons the fuel out the can into the tank.

 

I agree that not everybody might be as careful but given the price of the stuff (environmental impact aside) I'd rather see it all go in the tank rather than in the cut.

[Doorman]

I think the cost of collection is so high because of the split.

Simplify it and it will be no longer pointless.

 

In simple terms there are bigger fish to catch and higher revenues to earn by directing energies towards the tax evaders whom are costing us dearly.

Trident?

That would not surprise me in the least. But when the idea of toll charges to help with the upkeep and laying of new roads (motorways) gets bandied about, is it any wonder why motorists become irate when something like 65% of their road fund licence is salted away on other needs.

 

I always thought that Dick Turpin had met his maker in York many years ago, but it seems he is still alive and languishing in the treasury!

[mayalld]

 

Going OT a sec. but this issue often comes up in this debate - but it is perfectly possible to fill your tank from a jerry can without spillage, we often put (white) diesel in using this method. It just needs care or the use of an extractor that syphons the fuel out the can into the tank.

 

I agree that not everybody might be as careful but given the price of the stuff (environmental impact aside) I'd rather see it all go in the tank rather than in the cut.

 

That is the point.

 

You are careful. Others are less careful. If canalside provision reduces significantly, then a LOT of people who have never filled from cans will be doing so, and it is inevitable that a LOT of diesel will be spilt.

[carlt]

 

it is an entirely legitimate aim for boaters to seek to retain the status quo on the taxation of diesel. Indeed it is always a legitimate aim for anybody to lobby and campaign against a change to taxation that will be to their detriment.

 

 

Of course it is.

 

It doesn't make them right though.

 

This is the sort of comment that you would usually leap on, Dave.

 

Nobody has suggested that people don't have the right to object to a tax increase or even argue against it on a discussion forum.

 

As to using rebated fuel for domestic purposes then that has been done to death here and elsewhere and there are those of us who recognise the disparity between diesel engined boats and motorhomes/petrol engined vessels and those who choose to ignore it.

 

As far as the spillage argument is concerned I would imagine that the bloke who left the pump unattended leaving me to rescue it after it had already discharged tens of gallons of diesel into the cut caused more pollution than all the drops of petrol spilled by folk filling their tank from a can in a year.

[Dominic M]

In simple terms there are bigger fish to catch and higher revenues to earn by directing energies towards the tax evaders whom are costing us dearly.

 

That would not surprise me in the least. But when the idea of toll charges to help with the upkeep and laying of new roads (motorways) gets bandied about, is it any wonder why motorists become irate when something like 65% of their road fund licence is salted away on other needs.

 

I always thought that Dick Turpin had met his maker in York many years ago, but it seems he is still alive and languishing in the treasury!

The argument that motorists pay a lot more than the cost of road maintenance is a little specious, Mike. For example, a study conducted in Germany published in 2012 determined that the true cost as a result of vehicle use in the UK was £815 per person. That is because you are failing to take into account the cost incurred by the NHS through accidents, the cost of police and emergency services, the cost of the pollution and environmental damage, and the cost of the contribution vehicles make to climate change. So motorists are in fact subsidised by the taxpayer. Just thought I'd throw that in to the mix.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Dominic M