Mike Stevens wrote: > On Monday, December 11, 2006 6:34 AM [GMT+1=CET], > Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> John and Ann wrote: >>> Has anyone else tied two topics together to reach the conclusion >>> that there seems to be an iniquity in the fact that boaters will now >>> have to pay more (for diesel) and will get less (from BW) - not that >>> it's BW's fault of course. >>> John >> Interesting point. Anyone have any idea how much additional revenue >> the switch to white diesel will yield? Does 29,000 boats x 500 >> litres/pa * .50p = £7.25 million sound right? If so, its a pretty >> paltry amount in Govt revenue terms and would just cover the amount >> cut from BW's budget this year. >> >> If we could get a reliable figure we could use it in the next stage of >> the SOW campaign. > > > I see a number of problems with this. > > (a) the total relucatance of Governments (of any political colour we've > tried in the last fifty years) to earmark taxation for a particular purpose. > While I think it would be a good idea, I'm not suggesting that SOW should advocate earmarking. What I'm thinking about is that an accurate figure could be used to point out how Govt can afford not to cut BW funding. Its just one more argument to point out how the cuts are not really defensible.
> (b) the cost of enforcement, which will probably swallow up most of the > revenue gained > I'm not with you on that point Mike. Enforcement of what? -- Will Chapman Save Our Waterways www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
