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

[carlt]

So motorists are in fact subsidised by the taxpayer.

Isn't everyone?

 

If you take the total cost of taxes associated with car ownership the figure of £815 isn't that far off.

[Paul C]

To everyone saying "its easy, fit twin tanks" what about the situation where a boat has just the engine powered by diesel, ie no diesel heater (Eberspacher, Webasto, etc), onboard diesel generator for power generation, no solar panels, no mains hookup, no instant gas water heater. Its relying on the engine for domestic stuff.

[magpie patrick]

To everyone saying "its easy, fit twin tanks" what about the situation where a boat has just the engine powered by diesel, ie no diesel heater (Eberspacher, Webasto, etc), onboard diesel generator for power generation, no solar panels, no mains hookup, no instant gas water heater. Its relying on the engine for domestic stuff.

 

 

I suppose the answer is, like me with a petrol outboard, you'd have to pay full tax on the lot. It's what I, and any petrol powered boat owner, must do.

[carlt]

To everyone saying "its easy, fit twin tanks" what about the situation where a boat has just the engine powered by diesel, ie no diesel heater (Eberspacher, Webasto, etc), onboard diesel generator for power generation, no solar panels, no mains hookup, no instant gas water heater. Its relying on the engine for domestic stuff.

You mean just like a motorhome or petrol engined boat with none of the aforementioned?

 

They are taking advantage of the propulsion engine's byproducts rather than choosing alternatives.

 

I don't see the problem.

[Dominic M]

Isn't everyone?

 

If you take the total cost of taxes associated with car ownership the figure of £815 isn't that far off.

Yes, but there are 62 million people in the UK of which it is reckoned 38 million are motorists. So the 62 million is paying £815 per capitum on average to fund the 38 million, who therefore should be paying £1330 in taxes associated with car ownership to avoid being subsidised. Obviously that is a bit simplistic as some motorists clock up far greater distances than others (an argument for road tolls?). As for "isn't everyone" subsidised, as with perpetual motion that simply can't be possible. Can it?

Edited July 22, 2013 by Dominic M

[carlt]

 

 

I suppose the answer is, like me with a petrol outboard, you'd have to pay full tax on the lot. It's what I, and any petrol powered boat owner, must do.

My mate's got a Suffolk Punch which, when not mowing his mooring, has been adapted to connect to an alternator, via a pulley, to provide an emergency charging back-up.

 

It doesn't make it any less of a lawnmower nor does it attract any "domestic" fuel subsidy.

As for "isn't everyone" subsidised, as with perpetual motion that simply can't be possible. Can it?

Of course it can.

 

As taxpayers we "subsidise" ourselves and each other.

 

If we started divvying it up and we only use that which we pay tax for then the citizen who feels hard done by because he doesn't have a car should no longer use pavements, not expect an ambulance, fire engine or police car to drive to them in an emergency, never use public transport (which they can't reach because they can't use pavements.

 

The non-driver that doesn't use the public highway could never leave their home which could never have been built as no materials would have been delivered.

[Paul C]

You mean just like a motorhome or petrol engined boat with none of the aforementioned?

 

They are taking advantage of the propulsion engine's byproducts rather than choosing alternatives.

 

I don't see the problem.

 

As previously stated, I agree with you that petrol boats and motorhomes, essentially, are in a similar position. I don't see that an analogy to motorhomes is particularly relevant on a canal forum though, if they wish to campaign for the use of red diesel for domestic use, I am happy for motorhome owners to do this on their own forum etc.

 

The problem is, with the inability to (legally) put red diesel into the tank, one would be forced to use white, at its higher cost, for domestic purposes, thus paying tax on something its not used for.

 

If an engine is run solely to charge the batteries and/or hot water and/or space heating BUT NOT moving the boat, its NOT a by-product, its the reason the engine was run.

[magpie patrick]

 

 

If an engine is run solely to charge the batteries and/or hot water and/or space heating BUT NOT moving the boat, its NOT a by-product, its the reason the engine was run.

 

Which is exactly what happens on my boat

[Dominic M]

My mate's got a Suffolk Punch which, when not mowing his mooring, has been adapted to connect to an alternator, via a pulley, to provide an emergency charging back-up.

 

It doesn't make it any less of a lawnmower nor does it attract any "domestic" fuel subsidy.

Of course it can.

 

As taxpayers we "subsidise" ourselves and each other.

 

If we started divvying it up and we only use that which we pay tax for then the citizen who feels hard done by because he doesn't have a car should no longer use pavements, not expect an ambulance, fire engine or police car to drive to them in an emergency, never use public transport (which they can't reach because they can't use pavements.

 

The non-driver that doesn't use the public highway could never leave their home which could never have been built as no materials would have been delivered.

1. The owner of the horse is able to buy feed for a working animal at a reduced 5% VAT rate.

2. I like a good laugh (and I mean that I was very amused by what you wrote, not laughing at you). You are right to degree of course although there will be some who pay a lot more in tax than they consume in services - which is the nature, quite rightly, of any civilised society. The point I was trying to make is that it is a common complaint from many car owners that they pay out a lot more in road tax and other duties than is spent on road maintenance and construction. Absolutely true. They just forget about the other considerable costs to the nation of driving when making such a claim.

[carlt]

They just forget about the other considerable costs to the nation of driving when making such a claim.

As a car driver could you point me towards the correct form to fill in that exempts me from paying all the other taxes that non-road users are subsidising me with?

 

I wasn't aware that I didn't have to pay these taxes and it seems I have a huge rebate owing.

[Chris Pink]

 

As previously stated, I agree with you that petrol boats and motorhomes, essentially, are in a similar position. I don't see that an analogy to motorhomes is particularly relevant on a canal forum though, if they wish to campaign for the use of red diesel for domestic use, I am happy for motorhome owners to do this on their own forum etc.

 

 

 

They are perfectly free to use red diesel for heating etc.

it just has to be in a separate tank.

 

I am tempted to use the abominable ROFL to describe Dave Mayall's entry into this "we'll find a loophole" hypocrisy.

 

 

And I would like someone to tell me where I can get red petrol for my strimmer please.

[Paul C]

They are perfectly free to use red diesel for heating etc.

it just has to be in a separate tank.

 

I am tempted to use the abominable ROFL to describe Dave Mayall's entry into this "we'll find a loophole" hypocrisy.

 

 

And I would like someone to tell me where I can get red petrol for my strimmer please.

 

So the separate tank can be connected via pipework and valves, to the main engine? Post #73 suggests this setup isn't allowed. If it was, then its pointless having 2 tanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I would like someone to tell me where I can get red petrol for my strimmer please.

 

Guernsey, see post #161

[carlt]

 

So the separate tank can be connected via pipework and valves, to the main engine? Post #73 suggests this setup isn't allowed. If it was, then its pointless having 2 tanks.

 

 

You are choosing to ignore the choices available.

 

One of those choices is to use the byproducts of your propulsion engine for domestic purposes thus avoiding the inconvenience and expense of installing alternatives.

 

I still fail to see why this choice should attract a subsidy.

[GUMPY]

To everyone saying "its easy, fit twin tanks" what about the situation where a boat has just the engine powered by diesel, ie no diesel heater (Eberspacher, Webasto, etc), onboard diesel generator for power generation, no solar panels, no mains hookup, no instant gas water heater. Its relying on the engine for domestic stuff.

If the boat was built after 2000 you have a badly designed boat one which will have to pay fuel duty on all its domestic stuff.

[Jerra]

 

The problem is, with the inability to (legally) put red diesel into the tank, one would be forced to use white, at its higher cost, for domestic purposes, thus paying tax on something its not used for.

I am not sure this logic is correct. HMRC and www.gov.uk both refer to the duty as fuel duty not road fuel duty. As a result those who have to use white diesel for domestic purposes are having to use a fuel which attracts a different rate of duty not paying duty on something it isn't used for.

[Paul C]

You are choosing to ignore the choices available.

 

One of those choices is to use the byproducts of your propulsion engine for domestic purposes thus avoiding the inconvenience and expense of installing alternatives.

 

I still fail to see why this choice should attract a subsidy.

 

NOT byproducts! Not a subsidy!

If the boat was built after 2000 you have a badly designed boat one which will have to pay fuel duty on all its domestic stuff.

 

Plenty of boats are built before 2000 though.....

[Jerra]

So the separate tank can be connected via pipework and valves, to the main engine? Post #73 suggests this setup isn't allowed. If it was, then its pointless having 2 tanks.

I admit it is a long time since I had connections with agriculture but back then it could be tested if an engine had used red diesel and if it was on the road having used red diesel at some time there were problems.

 

Things may have changed.

[Paul C]

I am not sure this logic is correct. HMRC and www.gov.uk both refer to the duty as fuel duty not road fuel duty. As a result those who have to use white diesel for domestic purposes are having to use a fuel which attracts a different rate of duty not paying duty on something it isn't used for.

 

I didn't even mention road!

 

I'm happy enough with the rewording "those who have to use white diesel for domestic purposes are having to use a fuel which attracts a different rate of duty" as it sums up the issue here.

 

My simple question - why should they have to use this fuel which attacts more duty?

 

The duty, is for propulsion, the use is domestic.

I admit it is a long time since I had connections with agriculture but back then it could be tested if an engine had used red diesel and if it was on the road having used red diesel at some time there were problems.

 

Things may have changed.

 

Red diesel and road use isn't mutually exclusive - tractors can go on the roads running on red diesel.

[carlt]

 

NOT byproducts! Not a subsidy!

In your opinion but, having not such a limited view, with experience of other vehicles which use the byproducts of their propulsion engine for domestic purposes without attracting the subsidy, my opinion differs somewhat.

[Paul C]

That's ok - so in YOUR OPINION the electricity generation, hot water and space heating is a by-product of the propulsion engine on your boat. Other boats too? Other types of boat?

 

Most narrowboaters don't go far/anywhere in winter but regularly run the engine, for reasons such as electricity generation, hot water and space heating. Therefore its the main reason, not the byproduct of something else.

[carlt]

That's ok - so in YOUR OPINION the electricity generation, hot water and space heating is a by-product of the propulsion engine on your boat. Other boats too? Other types of boat?

 

Actually, in MY OPINION the electricity generation, hot water and space heating is a by-product of the propulsion engine of all other boats and any other types of boat that take advantage of the by-products of their propulsion engine rather than investing in alternatives.

 

Having solar panels, a generator, separate tank for heating and a Paloma meant that I choose not to take advantage of the by-products of my propulsion engine.

 

In YOUR OPINION, you seem to expect a subsidy for avoiding the expense of solar panels, a generator, separate tank for heating and a Paloma by taking advantage of the by-products of your propulsion engine.

 

Having your cake and eating it springs to mind.

Edited July 22, 2013 by carlt

[magpie patrick]

That's ok - so in YOUR OPINION the electricity generation, hot water and space heating is a by-product of the propulsion engine on your boat. Other boats too? Other types of boat?

 

Most narrowboaters don't go far/anywhere in winter but regularly run the engine, for reasons such as electricity generation, hot water and space heating. Therefore its the main reason, not the byproduct of something else.

 

The argument against that is that the main reason the engine is installed is for propulsion, that's why it's connected to a propeller shaft. Engines intended for propulsion are not that efficient at other functions, I'm sure a BMC 1.8 could generate a heck of a lot more electricity if driving a generator directly rather than via a drive belt onto an alternator. Thus these extras are a byproduct of the boat having a propulsion unit.

 

Whether I agree with my own argument is another matter, but it is a valid argument.

[Graham Davis]

I admit it is a long time since I had connections with agriculture but back then it could be tested if an engine had used red diesel and if it was on the road having used red diesel at some time there were problems.

 

Things may have changed.

They haven't.

"Red" diesel contains both a dye to colour the fuel, plus a chemical trace that also records the manufacturer.

VOSA now test for the chemical trace more than for the dye, as it can be used in evidence.

 

Agricultural vehicles using red diesel can only do so in specific manner, laid down by legislation, one of which is within a specific distance of their base/farm. It is one of the things VOSA check at their check points near Marts.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Graham Davis

[mayalld]

They are perfectly free to use red diesel for heating etc.

it just has to be in a separate tank.

 

I am tempted to use the abominable ROFL to describe Dave Mayall's entry into this "we'll find a loophole" hypocrisy.

 

 

And I would like someone to tell me where I can get red petrol for my strimmer please.

 

Have you lost your glasses Mr Pink?

 

It seems to me that my entry into this debate has been to say, without evasion, equivocation or reservation, that I do not, in any way shape or form condone the finding of loopholes.

 

If the outcome of this latest chapter is that the running of an engine that is capable of propelling a boat must be with the use of unmarked fuel, I will comply with that law, and use White Diesel.

 

Until that point arrives, I will argue against such a move, both on the grounds that I don't want to pay more, and on the grounds that it imposes a burden of additional cost that is disproportionate to the revenue that it raises, whilst being detrimental to the marine environment.

 

Again, it it does come to pass, I will evaluate what options I have in respect of continuing to use rebated fuel for heating purposes, to determine whether (in my own case) there is a cost justification for retro-fitting dual tanks.

 

So far as Red Petrol goes, the pertol in my strimmer is most definitely red. HTH.

[by'eck]

They haven't.

"Red" diesel contains both a dye to colour the fuel, plus a chemical trace that also records the manufacturer.

VOSA now test for the chemical trace more than for the dye, as it can be used in evidence.

 

Agricultural vehicles using red diesel can only do so in specific manner, laid down by legislation, one of which is within a specific distance of their base/farm. It is one of the things VOSA check at their check points near Marts.

 

Reminds me of pre EU days when I regularly took a van to Italy to collect motorcycle spares. At that time, still retaining an element of my youth, I would often leave northern Italy at 6am and arrive via the ferry, at Dover or Folkestone in the early hours.

 

On one such occasion I was trying to grab some sleep around 3am in a bonded area lorry park whilst my "T" forms were being processed by agent/customs. Out of the corner of my eye an HMRC van drives up and the officers start knocking on the cabs of various trucks with, surprise surprise, zero response.

 

The inevitable happened when they spied my tiny 3.5 ton Renault Master van in one corner. Since I didn't have curtains I couldn't really hide. Having explained they wished to test my vehicle for the presence of red diesel, I mentioned there was the minimum diesel in the tank. This was intentional so I could filled up at the first opportunity in the UK, allowing my business to re-claim the VAT. Nevertheless they insisted on trying to draw off a sample.

 

Needless to say their desultory exploits, which involved procuring a smaller nozzle for their test apparatus, revealed no test sample

 

Guess it just wasn't their night - not sure what they said to their boss later