Budget

[Minigem]

I always thought that hire fleets charged full whack road prices for diesel anyway. It is probably doubtful that they pass on any 60/40 discount to the customer anyway.

[MotorBoater]

Why do I feel I'm being taken for granted - again ? This is a perfect example of screaming environmental harpies winning out over common sense.

How can the minority of red diesel users possibly be “some of the biggest contributors to our air quality problem”. I would have thought buses and lorries were in a class of their own there, and I doubt that there are more boats than tractors.

Doesn't anybody think things through any more ?

It beggars belief that any government, let alone a Conservative one, would seek to drive British citizens off the water that has been their natural home for over a thousand years, and if you think that is overstating the situation just wait and see. Even Tony Blair didn't fall for that one.

The UK construction industry has hung in there over the last 10 years or more only to be hit with a major increase in a vital cost.

The effect on the marine sector goes far beyond a few people messing around in boats, either hired or private, no mention was made of trawlers, coasters, ferries etc.

The devil may well be in the detail but that detail needs to be out there now, not a couple of months before some arbitrary deadline.

Meanwhile the attitude that "It was good while it lasted" needs to be resisted at all costs.

If the aforementioned harpies want something to get their teeth into I suggest they look at proposals to allow building on flood plains such as we are looking at here in north Sussex where an application to build 2000+ homes is currently up for "discussion".

If the government wants to reduce reliance on carbon fuels then up the investments on alternative propulsion options like fuel cells and battery capacities.

The powers that be just won't get that you can't expect the public to swallow changes such as this if you haven't got alternatives lined up first, and not at twice the price.

[marshman]

So why does any one think that the marine leisure sector should continue to, realistically, justify from continued lower taxation? It is surely an unjustifiable anomaly?

I can see the point for perhaps farmers and possibly the fishing industry, but why should construction benefit for example and road hauliers do not?

Nonsensical in my view when to most who own a boat, fuel cost or indeed the extra tax on it, is unlikely to be the final straw that breaks the camels back! Well in my case, I hope not!

[D46]

21 minutes ago, MotorBoater said:

Why do I feel I'm being taken for granted - again ? This is a perfect example of screaming environmental harpies winning out over common sense.

How can the minority of red diesel users possibly be “some of the biggest contributors to our air quality problem”. I would have thought buses and lorries were in a class of their own there, and I doubt that there are more boats than tractors.

Doesn't anybody think things through any more ?

It beggars belief that any government, let alone a Conservative one, would seek to drive British citizens off the water that has been their natural home for over a thousand years, and if you think that is overstating the situation just wait and see. Even Tony Blair didn't fall for that one.

The UK construction industry has hung in there over the last 10 years or more only to be hit with a major increase in a vital cost.

The effect on the marine sector goes far beyond a few people messing around in boats, either hired or private, no mention was made of trawlers, coasters, ferries etc.

The devil may well be in the detail but that detail needs to be out there now, not a couple of months before some arbitrary deadline.

Meanwhile the attitude that "It was good while it lasted" needs to be resisted at all costs.

If the aforementioned harpies want something to get their teeth into I suggest they look at proposals to allow building on flood plains such as we are looking at here in north Sussex where an application to build 2000+ homes is currently up for "discussion".

If the government wants to reduce reliance on carbon fuels then up the investments on alternative propulsion options like fuel cells and battery capacities.

The powers that be just won't get that you can't expect the public to swallow changes such as this if you haven't got alternatives lined up first, and not at twice the price.

Thank goodness for common sense , the total amount of red diesel use actually equates to 15% of diesel used , that includes construction , rail , farming , boats the hole lot , rail and farming keep their rebate and they are by far the biggest users ..this isn't don't for climate change it's pure taxation that can and probably will have an negative impact on the Marine industry and tourism to say nothing of private boats .

Anyone who felt guilty about being a rebate on fuel could have quite easily paid tax on 100% of the fuel purchased the 60/40 split is a total fantasy it doesn't and never has existed in the eyes of the law and the RYA .

[grendel]

I believe in the view of the eu, that the use of red (or low duty) diesel for leisure craft was actually not legal, which is why there is the push to abolish it, I am sure we had the whole discussion some 6 months ago on this topic. I believe we should have stopped using it several years ago already.

[D46]

7 minutes ago, marshman said:

So why does any one think that the marine leisure sector should continue to, realistically, justify from continued lower taxation? It is surely an unjustifiable anomaly?

I can see the point for perhaps farmers and possibly the fishing industry, but why should construction benefit for example and road hauliers do not?

Nonsensical in my view when to most who own a boat, fuel cost or indeed the extra tax on it, is unlikely to be the final straw that breaks the camels back! Well in my case, I hope not!

Perhaps because construction is so very important to this country as far as the economy is concerned , it thought that was very widely known TBH , all construction projects will as soon as this comes in be more expensive including housing etc , that also includes government schemes that are funded by the tax payers .

[MotorBoater]

Marshman I do see your point of view but I suggest you have missed my point, which as I have so much buzzing around in head on this, I maybe haven't put so well.

If this is about clean air then road hauliers can never be in line for special consideration. My emphysema means bus and truck emissions are close to my heart, bus companies and local councils are at least making efforts with electric buses but I fear we are a long way from 42 ton leviathans running on electricity or fuel cells.

The "unjustifiable anomaly" accounts for next to nothing in the grand scheme of things and is actually available to one and all if they wish to sample the delights of a marine existence. It is not a closed shop and in fact could be said to encourage migration to a better cleaner pastime.

As D46 has pointed out quite succinctly, anyone feeling guilty has the option to pay the full rate.

This is being sold as an environmental issue. It isn't at all, it merely curries favour with the harpies I previously mentioned who will no doubt claim another victory without seeing it will make no difference at all. Government income will not even notice the difference either.

As stated elsewhere previous governments have looked at this and concluded, at best, it will cost more to enforce than will be raised.

Abolition of "Red relief" will leave you at the mercy of the future movement in diesel prices. You may think the current level is reasonable but what about when they really turn the screw ? Watch this space !!

I just think this is an ill thought, initial, threat to our maritime tradition that may yet develop further.

Grendel you may well be right (And often are!) but since this budget has poked the eu in the eye on a couple of issues, Tampon Tax is one that springs to mind, I don't see it matters what they think - now.

Edited March 12, 2020 by MotorBoater
Messages crossed each other

[D46]

45 minutes ago, grendel said:

I believe in the view of the eu, that the use of red (or low duty) diesel for leisure craft was actually not legal, which is why there is the push to abolish it, I am sure we had the whole discussion some 6 months ago on this topic. I believe we should have stopped using it several years ago already.

Technically we should have stopped using it back in 2008 it was HMRC that introduced the current situation.

The law was already in place within the EU they just pushed us to fall in line with them .

That however I believe only affected boats not construction , however the current government has decided to include that sector presumably under the banner of climate change , how can the smaller sector of red diesel use have anything more than a token gesture on climate change .

Clearly some see this as no problem not just for the marine industry but also for construction , me I beg to differ on that but if they don't care about additional taxation which is all it is effectively then fine refuse the rebate and pay full duty on your boat fuel ( which you can currently do for the next 2 yrs ) , and please feel free to part with more money when you call in Bob the builder etc .

[grendel]

if the construction industry pay more, then the final product costs more, and the people paying the bills are the ones that foot the cost, like all overheads the costs get passed upward, with every level in the chain adding their margin to the final cost, so say it costs £1000 to dig a hole (not an unreasonable estimate in fact) then the contractor digs the hole and the utility that needed that hole gets charged £1250 (1000 +25%) the utility then charges the person that wanted their utility and add their margin (£1250 +25%) and charges £1562.50. the developer that built the property and arranged for all the utilities then charges their customer (the house owner for example £1953.12 (£1562.50 +25%) or more likely takes a look at it and rounds it up to £2000.

so that change in fuel costs, will only affect the end user as each stage in the chain up until them will have added profit margin to the price of that rise and will be quids in pocket.

[D46]

42 minutes ago, grendel said:

if the construction industry pay more, then the final product costs more, and the people paying the bills are the ones that foot the cost, like all overheads the costs get passed upward, with every level in the chain adding their margin to the final cost, so say it costs £1000 to dig a hole (not an unreasonable estimate in fact) then the contractor digs the hole and the utility that needed that hole gets charged £1250 (1000 +25%) the utility then charges the person that wanted their utility and add their margin (£1250 +25%) and charges £1562.50. the developer that built the property and arranged for all the utilities then charges their customer (the house owner for example £1953.12 (£1562.50 +25%) or more likely takes a look at it and rounds it up to £2000.

so that change in fuel costs, will only affect the end user as each stage in the chain up until them will have added profit margin to the price of that rise and will be quids in pocket.

Agreed but the end user isn't just one person as this surely is all construction that involves using plant powered by diesel fuel , that would then include all locals council's , highways departments etc , that currently funded by Grant's and council tax so expect a cost increase there .

Even BA don't escape as all their work boats are diesel powered as is their plant etc , therefore probably an increase in tolls to fund the navigation budget is likely .

Either way it will directly affect many people regardless of if the own a boat or not .

Construction is absolutely key to this country and it certainly won't just affect those having things built such as houses as many things are affected and therefore many people affected .

It would ( unfortunately if that's the word  ) even affect the visitors center at Acle , on less it built really quickly , personally I won't loose sleep over that one , but I really can't understand how some think this is such a none event and will not affect them other than boating .

[grendel]

actually one thing even more key to construction is having the utility infrastructure in place I work for a company that can provide up to 7 utilities to a site all in house, my part of the company deal with electricity gas and fibre data. without the possibility of getting infrastructure utilities to a site (and that generally means a whole lot of digging) you wont have a site.

 digging involves diggers and gangs of workmen, and they use a lot of diesel (be it red or any other colour) so costs for utility infrastructure will rise, thus everyones utility bills will rise too. small changes like this can cause all sorts of unforseen cost rises throughout the chain of supply.

[D46]

20 minutes ago, grendel said:

actually one thing even more key to construction is having the utility infrastructure in place I work for a company that can provide up to 7 utilities to a site all in house, my part of the company deal with electricity gas and fibre data. without the possibility of getting infrastructure utilities to a site (and that generally means a whole lot of digging) you wont have a site.

 digging involves diggers and gangs of workmen, and they use a lot of diesel (be it red or any other colour) so costs for utility infrastructure will rise, thus everyones utility bills will rise too. small changes like this can cause all sorts of unforseen cost rises throughout the chain of supply.

Exactly my point the big picture is quite enormous really 

[riverman]

Well, I wish I hadn't said anything now.... From what I understand from listening to the budget, the end of red use in construction is more to do with reducing N²O output and improving air quality than it is about 'saving the planet'. The idea being to push firms into investing in hybrid and full electric alternatives, which do exist and have been well proven. However, this will in my opinion disproportionately affect small firms with slimmer margins and less buying power. I would argue the cost of fuel in this country is already a road block for enterprise, social mobility and entrepreneurship, this just adds to it.

This same principle could be applied to the maritime sector to some extent, where larger boat builders with deeper pockets can more easily invest in the r&d required to create and install reliable hybrid and full electric alternatives. Personally I don't think this is such a major issue as a great deal of this technology already exists. As I said in my original post, this issue is one of security, if you have to put white diesel in your boat, immediately it become a much bigger target for thieves. 

 

[D46]

15 minutes ago, riverman said:

Well, I wish I hadn't said anything now.... From what I understand from listening to the budget, the end of red use in construction is more to do with reducing N²O output and improving air quality than it is about 'saving the planet'. The idea being to push firms into investing in hybrid and full electric alternatives, which do exist and have been well proven. However, this will in my opinion disproportionately affect small firms with slimmer margins and less buying power. I would argue the cost of fuel in this country is already a road block for enterprise, social mobility and entrepreneurship, this just adds to it.

This same principle could be applied to the maritime sector to some extent, where larger boat builders with deeper pockets can more easily invest in the r&d required to create and install reliable hybrid and full electric alternatives. Personally I don't think this is such a major issue as a great deal of this technology already exists. As I said in my original post, this issue is one of security, if you have to put white diesel in your boat, immediately it become a much bigger target for thieves. 

 

The only problem for the Marine sector is the timeframe of 2 yrs and it certainly won't work on the Broads as the infastructure to recharge isn't there , as fir going to sea that's completely out of the question .

Regarding safe guarding fuel let's not forget that it's not the fuel that's changing it's the taxation , it extremely likely boats will be running still on red diesel or it would cause major problems for the owners and the yards , that's not been surgested by the government only the tax has .

If someone managed to strike a deal with a farmer for example , then who's to say where that fuel came from , the only be way is by fuel receipts and who keeps those ? .

Farmers and indeed people with heating oil tanks are a far bigger target for theft than boats are although there is still a target issue  there .

Me I've a valve on the fuel delivery pipe that gets shut when away from the boat , therefore it's impossible to syphon fuel , doesn't affect the engine as the filler cap is sealed anyway and there's a breather on the tank , only thing yo remember is open the value before refilling .

[riverman]

I wouldn't be so certain about staying with red, for this to stand any chance of being enforceable, certainly the construction sector would have to go onto white, so why not the marine sector? 

[ExSurveyor]

Although the increase will effect private construction projects, the increase on government funded projects will work it's way back into goverment coffers.

Increases in new house building costs will be absorbed by the developer. A new home has an upper value, the developer will already be selling at that level.

[D46]

35 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:

Although the increase will effect private construction projects, the increase on government funded projects will work it's way back into goverment coffers.

Increases in new house building costs will be absorbed by the developer. A new home has an upper value, the developer will already be selling at that level.

What government coffers ??? The government dont have any money all of it is deducted via tax hence it's public money not the government's as quite rightly was Stated in the house yesterday by ex PM Mrs May .

How on Earth can you claim the government projects will not affect the tax payers that crazy they always have done , just as most of them over run most have vastly increased costs when completed , is there some sort of money tree at Westminster ? 

" Increases in new house building costs will be absorbed by the developer " Really !! Since when has that ever happened , developer's ain't a charity group they are there to make money , most of which funds further projects , costs go up prices go up , just as it always has been .

[ExSurveyor]

D46, you have yet again developed the ability to distort, misquote or misrepresent nearly everything I post, it was tedious last time, now it has developed into plain old boring. It is pointless posing questions to me on anything I post as I have now used the Ignore button, again.

I mention this as I wouldn't want it to look like you were talking to yourself.