Neil Arlidge wrote: > Will Chapman wrote: >> Mike Stevens wrote: > >>> >>> (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? > > Dodgy geezers putting low rated diesel in their boats! > Oh I see, the reverse of what is happening now (dodgy car owners using red diesel bought from boatyards). But then the cost of enforcement will be there in either case. If it is true that the cost of enforcement will be swallowed up, it seems to me that is just a good argument against derogation...if Govt doesn't make any money out of it why bother (especially as it will make it more difficult for boaters to buy diesel).
-- Will Chapman Save Our Waterways www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
